##VIDEO ID:5## hi Anna how are you hope you're feeling better can she hear me no that's probably just as well oh we can't hear her okay uh sorry now okay I I move that the planning board vote to enter executive session pursuant with mgl chapter 38 section 21 A2 to consider the purchase exchange lease or value of real prodct property uh if the chair declares that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body I so declare um we have to have a roll call vote um Mark yes yes yes okay uh Anna yes okay um so we are in executive session um [Music] can I open sure we after 6:30 um I know never we're here for the um Thursday August 1st uh planning board meeting um would we like to pledge it's up to you you're a chair if you want to do it do it if you don't want to do it well it's something we'll talk about at the retreat but for now let's do it okay to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for stands all nation under God indivisible Li and justice for if we ever have the retreat Retreat we'll get there we'll get there um the first item is board business do we have any minutes yeah they're in the packet uh except I they were post did anyone have any comments I did not have any comments I did not I didn't look uh can we have a motion can we have a motion not we don't hear you Anna you're muted speak Mr chair I have comments okay all right I just want to make sure you could hear me thank you so um there are a couple of comments that uh during the section about um the marijuana discussion which I believe was item number five on the agenda um that it would be great to be able to have um more information about so for example when we were talking about the grandfather licensing it's around minutes 55 to 59 and there isn't any information in our minutes about that I do think it's important to put that in then um the second one also in that section um there's something listed that says Houston mentioned she would like an informational exhibit that displays where marijuana facilities can be located that's really not I what I was looking for and I don't recall saying those words um but it's really in terms of reviewing the map so and that information is between an hour 6 minutes to an hour 9 minutes so if um Hooper could please just revisit that before we approve the minutes I would be okay do we do you have that okay that's fine so we'll put that aside are there any bills um yes we do have one bill [Music] for the [Music] [Music] advertise that's true except if I'm showing things um you need to be on the webinar one [Music] oh you are in the webinar my apologies but need to turn volume off okay what else um member input do we have any member input I could provide input about the affordable housing trust okay um we met last um during our July meeting with um the representative for Habitat for Humanity who explained their proposal for the uh tah hadan road project um trustees um will next uh review the proposal and make some business term recommendations so the Town Council can put those specific business terms into an agreement and then begin to negotiate that with Habitat for Humanity so um it is an ongoing project thank you okay anything else um public input now I'd like to take this opportunity there was we had an agenda item uh about the Hager Homestead 120% am my unit household qualification appeal that has since been administratively uh taken care of um the appeal was successful to the lottery agent who now accepts the income qualifications for this unit so that's you know I I personally don't feel we need to go over the details of this person's finances a public meeting but the lottery agent has gone through it and um everything is um acceptable thank you so I I did have one set of questions along that line uh there and I I agree I don't necessarily want to hash out that person's individual thing but I found it uh exceptionally difficult to find exactly what the income qualifications are particularly as it relates to retirement accounts and that's not documented in anything I could find so I we need to have the documentation about how we determine income I I don't think we do I think the lottery agent does we are not subject matter experts on this and as I understand it that assets it's income that's considered not assets so that's my problem it's not defined and but it's not defined because it's not considered um the the the procedure is not defined in terms of how the income is determined because I saw something in the application the response on the application that said they double counted something and it's like well I don't even know what we're counting to know whether something was double counted or not but why but why I I had to ask service to the public and as well as we we hire a lottery agent to do this but we and that's their business but having an undocumented procedure seems to be something that one just is appalling to me um why do you say it's undocumented yeah I I I'm pretty sure I sent email ask asking for the documentation and it doesn't exist no I did not no what I sent back was um SCB um had sent us the documentation it's um the HUD uh guidelines for how to go through and do that um do the qualifications in this particular special permit the planning board had waved any all the asset limits for the 120% units so it was just about the income levels and the lottery agent goes through a significant amount of training um and before they um started qualifying applicants for this particular development they chose one of the three three different methods to um qualify or to review the applicants and so that is the information that um they shared with me was what the HUD guidelines that they use and and one other thing is it's really not our jurisdiction we set up the criteria we do the special permit conditions of approval we're not the lottery agents we're not the the HUD agency that determines whether they qualify or not really has nothing to do with the then why did it come to us uh for a resolution that's my fault okay so what was happening was that the the the unit that he was qual ified for under this previous determination was not available and the only unit that was available it was 150% unit which he would have under this previous and Sher you can correct me if I'm wrong but under the the first go round of his qualification he would qualify for that but it was not available to purchase he really wanted to be in the community and so um the 120% was available so the question question to us was going to be would we change the condition to allow um someone who would qualify for the 150% to um go into a 120% so we were going to have basically a hearing on that it's a substantial change however now that he does qualify for the 120% according to the lottery agent we don't need to do that but that's why it came to us it it wasn't like we were checking it was just that would we be willing to and I in talking with us Anna and people who were there for the original approval we felt that yeah we we we you know that's not something that should be done administratively it should be done in a public meeting but now it's moot because he qualifies and I would just yeah I I have a question when you're ready Mr chair go ahead um So based off of what's been said I do agree um uh with Daryl that there should be some documentation around this and so um to add to that my question or comment is that sebb seem to have a couple different methods if you will by which to do this they really should be selecting one method and they should be consistent with it throughout the whole process in fact that's one of the things that I think from a policy perspective we should set with whoever the lottery agents are is tell us what your process is tell us what the guidelines are give us a copy of that so that we have it for our records in case we want it and then use it consistently so that is what I am asking right now can we moving forward say we want to be able to have your your um Pol you know the guidelines and the policies and the process that you're going to use so we can have it if we need it and make sure you use that consistently so that we're not changing around because of various circumstances whatever they might be so in this case um the discrepancy came with the fact that he was using assets to pay for his living expenses um and they counted that as income is that the case if I may Mr chair I think the recommendation of Daryl and Anna is a good one only for this reason as an attorney trying to help this individual work his way through what might be a valid appeal and ended up being a valid appeal I couldn't find the RS either right and so when I talked to SCB they did say that they had three uh in a correct if this is what you found to they said they had three methods they could use to qualify people for these units and after discussion maybe with your board or maybe Marin I don't know they picked one of those three methods and they do use that same method consistantly across the board for all applicants the H HUD gives them three options and they picked the one in conjunction with I think you Mar and they would or maybe they had you approve it but that's what they were using across the board what happened Jeff you're not entirely wrong either is that what they did was they counted this individual's um no that counted the individual's uh interest or dividends on his invested account not his asset just what that account earned but then what they did is they also counted what he ended up taking from that account to pay his overhead and his housing expenses and so we argued they counted it twice if it was income and he took it to pay housing expenses they don't count it a second time and if it was principal that he took to pay his housing expenses it's principle it's not income and they agreed with my argument they said the regs are very unclear about that very problem and so Dave Cashman I think agreed with my argument but I agree with your position that it would have been nice to be able to find the rigs they were using so anybody could review it your board and my job as an attorney and the applicant and real estate brokers I think it would just be so it's going to be much more important I think moving forward as we continue to have more affordable units if people um who are coming forward would like to be able to understand what the guidelines are we need to be prepared to give them that information yeah and I think it becomes particularly sensitive on or critical on senior where like you know if you're looking for a first-time homeowner assistant IAS and other things don't factor in because those are not they're they're illiquid assets there but when you hit retirement age the ambiguity between a liquid asset and your IRA is very uh fluid if I may through you Mr chair I did get the impression from the SCB Lottery agent that it's not always the same depending on whether it's 120 or 150 Ami depending on whether your board waves the asset picture or not depending on whether this project said count this way which is permissible under HUD but maybe my next project will count a different way so it's not as easy as just saying send us the RS they're not con and and in the past with these senior housing the the the asset limits were such that a typical senior could not qualify because any one who could afford the mortgage required to buy it you know they they would they would have some money and it would disqualify them and so there was not an ability for people to actually enter the lottery so um but I you know it it's I I personally in this case it was appealed um and the lottery agent um accepted the appeal but I don't want to become accountants sitting up here and questioning every wine item so that's you know and in discussions with Marin the question came up well we have the approval from the lottery agent so we can just do this administratively I so I'm taking a middle ground here I don't think it's appropriate for Mar to decide no I'm I'm not asking for us to decide I'm asking for us to make sure that when we make these decisions we have it documented clearly what the what the income criteria is that is and if it means that they need to provide a letter back to us documenting the the criteria it's on file publicly available about what the thing is so that when a question comes up about this development versus another one which may have a different set of criteria we are very clear in terms of what it is and if we're administratively handing that off to somebody else to do because that's not our day-to-day job that's fine but I think as a policy us understanding and setting clear guidance as to what that is and people can find it reference it and make it available to the appropriate parties that need access to that information it's upon us to do that they they did send a letter back explaining exactly how they counted the income the lottery agent is not doing anything secretive the the letter was sent back with exactly how they counted which gave me the ability to appeal it so it's so can we get some kind of statement from SCB about yeah I'm happy to ask reasonable I I assume this information exists because people have to make decisions about whether they can buy or general guidelines would be nice but I mean we try to go to the HUD site federal government site and try to figure out what it is when we're the ones we the town are administering that seems to be a ridiculous process right and that's the important difference the town is not trying to administer it the development has hired sebb to administer it um they were with my office I asked for um the summary of each applicant and send me the approved um and normally this would have gone on probably gone on behind the scenes except for we were at one point asked for a dispensation to have this fellow um qualify qualify for before weine right yeah certain certainly um okay happy to ask for that information okay so um that is there any other public input um the next item it's now 7 whatever 7:04 so uh at 6:45 we um have an agenda item for strawberry farms at 95 Taylor Street to endorse myars and the Covenant and the construction inspection proposal good evening my name is Mark Gallagher from seal Harbor companies um tonight I'm here to hopefully get the myar signed um and the tree the Covenant and then the uh uh the uh taking of the trees um all the appeal periods have passed uh I believe every single piece of paperwork has been ched into you you guys hopefully had ample time to review it um a note on the covenants truthfully um your uh the town's attorney was the one who wrote them uh we actually made no changes to the town Covenant so it's actually directly from your uh the town attorney um I'm hoping to see if uh you guys are willing to sign off on the project tonight and I can answer any questions you may have have we already endorsed the myars no um town clerk has endorsed the myars as to no appeal okay so but they're not here today they are oh great uh any uh for any comments I read the confidence um I don't have any uh questions or concerns I'm good um Marin what should I do about signing if I can't come in until Monday um just need a a minimum of three board members to endorse perfect thank you can I have a I I would I would be signing if I was there sorry can I have a motion to um to endorse the myar and Covenant for strawberry farms so moved is there a second second uh so let's go ahead um I would recommend you take a vote oh I'm sorry between so three of us okay uh let's have a vote all in favor please signify by saying I rule call with one member absent okay sorry darl yes yes yes yes I'm a yes and Anna yes okay okay so and then the other issue was um we have a proposal from Green International to do the construction inspections overview process um so do we need to have a motion to accept it or just sharing it with you so you know sometime every once in a while I'll get a comment from a board member that yeah yeah no I I you know they were here present in the approval process so it seems totally appropriate for them to Mr chair um I would just like to um offer up that in this case and in a few others Marin and um Team have put together their recommendations to us and the Motions are in there so if we are looking for the motions um the are R found um this one is um would be um a move to approve the Gia scope of services for strawberry farms at 95 Taylor Street anyone second um let's have a vote on it Carol yes yes I I'm a yes okay you're done could I ask you one favor uh the tree um cutting down the trees I think that's one of the things that has to be signed off as well right that's there's no hold up on that oh there's no hold up oh I'm sorry my apologies I thought you guys had thank you cut him down um um so can we get out the myar so and the Covenant so that um you can get thank you so much I really appreciate it I've already seen ads for the houses so I'm sure you're to we're chomping at the bit we're very excited and Marin's been wonderful by the way she has been a tremendous help to us wants to sign first actually just the three of us can say right yeah that's true you want to put here put you don't get the signs step up and uh sign one be interesting to see what happens there so okay this is not a signature one so this'll be you you have them you have them tagged but how oh here it is so there should be three sheets that we sign oh there's more oh my okay there's four you say so these do these sorry about that I just wanted to check the last two [Music] one so basically guys we have to find the inside them what about these last two here oh yeah oh [Music] yeah you got to get the details let me just go through this there there up here literally every single no you okay great and that just 90% of [Music] time just you got to hunt all over the sheets the days make same spot now that it's um past 7 uh we would like to help me out with this far we are opening we we have to re Reen notice the meeting correct [Music] okay one more time with feeling yes the Littleton planning board will hold a public hearing on Thursday August 1 2024 at 700 p.m. in room 103 of the shadik street Town Offices at 37 shat Street to consider a zoning by law amendment to article 27 registered marijuana dispensaries and Article 28 adult use marijuana establishments with a corresponding change in the zoning map the proposed amendment is to update the local cannabis zoning bylaws and to limit the number of marijuana cultivation facilities that may be cited in town the full Tex the proposed amendment is on file at the town clerk the planning board offices and can be viewed during their office hours or online at Litton ma.org any person interested or wishing to be heard on the proposed zoning amendment should appear at the time and place designated or provide written comment by Jun July 30th if possible feel feel free to call the plan Board office or email with any questions signed uh Daryl Baker Clerk so this was the subject of our last meeting uh it was not uh there was a glitch in the notification so we're starting over to sum up or to try to sum up the purpose of this um is to bring to special town meeting in the fall a uh two there's two things that are happening here to uh make our marijuana Our Town marijuana bylaw conform with the state whose bylaw whose policies are changing rapidly frequently all over the place secondly we want to limit the um the future future cultivation facilities and to do it within the the uh to do the minimum within the current state rigs which would mean one for medicinal one for recreational one for micro business and one for Co-Op I think that's right y we don't have Micro or Co-op we have a medicinal and a um uh recreational we would like to limit it to that at this last meeting in addition to this uh there was interest in bringing forward a further um Nuance to this effort such that if the existing cultivation um uh entities gave up their licenses they would not be an additional it would that license would not be grandfathered to someone else and it was thought at that time that um while the first two items we talked about could be accomplished by special town meeting the third one probably had to be postponed to Springtown meeting now what have I missed um Mr chair you've missed n a fantastic you don't need to suck up okay so here's what in Miss um so I I think the way I would describe it is uh the marching orders for us were to tighten up the bylaw so that we're um limiting cultivation as best we can through a town meeting vote which will occur in the fall and to then move to uh a vote to prohibit cultivation in the spring which would also require a Ballance vote so it's a it's a two-step process we're going to get a little bit of the way there this fall the prohibit because I remember at last meeting the use of the word prohibition which is a legal term would not apply to the existing cultivation licenses correct it would apply to any furtherance of those licenses taken by another entity any any it would certainly require to any new applicant right and I think because the uh yes I think it would also I'm going to take a step back I don't know that they couldn't sell a license so that if someone has it I don't know that it has to stay with them I think we're drafting this so that it gives us the opportunity but that opportunity doesn't come with a guarantee that's gotcha I mean it's just a further furthering our goal of limiting cultivation okay and I would like you know in the me in this meeting to uh state that from the planning board's point of view we have had probably the most public response via complaints of any matter um relating to cultivation so that's our interest as a town in this um so anyway so go ahead yeah okay so um I'm not sure if you have before you you know there's there's red lines of Plenty so that the public can know exactly what's happening between the current bylaw and where we are today there's a red line for this board so that you understand the difference between what we discussed at the last meeting and today and if you don't have that in front of you I have a exra copies would you like a cop take a copy that would be great thank you thank you it's the summer none of us read during the summer I'm coming out with a Littleton podcast so thank you sir it'll be at the top of the Apple podcast charts so if you recall um so last meeting we went through a number of changes and those changes were by and large cleanups you know get getting the right citations in there referring to the proper um agencies within the state kind of all the legal stuff that that we thought we needed to clean up and other cleanups the discussion at the last meeting there were further tweaks and I think this is a little bit more substantial those tweaks that are identified in this document so I'll I'll walk you through those and tell you kind of how we got there so if you look at first page section 173-191 purpose you're going to see some new language you know kind of a a ruming of the SE of um the subsections and some new language so this new language places kind of further boundaries on the purpose section so we're this was based on a comment to get it as tight as we could um and this is this this helps tighten it up I think part of the comment here was can we Divine Uh define cultivate we can't cultivate is defined by the state but in addressing that question we added these uh what I call tighteners and I'm just do that Tom okay what could you say that again I said thank you for doing that yep I see under B that that's new thank you and I'm just going to keep going and if you you have a question just stop me okay turning to page two um uh this was discussed last week and I believe planning staff is working on this um just notifying the board that the the districts for medical and recreational are different and I think you're looking at well yeah I I would like to have that conversation with the board on what they're looking for okay yeah so we'll leave that as an open item okay um so this is so then we move to the limitations and um Jeff this is section 173-198 and so we identified um kind of each each type of facility that we think we're required to have and then limited it to the lowest number we could do so that's that's what you see in 173 198 I have a question on that section okay didn't we last time wasn't that section um brand um I'm looking at it and the last time for example it said under craft cultivators here it says e the number of craft marijuana um cooperatives shall not exceed one but in the previous version it said craft marijuana cooperatives shall be prohibited in town right so that was so what you're seeing here anna is the version to bring to town meeting in the fall that we can adopt by bylaw so some of the things in the version we looked at last week would require the ballot vote so we broke it out and put in this version what we can do in the fall with a town meeting vote and then in the spring we'll go back to the prohibitory language that was that was in that version that would require a ballot vote okay so during this time frame we're we're going to need to what's the word allow for these to happen so if um okay all right got it y we're good still a special permit process okay um okay let's see moving on it just really feels like we leave the door open then and that's part of what I don't appreciate right um so I I think I I appreciate that comment from legal perspective we've taken it as far as we can with the ballot vote knowing we can defend it um there's still and I would point out again there's still a special permit process that needs to occur if something were to come to you [Music] okay um next change is on the on page four of what I gave you which is part of 199 and this is I think this is I think where the the board gave real specific instruction so what we're what we've added in in the next series of changes is the ability um to address and seek Odor Control plans um that provide proper and adequate ventilation at such facilities so that's now what you'll see that we're building that in so it becomes part of the review right and I I do appreciate that and I saw that there is additional backup to that and in fact I was wondering if we needed to point to that so I I think pointing out the ventilation I think the ventilation is is isn't the issue it could be a numerous it could be any number of issues as to why there is an odor emitting from a building so I was wondering if what fellow board members think about language such as an Odor Control plan that adequately pres adequately prevents the smell of marijuana from exiting the facility to comply with and that complies with 173200 J 1 two 1 through3 which is later on in the document because what we're really trying to do is prevent the smell from exiting we don't want to say ventilation because it might not be that let me ask a relative question this is all about future this doesn't go backwards correct so it doesn't matter about we're only we're trying to restrict it to one which is going to be grandfathered anyway so why are we even worrying about putting this all in there because they're not going to be it needs to be in there so this is I guess this is this addresses the time period between the fall and the spring and I'm so and I'm assuming affirmative votes all the way through right so there is a time period between the fall and the spring where there where where the bylaw has to allow certain types of cultivation right and so if one of those certain types of cultivation came to you you would have to you know they would be entitled to their special permit hearing and this would be what you would be applying against them even though the grandf they already here we're not talking about the one that's already here we're talking talk about some micro bus okay for that part of it we're not talking about one permit we already have in time I I think that and as common as well taken um I don't know how you I mean the further references are pretty comprehensive but her point about Odor Control is not it's not just ventilation it's it may just be for establishments cultivating or processing Mar marijuana an Odor Control plan must be established anyway there so you want to so not it's not just a ventilation issue gasket it's people coming in and out it's you know this is focused on ventilation and you want it more broadly focused correct on odor odor uh in the surround you know odor escaping from the facility and and we've been educated on odor odor will never you know completely be gone but it's a matter of degree okay I'll get you new language for that so you can look at that at your next meeting thank you sure uh just a a typo you'll notice on the next page page 15 right before section 17300 starts it goes paragraph 15 paragraph 15 so I'll change that 15 to a 16 I thought Microsoft Reed for you but apparently in this particular instance no um okay moving on to this is part of again 173200 [Music] ABCD J and it's found on your page seven we introduced a new air quality um provision and I think that's what Anna was talking about referencing back to so these are the special requirements so this is the requirement that we've added for air quality and and I'm I'm interested if you have any comments or thoughts on this we hashed out um this issue uh for the sanctuary um do you have do you have access access to that decision which established a series of conditions sure um I would take a look at it okay I'm not saying this is inadequate but we hashed out but if there's something better there Cooper can you send me a copy of that yeah um if you have something yeah more stringent we had numerous Odor Control experts come before us it was the highlight of my tenure so far on the board is to hear all that yeah um and uh was really quite interesting um so um some of the work has been done what of what we would be looking for okay Anna do you have anything to add to that uh no I think that that's a good idea for Town Council to take a look at that and see if there's anything to contribute to this um as I look at item number three j3 uh I think there's going to that that last half of the sentence about detected by a person with normal sense of smell at the property line is probably going to result in a lot of um disagreement in terms of the enforceability of that Clause yeah because it's odor odor is tricky to regulate well but also defining a person with normal sense yeah I I I don't think that language I just don't know how that's going to work which is why I would look at this other okay um yeah yeah because odor is transitory it's there's definite you know this and that we had some someone who came to one of our meetings who lived 2 miles away who said that they could smell marijuana 2 miles away and I'm thinking I am quite certain that in that 2m radius there is are people using marijuana that's you know but whatever so you are correct darl it's sub anyway so so look at that and we've sort of done the work whether it was good or bad I don't know but um Mr chair if I may um one other request of Town Council if if you think it's appropriate so we have someone in place now that we didn't have before and that is our new um health of Health agent Health agent thank you that we did not have before and so perhaps because that individual as I understand it if anything were to happen would need to be coming involved perhaps a conversation with him would also be helpful to identify how this would actually be um executed so can you facilitate that okay just be C clear um this is the zoning bylaw right um are you trying to draw the Board of Health director into zoning enforcement um to be able to provide any input to to this particular um piece if anything were to be so no but as a consultative yeah in a consultative man to the to the drafting of this this particular odor issue thank y y the particular odor thank you feels like a zoom call Y okay we will do that uh moving on to section uh 17322 special permit conditions you'll note that you can impose reasonable conditions including odor in section A and then conditions required to address change that impacts to air quality including the imposition of Odor Control Technologies and devices so we'll do the same thing here Consulting with both the decision and the new health agent to if we can improve upon [Music] that when is your next meeting uh September 12 plenty of time plus we can can provide a placeholder for the warrant um I mean we're far along on this I think we be confident that we can yeah I mean I think so we did send you a a warrant article that encapsulates this and so I think we can use that if we have time to change it and I think we do because I don't think the warrant closes until after the 12 don't I don't have my hands that yeah so no it's definitely after the 12th right so it so we can do that so we'll have time to to adjust the warrant language and if for some reason we didn't we can always do it in a motion yes um and I guess the last change well so there's a there's a comment um I'm looking at the last page now this is end of section 173-82 um does do we do we have the holders of our special permits file annually affidavit do we know if that's happening with the Building Commissioner I don't know okay so I think and what is the process if for instance they uh they were terminated uh by the Cannabis Control Commission would we automatically be notified or okay I I so I think we can leave this in I don't think it's critical because we would be notified by the CCC if someone were to lose their license and then note that the last part that the special permit shall expire upon the expiration or termination of the applicant's license from the CCC so we had crossed that out because it would Happ it is so whether we say it or not we were asked to put it back in it's it's fine to have it back in So back in it is and that's it and that's that's it board any comments no I like the way this is shaping up I think you captured pretty much all the discussion that we had last time so good um so any I have a CLE okay Han so one of the items that um I had mentioned at the last time is around the buffer zones and I think I I need a little clarification from the letter that we have sure it was presented from Town Council around buffer zone so let me find the right section could you give me the date of that letter um I'm referencing the one July 25th okay froma yeah oh here it is okay so it's at the top of page two item number four buffer zones and she said accordingly buys consolidating two Bas into one uniform adult use marijuana establishment and MPC zoning B addressing the sighting of all cannabis establishments so at the last meeting I had suggested that we make one math for both of them given the fact that these are going to be one bylaw now and right now under Section 1732 200a we have a one and then we have a two um and it seems like they're still different so I think that's yeah so you what you're saying is that there's still two different districts right there's still two different District dists and based off what I just read from IAS is she saying we should have one so does that mean we just have one um she's she's not saying you have to have one District but it makes that there's some logic in having a single District um all things you know all things being equal I might suggest a single District but if you like the idea of two separate different Siz districts you can do that um and I think Mar and and our you're looking for some feedback M on what the board is looking for this is what you referring to yeah it why do we have two different districts because they were instituted at different times or right the first they were very distinct between the um medical facility and the um recreational cultivation facility to different be that you know yeah had two different districts for do we have any um Fe ings would board members care to comment on one or two districts let say the more restricted that we have why don't we just adopt it why do we have to reinvent the wheel yeah they're quite similar can simplify okay well no because we're we're saying that uh we just leave it the way it is which may end up to be more restrictive is that what we're thinking no okay is the met the medical is with entirely within the recreational or they don't there's considerable overlap but not all overlap right so whichever one is more restrictive let's use that one if if one subsumes the other we could definitely go to one and does that require a ballot to change it or is that something that can be done in town meeting okay I agree with what Mark said if we can make that happen it simplifies the Bible makes it easier yeah it's going to be hard enough as it is okay so I I I had one final question if I may Mr chair sure um so and I think this is um from our our our staff sheet um in terms of the number of facilities of cultivation facilities that we're now looking at how many are we looking at now Tom yeah that that was my mistake I put five on the cover sheet instead of four okay it's it's four y yeah and and we prior to the last meeting we had talked about five and then it was clarified that it was four and yeah okay and that's based off of the current hcas or that's based off of the number of um allowable licenses I think that's based off the number of license that must be allowed so so that's that's as restrictive as we can get without a ballot without a ballot so the intention would be to further restrict it at the spring Springtown meeting right thank you for cl clarified thank you maren okay I've got my marching got your monitoring orders may we ask you to stay for another matter sure okay we have an anr coming up that we may need some advice on okay thank you um so I would recommend you continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 12th uh do you want to do this one fairly early right at um 7 sure um and do we have we don't need a motion to continue do okay can we have a motion make a motion to continue the public hearing until September 12th 7 o' I'll second it all in favor I thank you okay you Tom continue to se September 12th uh and and I apologize I should have asked if there were any comments from the people here present I assumed you're here for another matter I should have asked I am delighted that you are limiting it as person who doesn't live near but as friends that live near it and had someone who lives near it asked me to sell their house I think that it's vitally important what you're doing here and if uh you know we will have the motion the uh hearing is still open so on September 12th if you know anyone who cares to comment Howa come okay we are um the 7:30 informal discussion uh about the senior residential development at 244 uh 245 Foster Street is um not happening tonight and I apolog should have mentioned to uh that to any of you who were here for that we have dis we have talked about the uh Hager Homestead issue uh the next item is the anr 195 to hadwan road now do we still have that on for8 um top of the agenda says um you can take things out of order and at other times and I did let the neighbors know that it would be and I know most of you are here for that before you do that can I just bring up the um senior residential development at 245 boster Street um since we talked about the heger homestead and Northern Bank and King Street common and everything else when we initially discuss everything to try to give an update maybe we should add that as a board as a member update update since heg is probably going to drop off pretty soon it looks like they pretty well until that's fine I would you know I mean there's there's no concrete proposal now so you know it's uh but it's on the radar screen so it may be appropriate you want to wait until they actually is something I'm I just I know a lot of people are interested in it and that's what we're doing these little updates at 6:30 for whatever just never mind let's move on thanks Mark I like that idea I do too okay um open the next can I ask a quick question yeah the earlier hearing for um Taylor Road was the Covenant signed or does it need to be signed it's been signed it's been sign my has been signed everything's been signed needs to be signed okay Mark wasn't Mark junor wasn't sure and he had wanted to go to his son's baseball game so I said I would ask sign he should have whatever he needs or I does it go to the clerk or no right we can pick it up tomorrow I'll put the date on it the covenants there yeah okay um okay so it being 7:45 uh I would like to um open the agenda item scheduled for eight uh about the anr at 195 to hadwan Road um who is here great thank you Mr chair members of the board my name is Greg Roy with dson Roy representing the applicant this evening um I don't know if you wanted to pull the plan up on the screen we we will be but yeah I can wait working on it I don't see that cord for you know they they do wireless now Mar not for these they don't yeah it's the zoom that's um it is yeah maybe [Music] R so all be I have an [Music] AR let me know when you're ready I'll be brief but have a few remarks well why don't you go ahead sure so uh again Greg Roy with Dillis Roy uh we were hired by the applicant uh to prepare the plan before you be uh approving that required plan um I think a lot lot of the members if not all of you are fairly familiar with this uh piece of property at 195 to hadwan Road the uh Plan before you um subdivides the property into seven Lots four of which are conventional uh Lots with greater than or equal to a 150 ft of Frontage with the uh prerequisite um area uh three of the lots are reduced Frontage Lots uh with the um at least 35 ft of Frontage and the uh you know twice the required uh land area for the uh for the reduced Frontage Lots um and I really wanted to keep it fairly brief this evening and just introduce introduce it that way um I will acknowledge my firm has been is is recent is a recent newcomer to this uh property um so I know that there's been uh uh extensive permitting done on the on the lot uh so I can't speak to any of that but um I'm happy to take any questions about the anr plan to the extent that I can answer them board um any comments some some of us um were on the board when the previous plan was approved uh particularly Mark and Anna uh and at that time ran those hearings I came in at the very end of it um so I'm going to ask you guys to this is a and that's why I think it was good to have Tommy this is an anr approval not required right all the fronts is on an existing roadway they're not asking for any waivers no all we get to look at is area and um Frontage whether it has adequate Frontage we don't have to even address if it's practical Frontage or anything correct me or wrong just be have to be able to get out of your car and walk to the front front of the property and according to everything I see the reduced Frontage boxes are all in there it's up to the building department uh to decide whether they're buildable Lots or not not us just whether or not approval not required you know they'll they'll work on that and we see this all the time it's unfortunate that it's going this route because we had an open space plan here that I think is was a better use to the property but it's well within the applicant's right to try to get seven Lots out of a 43 acre parcel so unless I unless somebody has any uh issues with the frontage I think all the frontages work um we do have odd shaped lot formulas everywhere right they all adhere to all the OD that's correct yeah we have the shape factors on those yep it's all we can really look at as far as I as far as I know so I I I hear what you're saying Mark um I'm just going to jump on and and say that for lot s um given the fact that that whole lot was originally supposed to be for conservation just because of how wet it was um so I know that you're supposed to be able to walk onto the property like you just said but um I I haven't been over there um so I don't know whether or not you can actually walk into that property and so I just really highly question whether that's actually going to be allowable Frontage if you so I I drove by there last night now just a prep for the meeting here and it as I looked at it it looks like that 53 ft pretty much then butts up to the town property which then drops off significantly to the S of the wet part of the Wetland uh there uh on it I think I mean personally you know I wonder about you know I think you could technically drive a car onto it before you hit what L and there's no requirement that the driveway go all the way to the house a buyer May probably should B at that but it's not it's not part of our requirement that the driveway go all the way up to the to the to the entrance of the house therefore it's not part of the assessment uh here I um you know I I personally find some of it a little I'm not sure why somebody would buy it but that's not really what we're here for um on it uh there I did have one technical question relative to the existing uh subd development uh approved subd development that this looks like this is sort of abandoning that uh and and at which point does that no longer show up on the books as an approved sub development I don't think it does I think they both coexist cor well I'm looking for clarification of that because these Lots here don't overlap with the lots that are already ident ified in the definitive subdivision that was approved yeah it's a it's a uh Town Council Tom Harrington it's an interesting question here's what I can tell you I think you you know it is it's an anr plan the rules of anr plans apply yep um so if it meets the requirements it gets an endorsement they don't have to record it if they don't record it I think the special permit remains intact if they do record it I I can't you definitively that it goes that the special permit goes away but I would worry about that were I them that once you once you overlay this on top of a recorded special permit you may be undoing that special permit and that'll become an an issue for the uh zoning enforcement officer I don't have an answer for you today I just I can tell you that if you don't record it it's no problem if you do record it there's problems I just don't know whether they're instrum what problems are not in maintaining the the underlying special PR right CU I guess that's what I was wondering is in terms of again assuming again I I didn't have any objection to this because of like you said the the review criteria is very limited uh here but I'm looking for is is is clarification as to whether this approve you know are concurrence uh with this uh are we going to see a with drawal of the um the um approved special permit we don't I don't know we don't know we don't know just as Tom said it's entirely up to the applicant he so so so it's not my job to advise the applicant it's my job to advise you right so we have a special permit in place and now you're asking you're being asked to endorse an anr which could overlay that what I'm saying to you is I don't know what happens if they record this anr on top of the special per but I would be concerned about it were I they that said they have they have competent counsil who can advise them on what whatever they do what that means for them we're just it's not our problem it's yeah yeah well it I I guess it's our problem in terms of we have a special permit for a future development that does building any aspect of this negate that approved development there mutually exclusive yeah building yeah yeah the mutually exclusive he's got to choose one or the other yeah he can't have them both so yeah and I'm not and again so it creates a zoning issue and so it would be incumbent upon the owner to explain to the zoning enforcement officer why if he records an anr plan he can still use the special permit yes I'm just looking for what CL Clarity on that that process there because yeah this is is a funky process and um Mr chair or um Mr chair I have a question um perhaps Town Council or Marin Can Shed light on this so I do know that um from an affordability component that there is going to be one deed restricted affordable unit based off of our existing bylaw that will be required here so listening to what Mr Baker said earlier about his visit and I appreciate your comments cuz that was very helpful for me um listening to your comments though um I would not want the town to be quote you know um um given that particular site if it's going to be a problem so do we have my question is do we have any leeway in being able to identify um what site to pick you know for for an affordable unit no it has to be built though right so in order it has to be a viable lot Anna so that means it has to be one of the lots that you can actually build on if you're questioning whether this lot uh seven is ever going to be built he has to the developer has to give us a lot that's being built right so it becomes a zoning Enforcement issue right so by the time they pull the I believe if they go for the fourth building permit that could only issue if it were for a affordable unit an affordable unit would have to be built and sold and then they could move forward with the other units okay all right that is very helpful thank you um so I'm going to jump in for a second one thing that the town loses um by uh seeing the development of through the anr instead of the prior special permit um is the public access the um Nelly's Trail and and the other trail that went through the middle of the site I know that conservation um did a lot of work on potential uh conservation restrictions and assuring Public Access um through the site in a couple different directions um I think as a town we do lose something um by um seeing this move forward but you know just wanted to throw that out there I know you can't act that's that's a good point um we had and it wasn't it was a minimal [Music] um access granted uh around the perimeter um and I would just like to point out I I don't know how we can accomplish this with the sanr development but you know we have town on land town on land town on land town on land and so the idea was to for connectivity um so and we do lose that but I don't know how an anr process can can deal with it we can't address it we can't we can ask all we want but it doesn't have to give us anything it's an anr yeah I just remember the owner at the time very pleased to be able to pass along the legacy of having the public access Mr Roy could you convey those comments to your client I certainly can I I'm not in a position to speak on it this evening we were not will say it to the board we were not instructed to put that in I know but it was delineated on the previous plan and um in some form we're uh we've had a tremendous investment in that part of town in uh sort of open space that works together yep I will pass it on thank you um what do you suggest our action should be on this um oh well first let me open it to the people in the would anyone like to speak to this sure you go up there sure and state your name and address here we are 5 years later Brian beam uh 271 Harwood um I guess I have a question about um when you say you can't can you deny just a single lot in an anr plan and if it if it complies with the regulations no right so so lot s it's very clear that I don't even think they can build a driveway off the road because of what unless you're proposing a a dirt driveway is that what we're talking about here well there's no proposal and what what the process would be is that the point that whoever bought that lot sought to build a house they would have to go to the Conservation Commission the Board of Health and that's when all this would be um hammered out right but it's not in the anr process I understand but I I I guess I don't understand you you say you can't deny the anr or you won't deny the anr based on based on Wetland we no we not based you're not allowed to it's not it's not a factor they're not allowed it's it's not a factor and septic is not a I mean several of these Lots may not perk and that's not area is all they get to look at right it's just we're just looking at lines on a page and whether they can form because that's not what I read but okay well and there is some legal advice that says that an anrs are anrs and they don't need planning board approval don't need what I'm sorry they do not need planning board approval however we don't do that in our town I I was looking at the language and I see it says approval not required but it looks like when you read it technically what we're approving is is this is not a subdivision right exactly exactly and and my my contention was that so I mean that's the question before us is this a subdivision no well my contention was that to access lot seven you have to go through lot six so it is a subdivision but what you're saying is you don't have actually have to access the Upland you can you just need to park a car in the dirt okay yeah well only way you would the only way you could Knock Lock 7 out of there is if it had a guard Rael going right across the frontage of it or it had a lake there that you couldn't get out of your car and walk across then it would have illusionary correct me if I'm illusionary Frontage this does not this is this is I mean the idea that Wetlands is somehow a barrier to me I think it needs to much more than that I mean I think you're talking about you know a river or a stream that's I'll give you a perfect example that last walk down there just before you get into acting where they put a bridge across the river that's how we front accessed it and that's how we got Frontage yeah there nothing we that was done 30 years ago that was an anr 30 years ago finally somebody figured out how to go I guess my contention is on a previous plan which I fored you guys they knew they couldn't access it along the river bank so they went through the other lot to access it and to me that makes it a subdivision if you're going to go through another lot to access it but we don't know that on this he could come out of the we we all right I appreciate it we have to look at the the plan on a piece of paper all I I'm not even sure the subdivision argument would work in that case because access easements are granted all the time through other and it's not a subdivision but then but then you have an opportunity like you said to negotiate it though right well but that is no that happens during yeah during applying for building permits and all that stuff yeah so that being said do I hear a motion I'll make a motion that we approve the plan for seven Lots at um what's the address here 195 to had on road as presented do I hear a second I'll second it Daryl hi I I Anna hi I I think the most disappointing result is the lack of the easement um and no I think the most disappointing result is the fact that we have to go back to this I mean well that's true we had we had a long process long process we had a nice open space subdivision neighborhood not very L that's neighborhood was very and it's very glad to see it go away okay well we don't know that it's going away well one we know that but but this is a movement in that direction the ribbon of land was not a good negotiation really okay so that being said uh we're going to endorse and uh do I hear a motion to adjourn oh we're we're done with our SCH items do I hear a second oh nobody wants to okay second third fourth still um that being said uh let's have a uh all in favor of AD journey is this still bid if I sign it after we adjourn yes yes to