##VIDEO ID:NQDwKBIeoZw## 6:30 um I'm going to open the um planning board meeting of Monday um September 23rd of hybrid meeting so welcome people in the room and online um people should know we are going to first take the um hearing for the docs but if you're if you want to speak on um matters concerning the special permit for self- signaling we have a letter from them asking to continue to our next meeting on October 15th and so we will not be taking public comment on special permit for self signaling tonight so can be mindful of their time you're certainly welcome to stay um so the first item of business is just to say that we have in our packet um correspondents from the city of BL of B correspondence not related to special permits from the city of Beverly Gloucester and the town when Gail were there any other correspondents not related to public to the special permits not that I'm aware of okay anybody else have any other Mark any other correspondence not related to special perment no okay great um at this time we're going to take um uh a motion to uh continue the public hearing for um uh PA infrastructure and environmental LLC for both the repar floating dock expansion in addendum and the morser fisherman facility proposed floating docks and Pier repair is that a motion did you open the meeting I did open the meeting earlier you did okay motion to continue get a roll call oh I'm sorry I don't think you have to do you okay sorry I don't think we actually have to thank you um oh could could I just ask the reason for the um continuous tonight um The Continuous of the um self signaling public hearing no of the docs no we're We are continuing it from the prior meeting we are opening the hearing now okay all right I thought we were done here I'm like wait wait wait what happened all right I'm sorry thank you you're in the right place that be too easy so I have a motion from Sue in a second from Laura I think sure uh Sue roll call for that Sue F yes here Gordon Brewster yes Chris yes sah votes yes Kenny Mary F yes thank you okay um is there any new uh information from the applicant um okay and um one of the things we did talk about last time was trying to make sure we capture um public comment on hearings so on this hearing over the course of the hearings we have received um correspondents uh a email in favor of the docs from an Harrison um a collection of comments from the um I believe the harbor committee and some fishermen in favor I believe uh a comment from line ion um about expressing that no no fueling should cure on the docks and a um email from Dean htis um there's more Sarah okay go ahead what are the other ones for on the docs uh yes it's um from the Chamber of Commerce there were two separate letters and they were in a previous SharePoint folder okay thank you um so I'll take uh open it up now to um we have some proposed um conditions from um drafted uh by Mark um but before we get to that are there any um additional public comments and I I will ask if Dean nadus wants to just um speak because he had a lengthy set of comments so instead of me trying to paraphrase them Dean do you want to say anything um well I I did send in a letter um stating some of the uh issues uh the biggest ones being um that there was is no historical preservation or uh landscape architect on you know providing input um and just that there was no uh concise financial plan or overall management plan that that we saw and I was kind of expecting to hear back from someone but I haven't um I'm not sure if if this Project's going forward or if it's going to go back to um to be re-evaluated okay um thank you I do think it is our policy not to respond with spef to specifics of emails so that's why we're now trying to make sure we acknowledge them in the per process um uh comments from the board or other public comments that people would like to make um I will say that I did pass these plans to um the chair of the historic commission some weeks ago and she was going to pass it to her commission we've heard nothing um from them so we did uh request any comments from them through her um all right hearing uh no other comments um let's uh are people ready to uh talk through the special permit um draft uh decisions okay so let's start with the um take them one by one now um let's see first have the Reed Park one in front of me that work for um Mark do you want to just summarize for us um the conditions or you want me to read um well most of the conditions are ones we discussed before having to do with lighting um long discussion about the glare so we uh required um low-level dock mounted lighting um and that it'll be in zones depending on so that they can be shut down um rafting the boats was a big concern uh boat washing was another concern as he a transient permanent do lips that people basis um there was a issue related to trenching through Reed Park and any damage to the trees so we have a requirement that the tree Warden shall be present to minimize damage the tree roots along the path of utility trench um the rest duration of that Disturbed area um because of the concern about fuel docks and fuel spillage fuel dock shall not be installed at the facility um if if it's feasible um additional seating areas there's one there now kind of just off the back side of the dock should be provided provided it does not obstruct the roots for dingies to maneuver in and out of the facility um one sec ction uh this was a comment of one of the uh board members uh was concerned about um place to pull out kayaks or canoes padle uh boats um so um this is a new condition that we hadn't seen before so I said one section of the backside of the float maybe made available to put in a Ki go kayaks canoes or other similar so um and then commercial well watching or fishing boat shall not utilize the floats to pick up a drop off passengers and we have discussed that as well so I like just on that one just say uh pack up passengers for higher you know it's the it's the so right now it's we commercial boats so that so I think it's the it's the boats it's people that are for higher okay commercial whale watching or fishing boats for higher not y s um I just wanted to say about the kayak put in put out we don't allow launching off those docks right now it becomes H hazardous if you have kayaks on there it blocks access for the folks who have d e there um we do encourage people to use that little shingle Beach right there at Reed Park and that's what folks typically do rather than come down the box or that was your suggestion right I I don't know if that specific one was mine but it was a concern of mine and the shingle Beach depending on the tide and the current it's not all that accessible to if it's high tide then you do end up coming up into the park which we do see folks come in a high tide they'll P the boats up onto the grass right there at the wall so I think there's a if um there's the access from a from a kayak not necessarily kayak storage on the on the docks right so yeah so if if you were to come in by kayak now uh we would certainly let you and and we do allow people to attach their kayaks like one of the dingies in the back and to uh access to docks like any dingy user so should be yeah but there should be no so you don't want people hauling it out and walking or leaving no launching haulings from the do but certainly accessing the town do with ASU so there is a difference between paddle boats and paddle boards yeah I think maybe it should just be paddle boards yeah yeah that'll corrupt yeah okay but the question is is this a if people are allowed to tie up a paddlecraft or a On The Backs side of dock in the way any rowboat would be is do we is this a is this a is this a special permit or is this a policy that we would is this a policy consideration for the Harbor Master to to make perhaps in how the docks get used I'm here I'm seeing nods that it's a policy question there going to be plenty of do so I think it's I think it's kind of an Overkill but either way is fine by me anybody is anybody G to make a case to keep it in I think hadle Craft on the back where you're talking about dingies of stuff could just be it's a policy question right it's a policy question but don't we mention the dingies in here maybe we don't I'm gonna we mention it not I see so we're gonna strike strike that okay other um thing I think Laura previously had asked during trenching through Reed Park Capital Reed Park the tree Warden should be president and I believe you had a land arborist or you had another um professional yeah I had independent arborist and um someone countered with having the tree Warden there I think that it's a very modest additional constraint to ask for an independent arst to protect the town's trees so I would advocate for that so you're asking that that be I'm asking okay anybody any objections to that addition well I I mean personally I would like the condition to be that it does not remove any trees didn't shouldn't impact the tree yeah right well I just want that clear on the condition when we add trees minimize damage say Do not eliminate eliminate damage it's a that's a tall order but um prevent damage um my my only concern with the tree um the certified arborus is that being a town project Municipal project it is an additional cost of the town during construction um uh the the trenching is designed to avoid impacts to both trees um in the having the tree Warden on site uh Nate you can probably speak to this a little better than me but I think I I believe that has been um allowed and uh successful on other projects yeah correct I mean that's the intent of having you know the town tree Warden uh at our disposal is to you know utilize him in these types of situations and you know I think he is looking out for the best of town trees and um you know I think I think minimizing is the correct verbage there um I think you know he will use his you know tree Warden judgment and he think he's been doing it for 50 plus years um you know to verify that we do not uh or the contractor does not cut uh any roots and you know allows the utility to be placed um you know without harming the trees um I have a lot of um respect for Nate's opinion so I just uh I think that what might happen is that sometimes you want an arborous there to um airspade or to cut Roots so that there's not tearing done to the roots and inadvertent damage so that could be at the tree warden's um discretion but I think um if it is an addition add cost of the town I think the trees are quite a valuable asset to the town and so we want to really balance the protection of the trees as the town Town living infrastructure are you suggesting an and independent arborist or an or I am suggesting the well I mean I'm guess I'm saying that the tree Warden can call an independent arborist but um I'm not I'm not requiring it but I think that that is uh um often required when you're putting utility trenches your trees to have that be part of the process I don't want to prescribe beans and methods but I think um the most caner needs to be taken with that critical root zone of the trees no I think that's I think I think handling it that way would allow us to put like a build bid alternate uh in the package to uh basically allow you know allow the contractor to carry a cost for the arborist if necessary uh so if that were at the discretion of the tree Warden yeah I think we could add something to the effect of like if the sh Warden deems it necessary to have an arborous to air Spade or other uh method as directed by the sh AR Warden uh I think that that I would be okay with that I'm okay with that too Nate okay can we just get some final language here during trenching through Reed Park the tree Warden may require may require support from an independent arist at his discretion at his discretion to um to prevent to prevent um damage to the critical root zone or to the tree root Zone okay okay great thank you than um uh the other um qu uh issue was um a fuel dock should not be installed at the facility I think we actually talked about no fueling shall be done at these stocks I do think that's are two different things the proposed wording is no a fuel dock shall not be installed at the facility and I agree with that um no fueling the problem with that is it's like a gas can of somebody with an outboard right um so uh that's probably hard to enforce um we don't actually see see people fueling remotes down there I will say occasionally some of the owners of dingies that have been self through top I've oberved on one or two occas books that off but we can certainly put out a direct here yeah on that same point I wonder if we could stri that caveat unless no fuel unless fuel is not available at any other facility I think there's enough concern about fueling that we could just say a fuel dock shall not be installed facility period I think the latest version has that oh it does this is what I had on Friday okay thank you okay so comfortable with that as is okay um any other comments um the other comment that was just heard oh go ahead Mary um for clarity one and two so one says lowlevel dock mounted lighting and then two says lighting shall be constructed in zones and shut off so be off shut shut off areas we not required is that all one and the same are we only installing the the FL um the low-level dock mounted lighting so what will happen is when we buy these posts the virtually we all have lights which we will be making sure there's no buls and then we'll have the smaller deck level lights appropriately spaced to make sure it's safe to Transit without tripping pH probably mostly a Transitions and floats but are they all one and the same is it all the same lighting no no so the light on the posts shin down from a couple of feet above the deck shs down onto the deck the little little ones flush Ms there imagine something a little bit bigger than my hand the two little lights that shine out and down onto the dog so they're at Foot level those lights are at foot level so which ones will be shut off when not used uh the ones on the post will be off all the time that that you wouldn't have both I remember we had the discussion about maybe the EM motion sensitive timer that sort of thing but the discussion moved towards having the flush mounted lighting instead of the lights coming out of the house so the light on the post never on a little flush mounted I think proba so the question Mary I think is asking is the second proposed condition is lighting shall be constructed in zones and shut off areas where not and shut off in in areas when not required so I think we had talked about having them we talked about that when we're talking about the full because there would be more L with the post so the question is really do you need the second condition if you're just doing the rush m so maybe the second condition is there will be no that there will be no higher lighting than the FL the post mounted won will not I think number the first question um condition meets the word only first only lowlevel mounted because otherwise it says that it's only on the docks so if you change the word to only flush only lowlevel mounted lighting or flush mounted lighting she be installed to light the floating docks period okay and then the rest of it becomes but it does mean that these docks in January will potenti if they're solar or something they might have them uh I I would think that so the HAC actually brought this up at the last meeting because there are private flot flights there's going to be a time of year restriction when the voting season is over there'll be no lights on the dogs um so again that's is that a policy question or is that a it it is a aesthetic question um so um how do we may I ask you another question about oh sorry I GNA say it's not strictly aesthetic it's a safety question if the docks are out there and accessible year round then they should be lit so as far as your round goes uh we're not going to be operating accepting customer that is likely where we'll keep the Harbor Master boat since we're going to have to start keep a boat so there may be a single light down by the Harbor Master but there would be no need to light the rest of there won't be access to it take out a section you physically couldn't walk on the docks at that point it is also very un there are many dog many many many dogs that are not I mean it's not a customary thing for all dogs to be lit it's usually some kind of light down there isn't there but anyhow it sounds like it's addressed through the so can I just there's no need to have lights during the can we just strike lights shall be constructed in zones and just lighting shall be shut off in offseason that sort of leaves it to the does that make sense because I do think that the you have to Define off season well I don't think so I think that that the har if the harbor is going to take up these other right now November 1st so November 1st I'll be detaching section of floats where people can't come in land and come Shore basically from the base of the ramp so there' be no need to have lights for there'll be no overnight TR starting okay that's right now that's how about lighting shall be shut off when floats are not utilized or or in offseason or well I wanted well because he's still going to have FL lights on the floats that they're going to keep you around for the they right so one it's all real so light shall be shut off on floats which are um removed for the season that's okay all right any other comments on Mary no I I I like what Mary BR about the lights I had a particular question here about I know we talked early on about what those would look like was it a utility B did it have power in it it have water in it did it have Lighting in it at one time and then he had it devolve and what would the what would the spacing the lighting be and the post that you're talking about well so I Wasing five posts five posts whole L length one those y uh with water and electricity they'll have lights in them but the bulbs will be removed because that's not this is like a 4x4 yeah well round ones but all of them are designed so the light shines down but they have lighting integral to the pose right it would be more like than foot level lighting that's what we moving for here so I think the lighting needs to be spaced appropriately I don't know what that looks like yet 50 ft apart so so every two every two floats Flats yeah be a vertical post with utilties no no no no so that would be hang on a second I'm TI if there's five posts would be one post four and and the actual at Rock level lighting would be how much spacing on that so I was thinking every 50 feet reading lights oh okay so they're they're not meant to be a way finding so much as they just a little bit of light okay we're not going to have a Runway Landing Mary um so the way I read number 10 it says commercial whale watch or fishing boat shall not utilize the floats to pick up or drop off passengers so are we allowing commercial whale watch to Dos are partially funded by a Federal grant that is crystal clear the commercial use of the docks is not why don't we just say that it's it's it's Crystal Clear in the grant you know I've I've chased people out of there I've had a couple of tour boats come down from other towns and try to pick up and drop off and oh yeah and I I want it to be clear so let's just say no commercial use or however you just said US fishing wildlife clarify question I know that some of the fingers are designed for commercial fisherman oh that's not re Park Reed Park that's Mor okay I take it back thank you okay and um any other comments yeah with other parts of the document yeah I was gonna get I was gonna I'm actually working backwards which is not logical but okay so um then are there any um comments on the findings that are um uh described here one through n those findings are the application perance with Section 6.3 The Proposal meets a community need by allowing the expanded use of Reed Park docks by public and provide economic benefits to towntown Manchester there's no change in traffic flow or parking requirements existing utilities and other public services are adequate to Ser the facility neighborhood character will not change as there's no changes to either re park or masc noral Park the existing facility will serve the same types of boats as the existing floats under the same rules Harbor views will be maintained as the use of Reed Park and Mascoma Park will be improved through the connection of the respective cloathing docks public will have access to the floats to further explore the harbor and its environment impacts to the natural environment or minimize the use of piling system instead of anchors the construction of this type of float structure allows it to be resilient to storms and modified as necessary to adjust this rising sea level and there's no additional impact to town services and the facility is projected to have a positive cash flow which will help support Harbor infrastructure comments on on those just a typ you go first oh just a typo just number six it should be as the use of read bar not the the use of yeah thank you missing a couple periods at the end ofes um Laura number seven impacts of the natural environment are minimized um we're talking about the use of the anchoring system I know that the letter writer referred to shellfish habitat and I think that's in the jurisdiction of um others like concom and so forth but I wonder if it would be either we're referring to those um decisions and here explicitly in terms of the protection of the natural environment or we add a clause to that that says you know shelfish habitat and other environmental um impacts are being um avoided maybe we can get both um engineering to comment on that yeah Jeremy the did you hear the question the um impacts to the natural environment aside from just the anchoring but you know the shadowing and the anything to do with habitat um no it opposites the shellfish your pardon the question was if the anchoring has anything to do with natural habitat I'm sorry could you repeat the question yeah any impact aside from the anchoring method are there any impacts to the um natural ecology and if so you know how is the um doc being how are you mitigating those yeah so we're mitigating those through uh float clearance um and and um we're working that through with DP now um but yeah there are no direct impacts to uh the substrate beyond the piles okay and we will reference in the document I think order of conditions and that make that a condition comply with d and and thank you okay um uh kind of kind of along those same lines um this is why I missed the question I was talking to F on the side about this um on on one of the uh the special conditions where we talk about the additional seating areas um we were going to ask that we could just add additional public seating areas so just adding the word public there in the beginning um understanding the whole facility is is the whole project is is about public access to the Waterfront anyway um but we would just like that uh that word in there to help us when we go uh to talk to De in case we need any additional uh square footage to accommodate those seatings and uh bump outs on the floats okay great um suggestion thank you um any other comments on the on the findings section okay um other comments on the other um the rest of the document read Park you want all Corrections now sure so just Ty you um so but I've mentioned them before and they've never gotten corrected so I'm thinking okay go ahead um I'll just start at the top so our ZIP code is 01944 um and then this says pursuant to se section 4.1.1 J it's the correct section is 4.2 Point F1 um I wanted to clarify in paragraph two it said site improvements at zero read park or the is that the floating docks is that the the correct address but are we putting zero read park because of the docks I mean I'm sorry because of the walkway or because that's the address of the park of the parcel yeah Reed Park doesn't really have an address it's in the gis database so I'm just wondering why so we don't put an address for Morse Pier but you're putting and Associated site improvements so what are those other improvements is it the um read part utilities through the park yeah it's all all the the work so generally I put that language because there's sometimes other things like running the utilities through an area adjacent property or down the street so there are site improvements related to the site so okay so so it just kind of covers everything that's shown on the drawings that's appr so for this one it would just be the trenchy okay um they um um the last page the after the condition the second paragraph out with the conditions it says where applicable these conditions shall be complied prior to the planning board so that sentence needs reworking um the paragraph after that referenes section 12.8.76 point7 so I don't know if you're referencing the permit section not sure what you're ref um the last paragraph says that this is for Tex 2.8.6 decisions um the last paragraph is referencing text point on this and I wasn't sure why special permit was in quotes so it should be a read part and um you said it was the I was 4.2 F 42 F1 is the use table for those fascinated by this matters including construction or alteration of structure the need high water it is so 4.2 Point F1 Mark you got that 4.2 y F1 one number one okay so I just want to go back to the appeals because there is a section so with our special permits in sight plan don't we usually reference that this would applying under 6.3 12.5 12.6 don't we usually reference that I think we do what the um but he referen I I had that same comment but then he references it in the uh in the letter so I thought it was fine it is in here there is SE letter no from P it's number one under the um findings the application is generally in conformance with Section 6.3 so we don't reference the 12.56 and it's just up above that .52 is the Press is the 12.52 is CR special parent criteria and that in and spel 12.52 references the number one standard set forth in 6.3 so it's a little bit circular but it's in there okay um so I'm going to take a uh motion to close the uh public hearing and then a um motion to um uh approve our this these draft conditions I think we'll want to get a final um at our next meeting for a final vote does that make sense Mark um can that would certainly close the hearing tonight close the hearing what close the hearing for the special permit um for uh um for Reed Park um I'll take a motion to do that so move second um any any discussion um okay uh roll call vote Mary py to close yes yes uh Laura yes Peter yes Sarah votes yes yes cordon and Sue fil okay thank you um now I'll take a motion to um we what should we just vote it it's final language next time or well you can vote it now these are just little edit things you so we'll take a motion to um approve the special permit and site plan approval uh for Reed Park as amended um tonight um and uh um we'll take a motion to that effect so I have a question we make make motion first please well I don't think I can make the motion oh okay go ahead ask a question uh so I was not at the last public hearing I did watch the video of it okay is there some form you have to fill a form with the so does that happen before no actually you weren't here and then we didn't um take it up last time we did not we extend you're good I already thought discussion I move that we thought of this on the way and I threw my head between the two of you okay so I am I mov we approve the re Park improvements as a the special permit and site plan approval as granted to the town of Manchester that's what I thought you said okay do I have a second second okay any other discussion um all in favor do I need a roll call yes um I'll say I'll start Sarah votes yes chis yes yes Gordon um Sue yes Peter yes Laura yes Mary um because of the reasons I've cited before no Harbor management plan no financial analysis um no visual renderings for read Park um I abstain okay thank you all right um let's uh move to the Morse Pier um conditions we'll take them um in the same uh order um uh here we have um the following conditions um I'm going to read where that only lowlevel Doc mounted um lighting should be installed to light the floating docks and the docks sh and lighting should be uh shut off um the off season or whatever the language is SL St or their their season is a little bit different so they there are more restrictions now at the state and federal level so they actually this year didn't start fishing until in the may but when the docks go back into service in the spring say once we open it up for people to walk we should have light so the lights should be shut off in um offseason or consistent harb and there should be no rafting of boats at the facility a fuel dock shall not be installed at the facility um commercial wh offer fishing boats and I suggested for higher shall not use the floats to pick up or drop off passengers the five conditions that we've spoken out there um is there not the same requirement in the grant for commercial so that that section of the dock is not funded by public but there is not that same restriction however those fls are intended for use of and spots would be assigned to Manchester lob stream so there's no intention to invite or allow the recreational sport F that this specifically addresses as a matter of fact you already have that in the regulations as far as identifying what constitutes offici so I guess my I that was I think of something I had suggested and that my concern is that one of our um special permit areas is parking and traffic and so if you have now have people coming to use the stock facility to take um a whale watch or a deep sea fishing boat out and then now we have all kinds of parking issues when the intent is something else so that was that was my rationale on that so why wouldn't we just say um only used for Manchester by the Sea license fisherman if that's the intent of the do so uh I I think licens I I think it would be better to put in the specific restriction no sport wh watching fishing no boarding of passengers that that really covers it right there no no passengers so but this is for Manchester fisherman correct right I mean so why wouldn't we you can put it either way or both ways whatever way you want but if you specifically State no you're fine yeah Manchester licensed yeah yeah either way whatever your pleasure on this Manchester doesn't license fish it's not state LIC well except that I think that this doc it could have we also talked about having this be available to um commercial uses that are in service of the harbor you know um Waring facility moing boats you know there are lots of commercial uses of things but that are I mean there are some commercial uses I guess that that are not service comp right or another Waring Service Company um I think either or not a commercial business yeah Absolut commercial license yeah I'm gon I'm just gonna stop for one second to let people know that we are not taking public comment for sell signaling tonight we will maybe you're here talk about Mill Street but um but it if just so people know so to take advant respect your time so uh back to Mark you had something that was just to say all the various things I mean it would be covered by the condition anyways that we have in here concern right yes my concern is covered and even everybody else's I mean the way this is worded commercial we Watcher fishing boats were higher should not utilize so that would allow the morning to be able to tie up and use it you know early in the season you know to get in and out and you know and and uh but what everyone's concerned is is the passengers and people coming to get a ride so parking all day so so I think this language there are other let me give you another example Mary of another commercial use that might at the harbor Master's discretion be using this and that is a um like a seoe boat that serve as like a towing service that a triaa a AAA kind of thing that is you know there's one captain or and one staff it's not a TR it's not a passenger transport but it can be very if let's say there's no ctoe in Beverly anymore or whever it is then maybe it's it's an important uh voer service that might use a commercial Dock at the harbor Master's discre it's a commercial kind of thing rather that's not fisherman and they currently do that no I don't think we currently do but I'm just giving you an example if we limit it just to fishermen we potentially narrow our availability of commercial uses that service a range of of voting needs so why wouldn't we just do what we currently have now I mean why is anything changing if it's just expanding the fisherman does Fisherman's I right now there is no special Prim condition for that that's their own rules so we can strike number five but right if you want to have a condition related to it um I think the way we worded it for the other facility and this this wording also applies to um what everyone's concern is is passengers parking their cars all day while they go out in the boat and not being going out in their own boat being out in commercial boats so I think um I think the language here is fine it allows buying and some flexibility for other types of commercial uses and um but restricts what everyone's concern is question to passengers um so I think the harbor through you bu I think already offers small scale kind of harbor tours right want the launch service people come down and want to get on the launch right and go uh also use it for the red light breakfast yeah so that's a nice service for that accommodates the public in kind of a small scale way and people who don't have votes of their own so I think we just want to make sure not to preclude that use is that is that on war no no I don't think it is but we have the same clause on Reed so so long as we're not that was my only concern I understand the attent to you know not wh was half on half off um Can are we um are we okay any um objections on that um that as to leave it as is okay Laura go ahead sorry I had a comment on the findings some let's finish the the conditions first any other conditions okay let's sorry should we add the D and the concom on this one as well oh yes I was going to do that in the findings yeah let's add the D and and the concom so D is chapter 91 and concom is local right and those the finding we would add that finding that they would comply with those I think we had them as conditions before I thought we put in the findings but either way yeah whever belongs I think it belongs in okay um findings um oh I'm sorry one more yeah go ahead would you just add the only to number one like we did in the last one yep okay and then um the special permit criteria um see if there anything different than was before um I think they are the same same Mar similar there a few things that are a little bit different oh there is a uh additional one on this one there are no impact on Town Services the facilities will provide a commercial recreational Community with improved access to navigable Waters and support the town's blue economy okay comments yes Mary so number three it says there is minimal impact of the traffic flow and adequate parking exists do currently do fishermen come in park and then fish off with mors Pier so we're adding what is it 14 so we'll have a grand total of seven six to seven spots thought for boats coming and those boats are coming from existing lobster boats uh that are on Wars now in Manchester my intention is to offer two spots to people on the weight list to bring it as I've explained in the past to bring the numbers up to the original strength I first started here number boats so um we're talking about the lot ofen that come every day and get on their boats lot fishing and maybe two more total so I'm not clear on what you just said but so we're adding 14 how many how many are being added at Morse we're adding of we have two lobster boats there now at a do we're adding enough room for uh four to five more but they're currently mored in the harbor and are right so those spots will be offered to Lobster Fishers who already have a warant the har so they already have the parking isn't an issue right so there's no increase in parking needed two more will invite two more boats in uh from the weit list to put on Wars they'll take Waring spots out there to replace two of the four or five that are vacated by the ones coming into so that doesn't come with a parking space right it's a grand increase of two um other comments on the conditions um just some sentencing and typos but um you want to so number two uh means Community need by allowing the extended use Pier for use by the local commercial Fleet it will also provide so maybe just a period there um and then number six Harbor views will be maintained as the use the park the use of again um other um uh comments on the rest of the letter we have the same um section um yeah same zip code and section so did we discuss in paragraph 1 123 it says minor repairs will also be completed to address maintenance concerns and restore stability and safety to Pier it's the existing Pier we did discuss that's part of the grant that's part of the project just uh elaborate just make sure we're clear right so uh the location of the lamp and correct me if I'm wrong here Jeremy or F the the ramp has to be adjusted from its current location uh and upgraded a little bit uh to support the heavier ramp the the ramp is staying sorry B the ramp stays in the same in place coming off the pier uh but we had to we did a structural inspection of the existing conditions and we just had to uh make some modifications to the framing there uh just to make sure everything was uh you know structurally stable and uh we had to re angle that gang way a little bit to land on the new line of floats with the proper clearance underneath I think that's shown in the plans in the application yes and the grant covers that so we haven't written the grant for construction we've only written the grant for the engineering and permitting piece uh the way the Cort economic counil does their funding F full project they don't need more if they give you funding for engineering and permitting they expect you to come back and apply for the construction piece once you get far enough down the road they're trying not to tie up their money so we're going to get 80% when we ask for it so maybe that shouldn't be in this special permit is my point if it's not part of this it it's all integral to the project the maintenance piece Mary you're referring to yeah I think maintenance piece was part of the application okay so it's like a phase two well maintenance is just the maintenance that we do yearly or byly no it's the repairs to the the that Jeremy just the that's that's part of the application for the project I mean it's not going to be done until we move to the construction phase but it still has to be in the engineering permitting piece in order to so I'm sorry I just have a question about that b I'm not sure you can answer it or not but so the funding for Morris Pier has been been secured for the engineering piece the majority of the construction Grant has not even been submitted at this point we we wouldn't apply until we are close to or ABS to permits in hand the SEC won't accept applications until they're far enough down the road where you're going to use the funds that they give you in a reasonable period of time they don't want 500,00 sitting for two years while you're going because they could be using that to fund on the projects and that's that's something that they've sort of evolved into maybe three years ago they I applied for a grant for a whole project and they said no we're we're doing it this way now if we give you this piece then when you're ready you're going to reply and we're going to give you the other piece it's you're expected to apply but no we do not have a yet so we do the work that that this grant is funding and then we apply okay okay any other comments on the um site plan site permit and site plan approval um so just it references tux point at the end as well instead of and sorry just one last question so there was um there had been some discussion I think about and you just mentioned that the the full amount of construction will not be covered by this grant 80% so which leaves about $100,000 if which I have requested in the capital budget to come from water you got yeah okay any other questions or comments hearing none I will take a motion to close the public hearing for Mor Pier um do I have a motion to close the public hearing so move second second by Chris um Sue filb yes roer yes Chris yes votes yes yes Peter Morton yes Mary yes okay the public hearing is now closed do I um a motion to approve the special permit and site plan approval granted to the town of Manchester for the uh plan at Mor morst toown Pier facility um as drafted tonight removed second second Peter Morton seconds um any other discussion um roll call vote uh Mary yes uh Laura yes Peter yes Sarah votes yes Chris yes Gordon yes Sue yes okay thank you everybody oh no I dropped [Music] thank you Patience by everybody um okay let's um thank you um we're gonna now um uh vote to continue the public hearing for sell sing signaling Technologies scheduled to continue tonight we are going to continue that to October 15th that's a Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. um we have a letter from Mark Ley repres self signaling um requesting that we uh that we continue the public hearing so I'll take a motion um continue the hearing for sub without uh without any discussion one moves a second um so I'll take a um did I have to I didn't have to open my hearing no okay um uh I do need a roll call on this Sue filb yes uh Mark um yes votes yes Peter yes fla yes and Mary fley yes okay thank you um the next item um tonight is a discussion of the um conservation restriction at Long Hill um we have tonight uh Crystal point from Green Belt who is the uh has submitted an application for CPC funding um and and Chris will do very quickly will describe the project are reason for talking about this tonight is that if there is a town interest in land the planning board will need to make a recommendation to town meeting what is not our domain is um whether or not CPC should fund it we'll make the we're not making a recommendation on that we don't know how much CPC has for funding and we don't whether the select we is going to put it on the warrant that's not our hunt either um whether we think project is fabulous or not fabulous in its entirety it's simply about the um conservation restriction so just to be clear the other piece is that suil will not uh is in a butter she will not be um comp behind me commenting on that and um I have filed a disclosure with the town cler I've spoken to the ethics office and file the disclosure with the town clerk I sit on the green Bel board um but on the ethics Comm s advice um I don't believe that I have a conflict that um is in a way that jeopardizes my ability to act in a fair Manner and um but I have made that disclosure as required to the Tob so anybody else have any other procedural stuff um okay so Chris little Point um can I bring up some of the in your application um for the people at home thank was going to ask if you had those available other paper for folks in person but I think we all have it in our pockets but um would you pass around the paper just in case go ahead thanks much so my name is C point I'm president of w County green thank you for timeing the agenda this evening greenv Bel has the opportunity to acquire 330 acres of land Manchester and Gloucester the den Normandy land also known as Long Hill about 150 acres are in Manchester and the remaining 180 acres are on the gler side for those of you who've been in town for years you will remember in the late 1990s the Manchester portion of the property was a subject of a significant um development threat and a an effort was made to protect the vast majority of that land so in the late 90s about 120 Acres of the land in Manchester was permanently protected and is is is still protected by a conservation restriction that's held by the Manchester essics conservation trust the uh at that time about 38 acres of land at the top of long hill um was left unprotected um and was and is privately owned right at the end of curn Road um in subsequent years that land owner acquired an adjacent 180 acres of land in gler so there's again that's the 330 AC point to it almost so in the red outline that's the 330 acre assemblage that we're trying to put together so the the just don't touch the screen you you can go right up to a point this area here is the unrestricted portion of the land in Manchester about 30 Acres right at the end of Cl Road um so green belt has all of this land under agreement um and our our plan if we're able to put the funding together is that we would own all of it uh it would be essentially left in its natural condition with its extensive trail system that connects over into Gloucester and North Cranbury Pond and south of the patras um we would manage it maintain the trails provide way fairing signage as we do with our you know network of more than 8,000 Acres of land throughout the county all our properties are open to the public From Dawn Till DUS um on the Gloucester side as part of our funding that's coming from the state landscape partnership program we are required and happy to convey a conservation restriction to the city of glester on the Manchester side um in the event that the the town is a funding partner on the project and that as was said that's a meeting later in the week to start to talk about that if the town is a funding partner on the project um the town could hold a conservation restriction over the presently unrestricted 30 acres in Manchester so that would be land that green Bel owns is responsible for managing but the town would hold a restriction so we've met with the open space committee and with the Conservation Commission who both endorsed this concept um I'm I know you have a lot of other things on the agenda this evening I'd be um happy to answer any questions um but I'll I'll pause there so we're again just very quickly this is a this is a property that is um incredibly important for climate resilience it's a tremendous recreational asset uh it is part of one of the largest intact interior forests in all the county um and it's just in in a variety of ways um from protecting some of the headwaters of cat Brook and wolf Tru Brook it's sort of off the charts from a natural resource standpoint so from our standpoint in terms of choosing Parcels to permanently protect and to sort of bring into the public sphere this is a poster child so we're we're pleased for the opportunity and be happy to take any questions you have and there there is existing Trails through there already right it's that whole curn Road correct area correct so there's as part of the but I the the first phase of this project in that initial conservation restriction there is public access on 120 Acres of the land in Manchester now that trail system extends onto the unprotected 30 Acres it extends across the line into Gloucester and um is is part of a network of of trails that that crosses about 1400 acres of land running North up to 128 running East all the way over to mount an and Beyond Mark something to add um no I've been I've been up to the property and it's a a nice piece of land it's kind of the high point of that area there and they existing Trails through the undeveloped portion that do connect although it's not shown here but they do connect uh to the regular Network that's still okay you just answer where where do people Park in Manchester to get there to access this so there's really three places there's one there's the Fairly large lot on goldber road at Dexter Pond Conservation area which is I'm estimating a 10 or 12 car parking lot as you drive further in curn Road there are there are two or three places that people Park there's there's a gate right away with a pull off where you can park probably four cars then there are two addition parking areas little gravel pull outs on the left where presently there's each probably three to four cars space in each one um and very easily could be you know a couple of rocks could be pushed back and could add some additional capacity but that's actually quite a bit of capacity um that exists on cloburn road um and certainly people come in from uh the Magnolia halfside and from the north on trails from um forest and in bloster as well okay so it's curn Road curn road is the primary easiest existing parking I have a couple questions one is I'm just trying to understand the map and what's in and out so the red lines delineate Parcels but if you're looking at the the aerial photo versus the Green shading what's what here in terms of what is to be acquired back out we're usually good to Maps but we struggle this one thank you the question so we're buying everything that is in red um red with green has the existing conservation restriction on it okay but it's owned by whom by by it it's all owned by the Normandy I see but it's subject to a conservation restriction held by Manchester essics conservation trust so we'll buy the restricted land under that restriction well we we're also buying this bit which is the unrestricted portion that's in Manchester this Square we are not buying that is owned by the town of Manchester that's Again part of the project back in the late 90s and I I feel like that was perhaps a water tower location or part of the future water system potential and then it looks like a lot of wood Lots or something up there those long fig on the Gloucester side these are intervening Parcels that are owned by the city of Gloucester I think actually one of these might be owned by Manchester um don't hold me to it it's one of these one of those two and then where you see the satellite without the green shading with all the yellow paths running through and you're seeing through to the tree cover is that um that large par right in there all that so it's this it's this kind of snaking piece but that's all interesed with these are the fingers of bler wed land that okay and you said thank you that helps to clarify and you said that that you had mapped the watersheds and that this um it's protecting Headwaters or Water Resources some of the upper reaches of both Wolf Trap Brook and Cat Brook so so cat Brook is s starts play up there and winds down and Wolf Trap Brook as I recall starts in this area before it comes into town thank you just to clarify are did you say you're buying conservation restricted land so it's already restricted right so of the 330 Acres 120 are already restricted and the rest is not restricted okay is there a reason to buy that if it's already restricted our primary motivation here is to acquire and protect the unrestricted acreage however there's an advantage to buying it all as what one it's for sale as a package so we're buying all of the the land that is in continuous ownership um although the land that's already restricted has Public Access it's still owned by a private party so it it doesn't it and it it and it's quite nice um it doesn't have the um directional signage and the you know um the kiosks and the and the you know it's not it's not brought into um Land Trust ownership and and sort of enhancement in the way that the rest of our properties are which I think over time provides a better visitor experience so for those of you who don't know our properties what I mean by enhancement are you know where you are when you're on the trail um we have you know very very lowkey um signage and very lowkey parking and and that so it's it's not about changing that it's really just about bringing that whole um property into Land Trust ownership so that it can be managed well together over time Chris so uh I'm on the CPC also so I'm going to put on my leave my CPC hat off and my planning board at so the parcel we're talking about is the dark green rectangle in the middle is that right so greine belt is buying everything that's in red yeah but in terms of what the town if the town were to participate the town's conservation restriction would cover this bit and the triple on here but this this P here and and the acquisition is just of the conservation e it not the land itself no so green belt is going to own the land and be responsible for managing it you're going own the land We Own It manage it maintain it forever and have all the responsibility of that but the town's investment would go to purchase a conservation rest so the town so we're just buying a conservation restriction from the green belt is that right in the actual order of operations at the closing that's that's the order that it would go in but we you know this is a a you know a partnership project as we assembling funding and yes so we would we would go to closing we would buy all of the land we would convey a restriction to Gloucester we would convey a restriction to Manchester and do you know why it was not included conservation restriction when all the surrounding land was put into conservation others who were here at the time might have a better answer I think it this was this was partly a um it was a situation where there was a conservation buyer really that bought the property and and the density of the project went down from a number that people didn't want to a relative handful and I think it was the financials at the time were it was a combination of probably tax benefits money and retaining land value for later and now it's later and my final question is are there any Municipal uses that could be put on that land that would uh still allow the conservation easement but might be of more active U use by the town such as an athletic field or something um I haven't been up there so I so I think there would be fair questions as to whether that's an appropriate site for athletic fields in that spot but but more particularly the state landscape partnership Grant which is funding $1.1 million of the overall purchase is is for acquisition of natural land um with free public access for Passive recreational uses so it's not a grant that's compatible with athletic fields or okay okay thank you okay just one is it land locked is that piece of land land locked it's not landlocked it has Frontage on cber Ro so it is it is entirely developable yes within utility and all that stuff okay um any other discussion um are the does board want to uh take a position on this tonight or think about it or and wait see how it plays out with CPC or do you want you clarify what position so the motion I would suggest is that the pl we we have to Simply when there is land uh transfer uh instruments andc conservation restriction accounts that go to town meeting we are asked for recommendation so the motion I would suggest is that the planning board recommends the purchase of a um conservation restriction on the denor Long Hill property um as part uh period I guess to the and yeah and then then that's simply if we if it goes as far as town meeting Alan wi will say I've received the report from the planning board they have recommended the purchase of a conservation restriction there's no rush to do this tonight there is not a rush to do it tonight if we have more questions um so there's a reason to delay and I'm trying to get things the reason I vote it on tonight is that we have a whole lot in our future so if we push it off tonight then it just means we have to discuss it another night and it seems like we have Chris here and I'm not sure anything is going to change change between now and then and it does not opine on whether the CPC should do it or whether the select board should put it on the warrant so that's why I'd like to suggest and so that would be the motion I would suggest the planning board recommends the purchase of the CR the conservation restriction for the Long Hill dormany property presented um tonight um yes um Mary so I I'd like to suggest that we would hear from open space you said you spoke with open space V open space and Conservation Commission each voted unanimously to support the project okay um I know I know um I believe it was open space had gone in front of the select board about protecting land around our water supply and I'm just looking at this saying okay great I mean I think this protects probably mostly gler water supply actually very little of it that's in gloster's water supply but um but I'm just trying to you know as as the town weighs 250,000 you know where were putting the money for land when it was brought up to protect our water supply it was it it it didn't move anywhere and so I'm just wondering if this land is as important or more important it's just a question for us to consider I think that is a question for the select board and the C PC not necessarily for us I think it maybe it's maybe the motion is to to recommend a conservation restriction for the long haill dormity in the event that it moves forward with a recommendation for CPC funding yes go ahead you have sorry something 594 street so I'm just curious I'm trying to understand it so this is currently private property yes and that's up at the top of cber yes who is the owner that is sell Phil okay and then will this have an effect on curn road no okay but just maybe some parking off of so there's existing parking on curn road right and there's existing access to Trails and that's really that's what's that's the parking and access that will be there in the after condition as well right so you're not looking to expand the parking I mean if there's a a poorly designed three car parking lot that we might square off so you can fit a fourth car we would do that we're not putting a 20 car parking lot on top of the hill be just a if you there are there's two on the left hand side it's gravel like it's dirt and gravel spots yeah that's how all of our parking areas throughout our entire network of property are gravel some cases they pull offs in rare cases they're there's a pull in and a more informal lot in this case where there's it's a very quiet Road there's three or four parking spaces in two locations and a a very sizable parking lot at Dex Pond which directly connects in here I can't think of a reason to add additional parking um particularly because there's there are a lot of different ways to get in from a lot of different roads and different Trail heads in this one and this piece can be accessed from the existing Park absolutely yeah yeah okay would anybody like to venture a motion you want to take I'd like to see us try okay I hear a motion from Gordon yes as uh I stated to uh recommend the uh um uh that manest to hold a conservation restriction on the Normy Long Hill property if it is presented uh by the CPC to tell me excellent excellent okay do have a second floor y um any other discussion um I think we can take a v v l in favor raise your hands and I'm gonna abstain okay Chris is abstaining and um Sue Has abstained okay so we have uh five voting yes and he knows um great thank you thanks very much thanks Chris for coming out tonight appreciate it um share here okay um the next thing um is we received an email um letting us know that um Mill Street is a Sten Road um thank you for letting us know that I think that was helpful information um and um in your packet tonight or Mark I think boed um the uh chapter 40 section 15 C Scenic Road designations um which uh indicates that a Scenic Road any repair maintenance reconstruction or Paving work should not in involve or include cutting or removal of trees or tearing down or the destruction of stone walls or portion thereof except with prior consent of the planning board and so forth um and in uh 1985 there was an article on to being warrant that putote Mill Street and Forest Street um as Scenic roads under chapter 40 section uh 15 C so I checked with um Nate Nate still here he's gone um and uh Chuck who indicated that um the proposed work on Mill and for Forest would not be the tearing down of or destruction of stone walls or The Cutting or removal of trees so um that's what I've learned um and uh I know Mary you had some um thoughts or concerns about this is that answer the question or there well I I mean I have driven down well first I think we should um as a planning board I would recommend we adopt a Scenic Road bylaw knowing that we have these two streets and and maybe others will follow I other towns have their own separate Scenic Road bylaw um to add on to what the state States in their law um so I took a drive down Mill Street and Mill towards Forest there's a lot of just stumps left all of a sudden the trees cut off and the stumps are about this high and then there's other trees that have markings on them so I'm I'm curious as to who got them for what and why um if it's not For an upcoming water sewer and water piping com so I think um that that was part of uh tree cutting to avoid power outage because we're always you know I live on loading Place Road and I had to give permission to uh National Grid to cut trees on my properties because trees branches are always falling on wires and we're losing our power know orl floting Place Road and those trees went at the same time load Place Road trees I think it was part of that Pro yeah um my recollection is not precise but I do remember at a recent tree hearing sometime in the past year and a half we were presenting in that area which the W said were failing um and dous and the select board asking acting as the free authorities said yes sure if they're in The Wire and dead or dying be so um presumably those uh what Ann and Sue are saying is that that is not to do with the recent planned um um it looks I'm not sure if util utilities or so yeah I guess I I I'm not clear where the state law lands on that and um I think it for us to have a town Scenic Road bylaw um would benefit the reasoning for having a Scenic Road because if they're just cutting them and then you just have a bunch of stumps um doesn't add to the scenic Road visual um by any means um and then there's um there's pink I wouldn't say ribbons but pink markers on various trees I don't know what those are for but I think we can do better for our Scenic RADS is basically the bottom line okay thank you come in um when Tom Henderson our tree Warden wanders through an area and looks for trees that he considers dead or dying he will put a Liv on sometimes it's just a piece nailed in sometimes it's tied around depends on the size of I think those are trees that the tree Warden has serious concerns about I think there's tree hearing coming up in November I we should probably get a um determination as to whether or not the planning board has to weigh in on this it does say after a road's been designated a Scenic Road any repair maintenance reconstruction or Paving work done with respect there too she not involve so that's different than utilities or tree uh health I not that sounded to me as if it's repair of the road that's right that's my point that the the that the scenic statute says that it has to do with Road repair is what needs a hearing not utility um is not listed as a hearing criteria as requiring a hearing nor is uh removal of dead trees requiring a hearing by the planning board as I read this so um anyway okay and um we uh um any other discussion by the board yes Laura I think U mer suggestion Le for the parking lot of future zoning items SE by law as a good idea we I think we make reference at least the sight lines and Scenic Vistas and um when we get there you know vegetation management could be one of the right we could discuss and we are going to talk very briefly about future works I I do have one comment on this which is during recodification we did talk about Scenic roads yeah and my recollection of the discussion was every Road in Manchester is a Scenic Road or everyone's going to argue to have their road called the scenic Road and so we've decided that might be a little bit too complicated to put into recodification it's not to say that Mary's idea this is a good one no you have to well you have to get a Scenic Road designation voted at town meeting so I think during recodification we weren't even aware we had a scen at road yeah no that's right um so we know we have two Des designated ones I would imagine people could bring to town meeting you know for yeah each Street or you know wherever else but um I think um I think yes put it on a list but I think we say we put things on a list all the time and then nothing happens so I I do think we need a zoning bylaw list okay um um I know uh Liz you had raised that um thank you for bringing it to our attention Does this answer your question um it does I except I I kind of wanted clarification on the timing of it the reason why I thought it was all connected was all everything happened in February I had gotten a certified letter regarding um the sewer lines um coming in for Sal sming technology on give me a second I have a migrant has a little fuzzy um on February 14th um the letter was Stu was dated I got it on February 17th and was looking back on some text messages that I had sent a friend um for heads up detours she's constantly coming up and down so I was letting her know um when when the street was closed and open and all of that and it was around the same time I I had sent her a text on the 14th and the 15th saying that M Street was closed was with the trees uh the following week on the 21st I found that timing suspicious um that that which is why I was this all came up um and with other people bringing me the dogas with my dad name of stuff on it um and I and I also had it was I don't know how to pronounce the name the as blinda Tree Service they were the ones who were taking down the trees so I have a question are they the ones do they typically do the work for National Grid is or taking down trees yeah so that's who did the work on loading place for okay um that's who they hired do it by National Grade not town I think she's asking who hir yeah I only know on our road okay I'm just trying to get clar because it is a Scenic Road which is a state law I'm just trying to get clarification on who paid for what for those trees okay um and uh Gail that was Liz Thomas which is probably your question thank you but thanks no problem um Greg um welcome back yeah thank you um I just answer the question that ASP is not the contractor the town uses um so any work that they do is not pound um sponsored work that is typically grid work they're the ones who hire hire that firm okay great thank you um any other comments on that yes go ahead rolling Len 54 Forest Street so actually neighbor of lizes as well and I've lived on Forest Street actually my whole life um and I remember my parents went uh came before the town meeting on this whole issue of the um Scenic country me and that designation and I think the intent of the whole thing was to preserve the particularly the it's not just cutting down trees it's like the portion of for street that I'm on is there's stone walls on both sides of the road and where you live as well mean it's you know it's not only do you see the golf course but the the intent was to try to preserve the flow of the road through there so it wasn't about can we change the painting or does you know the the water M need to be done or the sewer or the whatever it literally was about the look and feel of the road what they were trying to avoid was this just going to kind of roll back the clock a long way but Southern Avenue used to be a road Lake Forest Street and M Street that meandered through the woods from Manchester into Essex and as we all know now it's like a highway and it was like a big straight road with one curve in it so what my parents in particular were trying to avoid is to have forestry end up being improved quote unquote to look like something like sou out that's helpful thank you and I do think the scenic bylaw is very clear that the stone walls are um something that is uh would need a hearing yes to uh I I'm not going to say it's protected but it's has the protection of at least a special a U review by the planning board in a public hearing so thank you thank you very okay um anything else on this topic um yes um Stephanie Rogers I just have a question about the um I know Sal signaling isn't here but I've been trying to reach um DPW no one is um calling me back but the the large pipes that are laid down the road are very much close to my rock wall like and so I might have six or seven feet from Forest Street and they're Abed right now up against the rock wall and that is I think my land and I'm curious I want an answer about where do you plan to weigh those because I don't want my rock while falling all the way down my property I want it to be next to the road yeah Greg can you I C I don't think the planning board can answer that okay but Greg if you have can help us out that'd be great yes again any any of the pipe insulation that is happening is is is occurring in the current underneath the current pavement so the pipes that are laid along the road are just temporarily lying there that's not where they're going okay they will be going into underneath the the pavement okay okay great thank you all right um we have a lot on our agenda tonight so I think we're gonna move on unless um hopefully that's helpful hello Sarah yes go ahead I have no idea who just spoke before Greg I know Greg but I have no idea who spoke your name again I did say my name Stephanie Rogers 59 Forest Street great thank you thanks scale thank you okay um the next um item is the update on the affordable update on the affordable homes Act and the a Adu bya um Mark can you just give us a quick update you did send us a um um item a packet from KP law um um and you can just kind of um give us very high level where that so um M from KP law as well as some other information basically says that the law isn't going to go into effect until February of next year if there's something in the law that conflicts with your local bylaw the law the state law prevails so if you have a requirement so one of the requirements of state law is that you cannot impose owner occupancy requirements so if you have a local bylaw that requires an owner to live in one of of the either the accessory unit or the main unit that would no longer be valid and state law prevails so you could not it's an unenforceable restriction in your bylaw there is nothing that's requiring you to make those changes it's just um that's that's the way it is and there's several other things related to parking related to um uh restricting short-term rentals uh the square footages and Etc uh so there's numerous things that we ought to I think moving forward but not right now because it's clear that the state law prevails so it's any any restriction that we might have are are just un that conflict with the state law the state law prevails but it is something that uh we ought to be reviewing probably um you know after the first of the year uh to to adjust what we have um in order to um comply with the law and make whatever other adjustments the board feels is necessary to propose for a springtime meeting so that that would be my recommendation um with some of the upcoming work that you need to do um I think it's uh way too rush to even begin to have discussions on um new or adjusted by law right now Sarah melish I see your hand raised I'll come to you in a minute um uh the um I I guess I would concur that we don't have time there's you know getting a byw together takes some discussion we have a lot on our plate takes a public hearing and then putting it on a warrant so I would concur personally that we should address it um but that before 2025 is reasonable um Sue I agree I mean especially if you have received a determination that you know State Law overrides whatever we have I mean eventually will make our law comply but you know right now it just sort of invalidates what we have are there restrictions that you can apply to um adus or basically not yes you there's an important one which is you can um not allow short-term rentals isn't it a a frequency over the course of a year though that's how you well it's very complicated yeah that's why it's going to be hard to right and also it seems like they're still trying to figure things out too for us there's still some open-ended question there are regulations so we can we can adopt regulations we just can't make the regulations um stricter than what the state law allows so uh but we can add other things and then again there's open-ended questions um that if you watch um the videos like you might have that were discussed what do in you know future court cases or amendments to the law will address some of those things but uh okay great is there um General consensus that that's the strategy we should pursue so I my thought is that we're not going to make it for this um fall town meeting probably I think this is um a very important thing that we should have done well before the next town meeting I would if if we have another town meeting that this should be on it um I think it leaves us not vulnerable but leaves it open um because it kind of negates our current Adu bylaw and along with the definitions that we have um and we can restrict um and have a site plan review um restrict setbacks restrict height restrict short-term rentals um I'm not sure maybe we can say it needs to be on a conforming lot this is just for single resident districts so it couldn't happen in the LCD it couldn't happen in District D or G or anywhere um so I would say I agree we we wouldn't be able to do it by November but if there's another town meeting before the spring that it should definitely be great thank you um Sarah melish yes yeah as chair of the zba I think this is a ticking Time Bomb any adus added um after February um would be allowed to have the short-term rentals unless and until we have a bylaw that prohibits it and we could not go retroactive we also have the tick ticking time bomb that it does not imply to all of our districts and I think that individuals will feel it does and I think they're going to come before the the zba for variances and you know I think something needs to be brought forth in November I'm sorry but I I think it's too late to wait till next year um what my okay clarify though it doesn't apply to all districts it's a single family it's a single residence District only so G District today yeah can have um units for employees of the owner but they have to live on site so now so they're not covered at all and they think they are you've got B you've got D that are multif family so there's a large portion of the town that the state law does not clearly cover and I guarantee you that residents in those districts are going to come forward and apply for them and are going to sue the town if they can't do it Greg that's my opinion okay thank you Sarah can I just get Greg's up to clarify that Greg go ahead so my comment would be that an alternative rather than zoning is that we do have currently albeit a fairly weak um short-term rental bylaw as a general bylaw and that that could be an approach to at least address the issue of what qualifies for short-term rentals and wear you could do it through the general bylaw as an alternative through zoning not sure what you mean okay so you're saying that the general bylaw would restrict this would would restrict short-term rentals regardless of whether they're in an Adu or other or it's un it might anyway correct for example glosser just went through a pretty radical um change to their um short-term rental requirements and it's it's worth a read I think it's instructive of an example of what could be done here as well who who short-term rental is it the city of Gloucester just okay just adopted a new ordinance by the city council that uh that may be instructive for us it's General Bas the select board can do that not us correct correct um so I would I I appreciate Sarah's urgency and I agree with her um and I also think the town needs to have in place it's not the planning Board responsibility but the Scaffolding in place for enforcement um I don't know what that is so that that come February 2nd or some documents they said February 3rd that people start doing these Adu bylaws what's the what's the enforcement I know we currently just fall back on residents snitching on other residents but I think we need a better basis now that we're introducing byright bills um and that would be in the select board jurisdiction not ours but um I would urgently suggest that they have that in place before February um but I would I agree with Sarah that we should do this for November if we can I guess um my opinion on I I better understand um the sense of urgency um I want to protect our we've been working for a year on MBTA and I want to make sure we don't get distracted from that and I think um if somebody has a specific proposal that they want to bring forward then and and and and to shepher it through the way you know then then I'd be open to that but I don't want to distract the rest the the core things of sell signaling and MV which we've already got on our plate and are committed to seeing through so um if somebody has a specific proposal that you want to us to um look at then given what I've heard tonight I I guess I would say we we could take a take a look at it at a next meeting but realistically to um because I've gone through the calendar just just plain old uh realistically um to um we are going to need to have a hearing for the MBTA zoning on October 28th which we needs means we really need a near final uh draft to post on October 2nd and so um the an Adu bylaw would essentially need the same timeline which would mean that um we would need a probably a sep an additional meeting of us to just even take it up to even have thought about it and we don't currently have a um we'll talk about meetings in a minute um but not withstanding the upcoming meetings list I don't actually think we have a meeting probably planned so I think logistically it's an unfortunate um risk and if it if we felt strongly enough that it was a risk then we could push for a February town meeting if that was we had other things but I think that's also kind of unlikely so I just don't see how we can get it done um unless somebody has a draft in their pocket right now unfortunately I don't have one you watch the video no I did watch a video but I didn't draft the bylaw but you're going to volunteer no I'm just so the timeline for the the MBTA final draft is we have to have it ready on we'll come to that in a minute okay okay um so the next um just go who Chris you gonna say something I think sorry Greg just just I mean hearing Sarah so vehemently implore the urgency around this I think should be noted I mean I yeah I do not yeah so Greg yeah just again um the the general bylaw approach may be a way to offload it from your plate but still accomplish the same goal um and can in addition to that we could certainly think about a j late January or early February special town meeting there's nothing that would that stops us from doing that if we feel the urgency is is there and requires it I'm sure that we got it form for Adu does the general byla provide us protection against uh the Adu at all um well I think the general bylaw Greg's referring to has to do with short-term rentals so it's not an accessory dwelling unit bylaw um that would be through zoning yeah Sarah so the General bylaw allows short-term rentals if it's under certain conditions very loose conditions with the select board under the Adu state law you have the opportunity to prohibit them 100% in adus that's a big difference and once once we pass the February date you can't retroactively prohibit the short-term rentals on an Adu that was created before our our bylaws changed so right perspective yeah if I may um believe we can confirm with with Town Council but the general short-term rental bylaw could prevent short-term rentals in ad years if it was modified correct okay well but you'd be modifying that would include our current and Adu bylaw as well so You' want to do it across the board okay uh Laura I think Greg's approach makes sense to get the short-term rental General bylaw um polished up because it's something we need to do anyhow and if that gets us out in front of the Adu which doesn't take effect till next year in any case then something we're going to need regardless and it can simply not allow it or whatever the select board thinks is the right approach but I think that is a reasonable and sensible approach and I I don't want to see us try to rush through language around the Adu that's sloppy I'd like to see the time devoted to get it where we think it ought to be so seems like a parallel track I think we have consensus on that um okay great thank thank you um the next um liaison task force updates um uh we'll do the keep MBTA the end um Harbor management Advisory Group did meet um it's going to be a General survey about Harbor um issues very similar to the general it's going to be a lot of open-ended questions around um haror very similar to um inperson uh event we had at the high school um that's going to be coming fairly soon I'm not sure exactly when but fairly soon um CPC CPC has a public hearing and a meeting on this Thursday at 5:30 pm on Zoom to um discuss next year's funding round and to discuss the green belt um proposal that we heard tonight okay anything from uh d downtown andov had a meeting on uh Wednesday it was going quite sarly so my friend Mark it was uh generally it's a discussion of all was happening with n was there and he talked about all the Public Works projects going on talk about the few initiatives that did P on their own and then Mark gave this a full analysis of the NBTA and everything then he went uh went rogue on us sit on the talk about a a I'll call it a master plan for like a better word of design of nearly everything everywhere in this in this actually was a General District wasn't it yeah so so what what I what I had proposed but it cost a lot of com so what I proposed which again would eventually come through the planning board at least portions of IT board is um what what I'd like to do is apply for a grant next spring uh when through the um the One-Stop program to do a master plan for the General District because our General District includes more than just like our downtown core it kind of spreads out all the way up to the boatyards includes residential there residential at the other end and goes up some of the side streets so um so I think uh if we did a mass plan for the entire General District we would then kind of as coming out of the master plan come out with several products one product would be is zoning changes um so do we create a residential district do we just have a core commercial District mixed use district for the kind of the center of town and fold in some of the other uh residential areas into some of the districts um how how do we address um you know design review do we want to fold in some design review into site plan for the review for downtown projects um those types of things another work product would be um having to do with the streetcape for let's say a core area but downtown let's say from Pine Street uh all the way to Beach and then beginning up Summer Street to where where the cemeteries are some core area and so that we kind of look at what worked for the first project that they did and um what what isn't so nice about it and how do we make some adjustments to that as well as then extend the streetscape uh design all the way through let's say from there all the way up to Pine Street um and then with that you'll be able to subsequently apply for for Grants from the state actually for construction because now you have planning document behind you design work behind you and and and so that just enhances your opportunity to uh to receive grants for the Reconstruction and given the kind of the longterm projects with the culbert right here on Central Street how that's not even going to begin until the fall of next year we have a lot of flexibility as far as TimeWise to be able to um to do the planning and then do the grants for the other areas outside of that core area so and there's other benefits to doing that you know you look at um what kind of zoning changes can we do to enhance the the the commercial character businesses you know I mean some of these things have been looked at before um with other groups but it's never been really looked at as a comprehensive package so I think that that's really something that would be useful so so that generated like you said a little bit of discussion the re reason why there is dips is is is comprised of a bunch of tiny little initiatives like like the wayf finding initiative that's going on throughout the town and they talked about Street benches being place in here and we've talked about sidewalk redesign and new Curbing and new lighting and all that stuff around here this this right here would basically grab right around the whole thing and review it personally I think it's I like the idea if in fact it's able to be enacted I've done a zilan master plans throughout the whole my whole career more often than not they start off with a great FY and then they fade disappear even even for our commercial clients our corporate clients as well here but this this one had a tra the idea of putting a look to the downtown not mandating every house is white caved with wind shutters and six over six pains but n none of that stuff but do put some kind of design criteria instead and look and feel for it that's actually also you know gets to the historic demolition delay conversation you can bring in historic and the dip work and The Pedestrian work and so the idea would be to create a task force which would be representatives of just like the MBTA one of planning board Zone board select board so that you get a a true crosssection of of your community and of the volunteers in the town and sit on these boards so that you know you can kind of get a comprehensive package and no one interest group kind of dictating what happens okay but not before November 18th sorry all right uh affordable housing trust and you've been a w but um any updates uh we have a meeting tomorrow night so next meeting I can give you an update okay um before I get to MBTA have course any other leaon reports okay NBTA task force so there was a public forum on Saturday morning which I was not but still did but I hear it went very well um let's see it was great so Peter was there uh the entire select board was there um Sue did a great presentation thank you the task force was there um the public showing was weak but we like 30 40 like less than 10 thought they were all people no there were more than five who had not shown up before either to a forum or listening in to what was totally different from the usual crowd so that was great and some young residents um who were really interested and they had come with questions that they'd written down and um very engaged and had a lot of great suggestions on additional Outreach and communication ideas um so it was well worth it um I also uh spoke at the Manchester Women's Club um on W Tuesday Tuesday um and an har was there um Sarah melish and Sandy um but I did the presentation similar to the forum's presentation they were very engaged there about 50 women there um lots of questions um you know I'd say half the group had some knowledge of MBTA zoning the other half they were ignoring it um so they were very appreciative of you know having a presentation um set before them and a lot a lot of Engagement you know terrific questions and um again the more of that kind of thing we can do not just with MBT a zoning but with future zoning change initiatives I think putting in that time to have informal discussions with people um like where they are at their meetings and committees just I found that to be really helpful um so we have a virtual public forum on Thursday night at 7 pm um we're going to have a few people meet here obviously you're all welcome um Sarah's going to give a short presentation this time but all of the uh hopefully the bulk of the time will be people with questions and comments and I mean that's the whole purpose of it is engagement from the public um but you have to do a little bit of a presentation for people who again the folks who have no idea what any of this is about um so that is meant to be virtual of course people can come here but it's really meant to accommodate people who just can't show up to our meetings and things so we've also gotten the uh economic feasibility analysis of affordability with which shows that we can require 20% of units be affordable so that's good we also got can we just stop on that make and see there's discussion my my question is so what uh will that um how does that how does that what do that look like and and did we um so it means if there's five units one of them would be affordable if there are 10 there are two Etc right and um at least one at least two Y and um is it a matter of Simply changing 10% to 20% in our draft or is there some other uh the draft we submitted was 20% oh we sent it in with 20% okay great so um so anything under five units would would not have an affordability requirement but um but we have potential to make up some progress towards our town goals which was discussed on Saturday people had very good questions about that could I did um has the task force done um an analysis of how many affordable housing units are likely to be built so in the downtown area there's limits on housing so we're probably not going to get any to much there if because I think we have Max at in some areas at four units five units so is it just the LCD that will generate housing no there are actually so for example uh Newport Park and powderhouse there are quite a few units set aside there so there could be up to 20 in those two areas so so how would you get 20 new there so how would you get so if there are 100 units alog together allowed in that District on those properties at Newport at Newport and pous that's not the real number no I'm just being I'm just giving examples but no but I'm I'm just trying to so I mean because I think that's a big concern is the affordable housing pce so if we're able to say realistically we could see you know 20 units generated or we could see 100 units of affordable generated like I I think we need a solid number I think this is the whole problem with this NBTA zoning which is it's not a building plan we don't know how many units are going to be created no I understand that but I think just even understanding with our current restraints what could even possibly what's the maximum potential so how many Lots currently can I just rephrase just because how the question I think you're asking is how many of the lots have o how many of the parcels Parcels so how many Parcels would allow more than five units and and then of those so if it if allow if it allowed eight you'd get one affordable if it allowed 10 you'd get two so if we could do that math it's sort of a a upside um if that's so I think it I think it's perfect that could be possible to do because the the model does give us how many units could be constructed on each of the parcels given the zoning parameters didn't they do that in their report to determine no they did something they had some sort of un development depending on percent yeah they had a perform but it was not I'm not sure I think could you just plug it into that model that you guys have been working on I don't I don't know I don't think the model is something you plug into but if there is a list of how many potential units could be maxed on every parcel and you can create kind of an if then statement if it's between five and nine you get one unit if it's under five you get zero if you get if it's 10 to 14 you get two I mean you can kind of and I think so I'm just gonna say so when you say that you know we have a if the Delta is 338 how many realistically affordable units would be generated that are we going to be ahead of the game status quo or behind the game if it full buildup right so are we truly increasing our percentage up to 10% or is it um how many units yeah then we don't know what will act to Chris's point you don't actually you don't know what's actually G to happen no no but what's the possibility of affordable well I think if if we I guess if you presented it carefully what I would not like to do is to give people the idea that we're going to be generating 120 affordable units when we're not no but you just like everything else you preface saying this isn't a you know a requirement to build but if it's built we'll get one unit or two units whatever it is um because you know there are a lot of people under the misconception that this is affordable housing and no that's true not so if we could at least chip away at our affordable housing Shi numbers well and the other the other thing about pous and Newport is those are both existing affordable housing complexes so so those aren't counting yeah I mean this is just added but additional units that could be created there would be more likely to be affordable than not it's not to say they have to be but they it's likely that the funding Sue has a comment I am really uncomfortable with the whole discussion this is not an affordable housing law that we're having to comply with and leading people with any idea that that's part of it I mean we're trying to take advantage of that piece of it but I think going down this road of saying oh you know this many are possible and so that means this parcel is this and so they're going to do this I mean we have no idea whether someone is going to even develop a parcel number one number two it might be luxury condos you know it just um I I'm really uncomfortable going down that road um I we can answer the questions with the facts as we've done but to try and draw a conclusion that this is a way to help us towards the number I think that's a dangerous conclusion I think just the flip side of that a little bit is that the Baseline default with single family without an affordable excuse me without a multif family component is zero affordable units so there is potential to build some affordable units whether it gets you you know the overall number of units is also increasing so but so is it if you just build single family housing right so there isn't a there isn't a status quo where nothing new gets built no new housing of any type but it might be recognizing that we're not this is not an affordable housing law but it might just be interesting to illustrate that there is the potential to do capital A affordable housing and also housing of um that meets different income and family um Family sizes from family we are maximizing amount that the state is allow does allow so I think there's a real benefit that's worth emphasizing that yeah we've done the most we can and s why it's not important so sue I thought something else that was interesting to me at that meeting was Tiffany our Communications person I thought had a really nice plan for what she intends to do she's been working for the past year and a half yeah and it sounds like it's really comprehensive and very well thought out videos landing page everything we're working on it that's great you want is welcome to so that uh young gentleman who was there on Saturday Justin Justin he would I'm sure he would be very willing to help if you want them I'll I'll I'll yeah there's issues with accepting free help from people um so just just think about all so can we move on to the propensity for development study where is that so it's been done I I'm not thrilled with it but it does conclude that of the 342 potential new units that could be done within the districts probably less than 150 will likely be developed based on a financial model that compares the value of the existing property versus the value and the cost of developing it into the maximum what period of time would that be a problem it doesn't say No period of time no period well we know we know it's going to happen over years but it does they don't say that so it's my understanding that you're working with them to clean up some typos and some um graphs that don't have labels and ask that question as well as a couple of other questions that seem to be omissions is that correct so before we kind of put it out there the time being a big one yeah time being can the Plan board members see it EXC me can the planning board members have the report I think it's a draft right now let's get the let's get let the task force the chair of the task force and Mark get the corrections made there's no sense sending out something to the public that's got obvious errors ask a question in your in all your public forums what has been the on the negative side why shouldn't we do this what's no no one says that no one says that no nobody for it absolutely looking at you um there are lots of reasons I would say people run the gamut the whole way I mean you've got people on this end who want to have housing through the entire town and have all these clusters of multi family housing everywhere in every neighborhood and why haven't we done that yet that's one end and the other end is put a piece of bubble wrap over our town and do not change one thing not one thing in any issue you know whether you're talking about a road sign or the name of a road or or heaven forbid you know someone tears down their home and build something they don't like I mean you've just got one end to the other on the Spectrum most people are in the middle um and people who you know take the time to really understand the facts of it um say they don't like it they don't like that the state wrote this law that the planning board didn't write it that the select board didn't write it you know that we're having to comply with a law that we don't love most people once they get over that they think we are plan is good you know they like our plan they like what we thought about and coming up with the plan um and are I say either enthusiastically supportive or Rel support what about design standards has that been understood yet do you think no I mean and we need to do a better job of explaining it I myself don't do a good job of explaining it um but uh I think people are interested in that um when they think of design standards they think immediately like n tuck it you know and they don't want that um so okay we need to figure out how to convey that um okay um we do have two specific things I want to talk about tonight can I ask more on the NBTA have we heard back from the state on the bylaw today was the deadline um so yeah I think it's tomorrow the next day counted it up but I'm hoping that by the end of the week I would have heard from the state and be able to make some adjustments schedule a joint meeting with the task force and the planning board so that we can review it once we review it and the planning board votes to submit it I can post a public hearing because I have to file that version with the clerk so that's kind of the steps so hopefully that can happen rather quickly so that we can so we may have to try and have a meeting as soon as as soon as possible but the answer is no you have not heard and then my second question is Thursday night a joint planning board task force meeting you said that you were presenting and I know you're not on the task force so well we're it's still the thought was that that we have CL word person presents so sort of a I think the Communications Group will meet Thursday morning and finalize the actual um present present sequence so so it's not a Jo it can be we should probably post it as a joint meeting the only problem then is do we need a quorum of each to go forward with the public forum no where is where is it's public forum we do not really have to post it for a planning board meeting if people show up we're not making any we're not making any decisions we're not reviewing the bylaw you presenting just as we did Saturday the task force is presenting it to the public any of the Selectmen were there they didn't posted as a select board meeting because they're not presenting they're just okay so let's post it as a forum not as a joint okay butly people are encouraged to come um and we'll be here it will be here virtual yeah okay good so can I I'm just trying to clarify is this still in the task force hands or is it back in the planning well putting on this forum is the Task Force our sub our communication subcommittee so the communication subcommittee is doing a hearing Forum sorry public forum um okay not okay you don't want us to do one no I'm just saying I'm just trying to figure out the timeline so again when does it come then to the planning board as I'm still okay so let me get I'm about to talk about the um on the I will we will talk about the calendar in a minute about the meetings that we have to have to do to get this thing to November 18th so um before we do that there's one other thing I want to talk about because it's part of the whole and that is we asked um there were three issues identified by Emily um that um should be addressed um as part of the package going to um the voters um so in your packet you saw advice from Jonathan Murray about those three items and they were the preamble to the zoning about the Quantum of vote um modifications to the definition iions and then modifications to the marijuana um uh restrictions in the um LCD and he uh drafted some um draft bylaw language but then I asked him we also advised that the Preamble would need 2/3 and was not essential for um the MBTA zoning and that the marijuana was not essential to the NBTA zoning although it might be politically important um but would need a 2third of vote and the third one definitions he was uh said could be separate but then subsequently I asked him if those definitions were referenced in the bylaw could we have the article one article that added a new section and modified the definition and I believe he said yes so let's take the last one first I would strongly suggest that we include the modifications to definitions in the article with the mvta we have one article that has all of the things and then have a 50% vote and thus it will be part of the hearing when we do that does that make sense that does make sense yes okay the second suggestion is that table and put it on our future many things of zoning that are not quite accurate with state law but don't jeopardize MBTA and that's the Preamble so that's the and then the third one if that makes sense to people just because we want to reduce it's a preamble of it's a kind of a procedural thing it seems like be very easy to do at the annual meeting it's just making our Preamble comply with state law and I think we could come up with a whole bunch of things that that do that so that seems to me we table that one and then the third one is the marijuana one and the reason this is important is we this is definitely a separate article and it needs to have a hearing and if it is going to be on the November 18th um town meeting so um so can you summarize I can pull it up but summarize the issue or mark on marijuana best you I think the problem is is that the current bylaw says right no marijuana within 500 feet of a residence or something and now we're re we're creating a residential potentially residential in the LCT in the LCD this was before I joined the planning board but the LCD is the only place realistically that's correct can be yeah does does the bylaw does the bylaw say residence or residentially zone property it says residence then clearly no building's going to residential construction is going to occur before Springtime so I think you know you can put that off until the spring to give was plenty of time to discuss how to adjust it I guess the question is does it oh section oh yeah I guess I to me it just I I don't even know why it's necessary I mean if we're saying an overlay district is a residential district why do we have to be redundant and call out Beaver Dam Road because our current bylaw says no Mar I think no marijuana business shall be located within 300 feet of a residential zoning District so an overlay an MBTA overlay is a residential zoning District yeah and to your point there are lots of other places in the LCD that are not with in the right that are more than 300 feet away so it's not precluding the possibility no so it's just it's you know we could be in the Mac or something okay you are correct no marijuana business shall be located within 300 feet of a residential zoning District or within 500 feet of any lot containing a school Child Care Facility or playground be the back what was the um thinking behind amending it that it had come up in the um must I know it had been brought up in public comment I think it was a potential potential conf potential conflict okay so um for the I would like to ask um pulling up the document um nowhere um no rare He suggests no marijuana business shall be located within 300 feet of a residential zoning District including beer Dam subdistrict of the community housing overlay District redundant Sarah did our current Bap say 300 fet for residential and school Child Care Facility it says uh within 300 ft or within 500 ft of any lot containing a school Child Care Facility or playground yes okay okay so we're I think we're are we all in agreement that we would table this as well I just don't think we need it I don't think we need it okay why don't I Circle back with him and um clarify that the overlay district is residential the other thing asked which I think is um not at all concerning is that were we limiting um marijuana Al together in town therefore and the answer to that is absolutely no because there are other areas in the LCD that are well within and then there other there's the Gordon parcel is all LCD so is the marijuana the whole LCD or just the right or left of school just that but I'm not marijuana businesses may be allowed by special permit in a limited commercial District such require of the zoning this zoning bylaw the requirements of the Board of Health and state laws okay so that's good we can take those off of our um plate all three of those um so that does uh help our just a little bit our schedule so um did the definitions I asked uh the definition I think came from Emily yes um and then I asked Jonathan just to put them in a article so I just have some questions or some why don't we save those till we are actually finalizing the zoning actually if you could email them to me yeah that would be helpful so yeah everybody can look okay um so now we come to our schedule point and sort of um we have upcoming meetings here um the 15th is actually our next meeting because we have five because the way the calendar Falls um October CST I no October 1 is a Tuesday that's my problem um October 1st is a Tuesday and so the first Monday is October 7th and then October 14th is a Monday holiday so our next regular schedule meeting is October 15th and we really need to trying to try to have some time with CST on that meeting um assuming that the hlc gets back to us this week then we need to uh what I propose is actually kind of a working session the task force members and anybody who wants to come to kind of work through the propos osed changes you know kind of the you know hlc suggests this or requires this you know somebody's given us input on this tweaking hopefully they will be tweaks had a working session depending on when this stuff comes back from those mostly task force probably but anybody wants to come because we don't want to be we want to include everybody at this point Monday the 30th or Thursday October 3rd I can I can I think Thursday October 3rd what Thursday October 3rd I won't be available but that's okay I mean I can give someone my thoughts I think also um it sort of depends when hlc comes back to us yeah I'm just assuming that's Russia sh if that makes any difference which is I guess the second there was yeah um so this is a little T these are tentative right now now um people make Monday the 30th Monday the 30th if we have something from and I'd have to to post to recommend edits right yeah and get it package for you Friday right I put it up on the screen here so you can see it my this is proposed I think everything is subject to when we get stuff back um the issue is that I guess the reason to do it on the 30th the big reason is that on October 2nd we need to post for the October 28th hearing and we have to have what we going to be we need have a final packet the vote plan M has to vote to hold a hearing on particular document because that has to get filed you can make changes after the hearing at the hearing however that document needs to get filed with the clerk the one that's being advertised so that's why having the board kind of give a final blessing of that amended document however it gets amended um so that when you do the hearing it's minor adjustment so you need a formal meeting of the planning board before October right what about Tuesday October 1st I mean that's one edition I can't do that but people could do it I me it's fine um I think you're G to have to be I think right now we're going have to be a little bit flexible and see where we are on Wednesday and see I know that all these meetings may not be convenient for people we're kind of up against it with the because um and because our Cricut deadline is three is essentially three weeks even though the posting is effectively two weeks you have to get it in would it be at night on the [Music] 3 I think it could CU I I could do that I could come back ear so um you're gonna I think we're gonna this this one is going to have to be TBD okay um and then um Gale posting is going to have to happen on October 1st um October 15th is the planning board meeting for sell signaling um and then October 28th and I know some people are away various meetings here um um for the public hearing and the warrant closes the following Monday so if we want to make changes per resident input from the hearing we have to do it that night we would have to meet that week meet that week or or do it that night or do it Monday the 4th before the select board meeting why aren't we having a hearing um sooner because we don't have the he we don't have the material back from hlc to look at my look up on the screen no I'm looking at it oh oh right um uh you are looking on the screen um so we won't have the material back from hlc have to meet have to get the material back from hlc on Wednesday meet on Thursday this week which means we need to post it tomorrow morning so I guess it kind of gets back to my point from last meeting is that if we we don't get this back in a timely manner from eohc jamming it through may not be to our best interest um you know it's worth a try but I think you know this is exactly what we talk about prior saying we might just not have time and it's looking if we don't get it within the next day or two which the deadline was if they don't meet their deadline we just don't have time well we'll take that up certainly as as as the Let's cross that bridge and we get to it so we can hold meeting not a hearing hold a meeting once we get comments back from the State and put to place that article on the warrant and subsequently let's say the first week or two of November hold the public hearing um that's true and you know if there are some sort of changes you could amend it on the floor which you don't really want to do but I think once we if we have the back from the state and everybody and we riew them and we vote to send it to place it on the warrant I don't think we're going to really be making changes based on the public hearing you know um so sometimes you get you know people read these things carefully and we want to give the um opportunity for people to read carefully and to make you know important or minor important you know changes so let's see and also just to be heard yeah absolutely so this is um the best we can do for planning right now I think um Mark does make a point and I think Mary makes a good point as well that certainly the the what Mark is suggesting is less than ideal it does meet the it does meet the legal um requirements but we'd like to and we have had many opportunities for people to have input but um I think we would like to do better than that Mark have you heard anything from Emily or any of your colleagues in the industry about uh other towns receiving their submissions back so a batch of the comments were supposed to be coming out last week and this week so it seems that many communities kind of submitted around the same time we did kind of the middle to the end of June last year so um that's all I've heard nothing directly from the O Okay anything else on M BTA task force I would just um Peter actually notified me Saturday he had seen that the court hearing from Milton is on October 7 and I was looking at the information on the Court's we it and you can actually watch it virtually if anybody wants to do that it's at 9:00 a.m. on Sund w wow that interesting um okay you want to hear something interesting yeah yeah I hear through the gra find the town of wenom might be postponing their special time meeting that's coming up to vote on this interesting um oh the other um thing on dates not a meeting but since we're talking about dates um I believe that there is a memorial for Ron um currently uh I believe scheduled for Friday October why does it say October 28 um the week the Friday before October um October 25th at 2m I will when I get um specific information I will let you know I believe it's region but um uh the 25th to it's my standing and there is also um a move to uh identify a place for a um longevity bench in his honor um okay the last thing before we do minutes um is a number of you and and over time we have um in almost every meeting we identify things that we should do in the future and so I started um list um and I'm going to put it in the meeting um folder um under future meetings so right now um this is what it looks like and I guess I'm going to ask I'll put some sort of instructions here for people to feel free to put things in it and initial them so as you have ideas um and know you can kind of um when we get through this November 28th um meeting um we can take some time to say which of these things are our priorities so you know Adu flood plane bylaw has come up for the Springtown meeting future um and they could also be Springtime meeting if just not today future means Beyond Today senior housing master plan review downtown comprehensive PL Scenic Road bylaw I added that tonight um and things with the select board um that come up so I thought it would be useful to in our meetings folder to have this as a future meetings document um that's just there and people can add to it and then we can refer to it so hopefully that helps us to not lose too much track of things that we talk about we can keep it open in in meetings add to it Gail maybe as you hear us say things you should also feel free to put things in there Greg to any any body you know things that we should tackle it doesn't mean we will but at least we um can keep a list of things that we would like to uh to see us do so hopefully that's going to be helpful um any uh public I'll unshare um any public comment okay um hearing none um approval of minutes of July 22nd um people had a chance hopefully to look at those I vot to approve them both of them why don't you take one at a time July 22nd because not everybody um yeah can everybody vote on July 22nd I'll clear that up I'm not sure I'll make sure that no one votes if they weren't there well they not present was Peter Morton so Peter cannot so I will take them separately Sue has moved um to approve the minutes of July 22nd do I have a second I can I amend that one you may SEC second it first oh second it okay okay then just suggest amendments please so the amendment is I think this is one that mentions that Mark glowski has been a resident in town for 40 years in fact he's never been a resident of Manchester as far as I know and it was the woman from overseas who that was August 12 was August 12th I'm sorry I'll motion moved okay so any other discussion on the 22nd all right hearing that all in favor except for Peter is abstaining I'm abstaining I didn't okay and Mary is abstaining any um votes no okay thank you uh two extensions and uh five yeses okay the um minute of um 812 is that right so Chris I think Gail recorded that correctly even if that woman made a misstatement so I think technically well I the minut I think the say that Mark glowski has been a resident of the CL for 40 years but did she attribute that statement to the woman who called from Switzerland I because he the the Chris is correct Mark glovesy skst lawyer stated he had lived in town for 40 years and I I think it was he was a resident 40 years ago no that was the woman from overseas no I think that was Mark ly's statement too because I wrote it down and listened to it I don't think Mark has he claimed he claimed to have lived here 40 years ago I think that I think not essential element say that again it's not essential element of the minut okay we can strike it um in either case um and um this one um everyone can vote um do I have a motion to approve the minutes of August 12th with the Striking how long Mark glovsky did or didn't live minut uh second Peter Morton second any other discussion um all in favor post abstain okay Mary is abstaining thank you um any other business tonight I just had a quick question we had in our folder last meeting a a memo from Weston and Samson um regarding initial construction observation Services we never discussed that are we going to discuss that at the next hearing uh at the last meeting we also from uh Public Works say that they were um I don't want to discuss too much about C but there was a memo I think I forwarded to our board uh where they said that Chuck and Nate said that they were they felt that that would be sufficient ient that CST submitting the reports from the engineers that they would um also du to some inpection particularly on water so I think we can't really discuss that right now but can I ask Gordon as the construction professional to look at those two correspondents and I did out them to my well okay so give us my opinion okay um yeah so can you Circle back I put it on a list great thank you Mary for raising it allur are you set procedural thing um if there are changes from documents especially significant documents like ERS of condition between end day Friday whatever that means and Monday um if we could just get print outs on Monday of anything substantively changed at the meeting that would be helpful because um for sure I'm not going to be able to routinely check things on Monday and the mountain I think I think I put in the um the draft documents that were a little different than the ones from the previous meeting like Friday after sometimes late breaking things come have to come on a Monday but you know we have a print out here then the other thing I just haven't read often some of us have a print out if we just have the code we can make the comop copies it's great suggestion thank you all right um I'll take a motion to journ second all in favor thank you Sarah all right thank everybody so Sarah why didn't CSP come today