##VIDEO ID:PiWooe9iE5U## we will open the planning board meeting for Tuesday September 10th 2024 this being conducted in a hybrid manner pursuant to the general laws um we are recording and will be posting it online if anybody is recording that is fine you just need to let us know is anyone in this extensive audience here reporting okay uh we can address people by name since there's only two people here um all right so um 7 o'clock Town planners report thank you very much Mr chair just a few things to update the board uh let's see have you sending out to board members an updated uh I'm G to call it sistern policy um that Chief St team have developed um there's some language in there that if you will make sure that the requirement applies not only to residential and Commercial subdivisions but also uh private development if it's in a location that is not um adequately served by public um aside from that my review really uh is boiling down to making sure that we have I call it appropriate safeguards in place that we're not just looking for know input from Department in Commons but also that we have a defensible position on such a private development but maybe he's only going through site plan review um in a location that doesn't have aate public water um just making sure that we have the right triggers that everybody understands that adequate prf must be Prov with such projects um as direct as that policy is that's just more of I guess a zoning review I have mind but I'll be happy to share it um with team and you're welcome to give me any feedback that you have um let's see last week I met with Chief Rob Le and Sam nor Samuel Morton excuse me um the gentleman who represented the interest of the saom mountain Campground before the planning board uh I think several times really over the past year or so the last time that Sam and Rob were for us they talked about the need for renovation and reconstruction of some of the existing infrastructure just to service the the campground as it sits today um that was prior to May's annual town meeting uh in the changes to the non-conforming uses structures and lots by law so at this time there's an opportunity for them to to approach the board for that change but I I keep in mind the meeting was chenz was more focused uh upon um Public Safety needs for the full buildout scenario looking at really the big picture where there are there's a sizable number of units proposed that really a a distant and significantly upgradient location um that requires what was supposed two points of the access so the big change on the sketch that we were seeing was that they had added this schematic access from the ctown location that's through Grand a lot of discussion had to do with what the response would look like you know between communities um given an incident at the furest locations from South Street um my my only comment I think of sans coming out of that meeting was a certain awareness um to the special permit finding for a theoretical expansion to pre-existing nonconforming use um within this whole idea I think there's a we call it the the sensitivity Jo change and uh the applicant uh and his team think they'll have to do some work if they choose to move forward um the suggestion was to do it in one fell swop um but in doing so I recognize that there's a substantial addition to the the campground capacity in intensification of usage out there just recognizing there may be uh some discussion to be had over that point so the suggestion I I throughout there was maybe consider Le phasing so what they need to accomplished this year they can manage um and then be able to manage the larger development discussion separate from those Med improvments you talked to the people on Grand side all be has there been contact with the land owner and so on and so forth it seemed that that was the case that if you that was the because I think it was made clear through Chief prior feedback that without some secondary access um in just as durable a fashion was they' be constructing to get up that location it was a non-starter so it seems like they've Advanced that discussion they have uh at least a contemplated solution for it St Phil yes for sure uh okay I received message through the building department about inquiry they got about the 5% Circle um that's a I think it's currently classified as a Woodworking Shop uh it lies just outside of the business restricted District the structure itself um the question was from a prospective buyer what's it going to take to get that to an auto mobile body repair shop uh there's a our bylaws don't break down I want to call public garages into such a degree to divide between mechanical work and auto body work except for when you get into our Wellhead production District this lies outside of it so that matter not we're understanding the you get there through the same uh path about existing non-conforming uses and trying to seek that special permit uh my advice was that there's a certain intensification going from a woodworking shop to a automobile body shop what I shared was that the option was there to ask the question but I I did not advis it would be I didn't have confidence in success there would also be unless there the opportunity for that pre-existing non-conforming let just say that the planning board determine oh this is not a more intense otherwise I thought there was more to it on that I'll go back I thought there was more and and to be fair it's it gets even more problematic within the building stations and public garages um section of our zoning bylaw it talks about certain separation distances uh it but the language it uses is to a residential Zone uh within 500 ft measure along the property Frontage and that PR cace all the so that particular segment of the just a little side there I guess does nothing to nonetheless you were there amongst the GU a couple different paths that try to impit that as that dubious is the may seem my advice was would your food F out um aside from that uh I will share that we continue to grind through U rather exhaustive presser information related to the uh special permit Den for 77 College Highway and uh Samantha brunon continues to do great work in assembling minutes at this point in time what she's doing is she's grabbing the meetings that are happening now is part of the discussion um he's able to more easily translate that and then the off week grabing [Music] minutes so the bur's on my shoulders now to find a little space do my review pump it out to you uh the board I you talk to someone over about given the fact that all this is online you actually have to I feel like that's a that's the executive mindset you know that uh down here at the worker B level I I wouldn't come do I really have to do this it's a great question but I mean it's it's I don't I to be fair I don't know um that level of detail about the um you know freedom information or state information stuff um because that's what it is right are we making reference to that request State Freedom of Information not within the lawsuit that's correct and I I don't know if you have the opportunity like in lawsuits we can off would say equally accessible to you as it is to me so you can go and get it we don't have to go it it's a public document right it's available online or whatever so I don't know if that similar idea applies when we have chosen to put everything online for a period of time for those minutes that we can just say for the minutes go watch the video as well but I mean I I just don't know if that you may want to just run that by Mar and see if unless you're already 90% of the way and it's like my might as well just you we substantially a great piece of information I'm gonna ask regardless yeah and it may not it may not it it may just you have to treat those like information you know you you have to do it um I don't know the answer to okay thank you that's all I have to say about that okay um 705 public comment anybody have anything tonight um for the board that is not on the agenda okay um 710 continued public hearing 662a Howard Highway okay so we have a request for um is that where it falls into yeah all right so um and with the at least representation that they are doing some stuff and hopefully we'll have something new for us so we will give that a shot for right now so we closer so do I hear a motion to continue 662a College Highway public hearing to 710m on October 8 Dave second vote I I just the V and I okay 7:15 p.m. hearing 250 College Highway public we still haven't received AG feedback on the um okay CH all right so we have a request from the uh on behalf of the applicant um from our Associates to continue uh the next meeting so September 24th um why don't we just put it on at 7:10 p.m. I hear a motion than move second roll call vote mity I I I just th and I all right um any reason why we can't jump to Joe wall since he's here or do we need to no it's uh it's it's have that discussion okay um all right so well I can let you explain it J but my understanding I'm talking to you is that the request is to um eliminate the residential part of the uh application that's uh that's correct um so this is Dr W's project over on College Highway 0772 774 numeric of the parcels uh construction has begun in the form of Earthworks he recently renewed his conservation um notice of intent excuse me order of conditions um to allow work to proceed within their within conservation jurisdiction um and we're going through the building permit review process in the process of s architecturals um was observed that the I think was tend to be we call second floor residential units were no longer part of the birer um on the surface that plays a little bit around with u parking calculations uh the original calculations were based off of retail space and a professional office space um the building will be a salon and um Den Studios so my course uh quick analysis comes out maybe the parking calculations go from I think 82 proposed rather required and 84 proposed and I I come out around 86 if you will in total I think that's a break it type of issue but the reason why uh Dr WS is here this evening uh is because I'm at least want to engage the board as to whether or not the change of use uh to remove the residential component from this project uh constitutes a minor Amendment or if this is something that should be considered at public hearing not having a good thumb on the pulse of how much how much that weighed into the original application I mean just speaking for myself and not anybody else um I mean I would say under a lot of circumstances if a project became smaller didn't wouldn't really have an issue with that and just would keep dealt with on a on a um final site plan but um the issue for me on this one is that in my mind the mixed use which is sort of something I think I at least want to encourage was in my mind a tradeoff for I think there's like some warehousing or storage or something in the back and so that to me was sort of like okay you get some mixed use which is should be encourag and you get some housing there the tradeoff as you can have this stuff in the back so that that was my thinking so my inclination not to treat it as a minor change in this particular case yeah iic plan like mixed use is a desirable thing into the town we kind of encourage and yeah just it's worth I a broader discussion yeah I mean I it's not I don't doesn't mean that maybe there's a change to be made then then you know things get smaller Bly but to me one was a trade-off for the other in my mind so um um it doesn't mean that you have to have mixed use there but you know you don't necessarily have the same project that so that's fine information um is there anything else you need to add to it no I um yeah Dr Wallace was there any I mean any questions that you have I mean and you're on mute just so you know um but um that was that's where I my head's at if you have any questions about it or or wanted to add anything I guess if you felt like there was a compromise does that mean there will be some concern regarding new application in a consistent project to what was proposed minus the residential is that g to throw that into a more difficult place if you felt the residential was um important in order for the rear steel buildings yeah I mean I think it's a large project especially for where it is and I think that the mixed use was a decent care it to get that done right so if you didn't want to have the residential I think we'd have to have discussions about you know the size of the project and the warehousing or things like that I mean I think that's the trade-off I don't I don't know enough about where your heads at with one or the other right as far as as far as um how much you want to get rid of that residential and what you know um versus having that warehousing and and what where there's no compromise potential but another question um would it be possible because I want to say on College Highway there was a couple other buildings proposed at that time that was want to say like maybe phase two um that I thought was approved during that meeting as well would there be opportunity to have perhaps a mixed use requirement in one of those buildings instead of the current setup that I'm moving forward with in kind of phase 1 a 1B being that front building area along with the two steals we could shift the residential component requirement to those buildings or one of them I mean that sounds like something that might work in your favor on a reapplication but because it would change I think the setup significantly and we would have to relook at it and I would concur with the chair and vice chair that to remove the mixed use component from a special permit that grants a mixed use location would be more than just a minor change but I could see how offering residential in another building would make the change more palatable for us considering our you know our directive on our master plan is to encourage mixed use and that was a it was something that very much that I think the board was all looking forward to so okay so the only way to move forward would be to put the residential component back in well I mean you have so right now you have the permit for you know what that says right so you have the ability to to complete what's in that permit sure um if you wanted to change it and either move where the residential is or modify it in some way some compromise there you would have to come in for a you know request an application for a modification of the special permit it wouldn't change the fact that you still have the special permit and that's always your fall back of you can fall back on what's existing in there gotta you could come in to request a modification of and and is that a lesser ult process I think Mr Gard may have even spelled out um some of the information needed and uh something perhaps that could be entertained at one of the near future meetings yeah I mean it's I wouldn't necessarily say it's it's that black line it's that it's always less but I think in most cases it is right because you already have this existing plan that you can kind of you know modify a little bit right there and and present it and so I think that you do still have to comply with the with the submission requirements but I think you already have a lot of it there and it's just a question of showing where the modifications are so it usually is a lot less of a heavy lift gotcha okay all right and then what I would need yeah Dr W I'll just interject so uh the the discussion in the feedback from the planning board indicates that we are looking at um going through a formal amendment process uh which does require a public hearing okay I didn't get anybody shaking no on that so that the earliest we would be able to put that in for would be uh October 8th okay so I I I apologize I didn't go that far down the line which is it's it's basically the same process but you know I think that the the you know John deals with these more than I do but I think the lift on getting the information in is less when you're doing a modification than it is uh when you originally did it but you do have to go through the same process of the hearing and decision and things like that sure is a decision usually made would that be usually made on October 8th if we got that information into you know the the necessary information into you guys in a timely fashion it it you know that's the thing about the public hearing is it depends on how it goes right and we have to do it all in public and so um you know if it's a pretty straightforward modification and we don't there's not people coming here and opposing it or putting in favor of it I mean it's not much discussion that needs on it that we can probably wrap up the uh hearing on the 8th we would then draft up a decision and vote on it at the next meeting so it would be the 20 9th I'm going to go with yeah the laugh because I made a typo on my schedule Dr Wall no worries so I think it would be you would you know if if it played out pretty simply um and it wasn't you know any need to get more information or revise things in a significant way it could probably be done by the end of October okay but it does sound like without the mixed use there'll probably be some difficulty with the idea of kind of keeping in the plan as is in the back with the steel buildings right it seems to be the thought Direction at the moment I'm just yeah I mean it's the the mixed use was a pretty you know decent enticement to sort of get the size of the project through right and so because that is as as folks are upset it's been I mean there's a lot of Need for housing um there's a lot of encouragement for mixed use it's what's in the master plan and so it's been a bit of our focus and having that opportunity was a a pretty decent enticement so um doesn't mean that there's not a compromise there it just means that you have to sort of acknowledge the fact that that was a you know a carrot and getting it through and then how you GNA deal with that okay no I appreciate you guys time and information let me do some thinking and uh yeah we'll decide what direction to go down regards to submitt Andor redirect ction with uh foundation design there's a few other factors that would get triggered if we increase square footage and things of that nature that'll need to give some thought to so understood I I'll share a couple notes tomorrow uh from my desk walls that would relate to the the process if you choose to go down that road okay thank you all very much have a good night you you too byebye thank you for everyone's feedback you want to go to like plan review I want to but I have no new information to share with the board fantastic you want to go to sign permit review yes fantastic want to get rid of the units you don't I'm sorry what that why is the not want to get rid of theing there I'm sure it comes down to uh was the I'm sure there's a cost Factor associated with it um the building as it uh been subed the building apartment that front building so handsome and sizable appreciate we call it there was a cost for today to keep the project mov forward I think I'm sticking in words in that haven't been Le shared my direction just one second one takes me longer to share this bu okay Lakewood Village wishes to replace their existing signage in the roughly the same dimensions thanks nice no flashing lights or yes uh I as much as I would like to see you Mar lik around maybe that's not the look that they're going that's your choice yes take a horse to water um all right motion positive recommendation sign sign application at 160. just and I okay uh nothing on that we need to talk about on seret not yet planning board member and staff comments we've already covered the October 26 is really October 29th is that really the only that's the only thing again I'll be honest I tried to make those live but they were late in the discussion maybe maybe tops 80% confidence when I BL everybody no problem any other any other member or staff comments no uh since you are the other person named David you have the honor fantastic I will make a motion to the me second second all those in favor say I all right that's 7:30 730 that's it's all s he's not to believe it oh you don't think I'm texting right now