One was raised about on one of the planning board meetings for December 30th.
I would say that I am recording a meeting.
That's Jeffrey Smith saying he is recording a meeting also.
So, members present tonight include me, Bill Cole, we have Jenna Samick here, Harry Connifford, nice chair is here, Jenna Garvey is here, and unfortunately, Eric Funning will be absent tonight.
Some sort of course on ICE emergency.
Yes sir.
When you start the agenda, can we move up the one about the animals, the farm animals?
Somebody doesn't have to stay here?
Correct.
Okay, certainly we can do that.
But, we'll move it up to the very next.
So, we have in the mail file, we received several things. There's a budget request that we can do later, which has to do with the planning board budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
We received a question and copy of a lighting complaint from 94 Main Street, from Dr. Neil Halen, and that's the property and the greenery across the way here.
There was, let's see, also received was a,
a copy of a public records request sent to town clerk Ryan Whitcoast from Mr. Jeffrey Smith.
Yep.
I have a question for Mr. Jeffrey Smith. He wants an audio recording that was made by me of the 10-28-25 open meeting of the planning board in this house here.
We'll certainly deal with that. Is there anything, we hadn't heard about this, was there anything in particular that you were?
No, I'd just like to keep all of them. I missed one and was hoping to get it.
You did, that is one of the ones you weren't careful with.
That was the one I missed, so I was just hoping to collect the set.
Right. So it's in general. I didn't know, that was also the night we had the first hearing for the Nevis personal panel application.
But the, we will respond, and Lou, I think we'll want to have you do this the formal and required way, which is to send back to the requester our answer within 10 days to that request.
And we certainly would be happy to provide that, but it does not exist any longer, which is what happens after minutes are created and approved.
The, it's not a, it's an aid to taking the minutes. We have, we have that after they were approved on, I think it was the 7th and 9th, the recording of that meeting, like on the ones past the minutes, are not, they're not available, they don't exist.
So, if there's something sooner after a meeting that you missed and you want to ask about or something, then that would be available if I had to do it in that time.
But after the meeting, after meeting minutes are approved, there's no requirement to have recordings at all, but they are kept until after the minutes are approved.
That's what happened there, but we will reply in a necessary way, saying just that.
Do you get enough of that, Lou?
Okay, I was asking you about the 1028, make sure you see a copy of that and then you know of course when the meeting, when the meeting minutes were approved for that night, which is, which has been on the website since you posted them after approval.
We can review minutes a little later.
I would say that, so let's turn to bylaws and I'll mention the bylaws that are in the agenda and where we stand on those, which is unfortunately as far along as we would like since the last meeting or two.
ADU is still in the hands of Ron Barron, who we met here and we talked to and he sent me some stuff and I sent him some back and he did not come up with a follow up with that.
Although I must say he did know that we were aiming for tonight to have a near final version of several reviews to get, you know, in the format that we could hold a hearing on them, but that's not happening, nor is the associate member, although that's a very close associate.
The planning board member, we reviewed some of that lately, but that's no further. He also is looking at a couple points we raised on that one.
First removal, we did not talk about in detail because we wanted Jenna to be here and now Eric's not here.
We may turn to that in a few minutes. And the terminology bylaw, which is where we're bringing the zoning bylaws up to the point that the general bylaws, remember I think that the attorney general rejected the town's effort to change the zoning bylaws because that requires a hearing.
That's because that requires a hearing, not just a change in select board, select members, select board member or something that the zoning bylaw change would have required hearings, and those never happen.
So it's a small thing, we just want to get in there and bring it up to speed later, but nothing on that tonight.
So, the farm animals. Buddy's been doing some more homework, and I understand that you too. Also, this is Harry. I was working with Buddy, and I don't think anyone's talked to Ron Barrett on this either where we've had a few questions, but you've been working more on it.
Do you want to tell us where we stand on farm animals?
Yeah, so as I understood it, the marching orders from the last meeting were essentially to make sure that none of the individual sections, A through F to J now, conflicted with each other, and really the intent was to make sure that no one property could fall into multiple regulatory categories from a size perspective.
So, Harry and I worked together on this. We did the best of our jobs, and I went through and highlighted the changes that I made since the last meeting. And just to be clear, the only reason why I'm wearing a mask is because I don't want to share my linger and tent poles with anybody.
So, our first update is in Section B, and that, if you look at it, you'll see highlighted. This basically just says, look, if you have five acres or more or two parcels of two acres or more, it's free jurisdiction. Basically, anything agricultural related is by right.
Section B, however, says if you don't meet those restrictions, if you don't meet those criteria, you either have a by right if you're an AR-60 or R-40, or you have to apply for a special permit.
So, I amended the end of the bylaw to essentially say, if it doesn't fall into Section A, it needs to adhere to Section F or Section I. That's probably the wrong section to go over first, but that's just chronologically what's up on the graph at first.
Moving on to Section F, the way I tried to do these bylaws were three categories, five acres or more, no restrictions. If you fell into the category of an acre and a half to five acres, that's its own category, and then anything under that one and a half acre minimum falls into the poultry category.
So quick question, five acres, even if you're not a farm?
No, no, this is specific to agricultural use.
Okay, I was just confused there because I'm thinking poultry, and I'm thinking if I have five acres in a village, I still have to abide by the bylaws. It doesn't give an exemption just for anyone who has over five acres.
So, I just want to make sure there's a distinction there.
Well, that's kind of a gray area, unfortunately, because what is a farm?
Well, I think we have it defined. You have to have a thousand dollars, you know, you have to generate a thousand dollars based on gross sales.
So if I say I have five acres and you know where I live sandwiched in between two houses, say I own five acres of woods and I have chickens all over the place, I'm in violation because I'm not a farm, I don't sell my eggs.
Right. So I just want to make sure that's clear, and it probably is, but I just...
Well, that's the primary purpose of commercial agriculture.
Right. So I just want to make sure I don't fall into that, even if I have a right to farm.
I think it's more black than that, the definition of a farm and the right to farm.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have 16 chickens or something or a dozen chickens.
And, you know, make sure you farm without even the minimum income component.
Well, this is that gray area that I was kind of talking about is, you know, this bylaw is specific to it looks like commercial agriculture.
When it comes to residential agriculture, what is that, right? Does that fall under the right to farm?
Right.
So, and that's a quagmire that exists with every town has right to farm laws in the state, to my knowledge, hasn't given really clear guidance.
So I think people will say, well, let's see what your taxes and we'll figure out that way.
Because I have a friend in Peter Sam who tried to say he was a farmer, but he's not. He's a gentleman farmer.
And they're like, OK, well, show us your taxes saying you did all this.
And he's like, well, I don't have that.
They're like, well, you're not a farmer.
So I just want to make sure we have something similar here.
I'm not sure, if I may, I'm not sure that they were right to say that.
If it had been challenged, somebody's raising animals or engaged in any of these enterprises,
which includes beekeeping and flowers and a lot of things besides the animals,
I think that the right to farm encompasses a whole lot of that.
I think the dollar stuff comes in where you're talking about commercial.
The section three to one is based on commercial farming.
But you don't have to have me a commercial farmer to be covered by the microphone.
This just says if you're a commercial farmer and you produce this so much, it's so much of a value.
Right. And you mentioned taxes.
It's by right in every district.
I mean, we've heard many people, including Paul String, say if they're on the chapter program,
it's agriculture.
In other words, saying in his mind, you're agricultural if you have even the very minimal requirement
of your five acres and $500 gross or something.
So it's pretty lax.
Now maybe under the five acres, we'll just start talking about one or one and a half acres
for something that it's good to have something.
And I'm remembering right now, Mr. Smith said something he asked last time.
What is this more restrictive?
Is this more restrictive?
Is that problem an overreach or something?
I think our intention, I think it's true that this is taking away possible complaints and restrictions,
making it clear what people can do.
Because remember, we started from the point in the old bylaws that said you can't have more than one chicken in a ship.
I think we so have.
One lonely chicken.
Yeah. So this is all going to make it hopefully clearer and certainly consistent with what the state defines agriculture as.
But as you say, it's a gray area in some spots.
That's my loose understanding.
The community that I came from, Milbury, was also a right to farm community.
And I know any time a building inspector showed up at our house looking for permits for hoops and barns, he just said right to farm and they went away.
Well, I guess I'll use myself as an example.
Like when I was talking about my neighbor's chicken came in and dug up all our garden and he fell over our walk.
He, I think, owns five acres so he can do that.
Well, and that's where I believe the function of the agricultural commission is supposed to kick in.
Right. So there's a conflict between somebody who's pursuing residential agriculture.
And there was never, just to be clear, there's never conflict.
I never, it wasn't, it didn't turn into a situation.
I'm just using myself as an example and thinking of other people, you know, who don't want their neighbor's chickens in their yard.
This is addressed further on with the security area of the property.
And that's what I thought I remembered reading. So I just wanted to make sure there's no contradiction in that.
I don't believe there is. I haven't done a judicial review, I'll call it, on this. That's just not my background.
But I'm not trying to go into that right to farm residential flag mire and all of these. I'm trying to stay away from that and specifically address the bylaws that are structured today.
Yeah, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair.
I'm speaking tonight just as a resident, not my select board capacity at all.
And I have a couple questions about the right to farm because we passed a general bylaw in 2005 that defines all this.
So, and it's very clear, well, it says, you know, what you can and cannot do.
And as far as dust, noise, anyone who has a piece of property, in my understanding, with a right to farm community can farm.
And the zoning can't affect them.
And so I'm trying to, you know, let me see, my question here is, so can you help me understand under what authority the planning board would revise or restate animal or agricultural definitions adopted by town meeting in a general bylaw?
Because if you want to amend this, it's supposed to be going through a town meeting process of a general bylaw.
Well, we certainly don't tend to do that.
And I don't think we are.
It wouldn't be the planning board doing it.
It would be the town deciding to change the zoning bylaw.
I think we're trying to be very careful with the zoning.
Any zoning bylaw, including the ones that are in the books and have been for a long time, don't do that.
I think that, you know, we need, we need perhaps to be clearer about the right to farm and the gray area, as somebody described, between that and any regulation, whether it comes from use tables in the zoning bylaw or enforcement in my agricultural commission or police or anybody.
There's some things you can't, some things anybody has a right to do if they're agricultural in a right to farm community.
That's what I said before.
I don't think we can.
Right.
But in that language, Mr. Chair, it says the right to farm bylaw itself states that it does not impose zoning and that zoning does not displace it, which is why any change has to go back to town meeting.
What are you referring to there?
The actual right to farm bylaw, the general bylaw for 2005.
So the process that we're following here is we're taking a look at the bylaws, making a general suggestion relative to the problems that we've identified with the one lonely chicken issue.
The suggestion then goes to town meeting, which the planning board is planning, and the town would then have the ability to say, hey, we're going to continue iterating on it, or we're not in favor of it, or we'll just accept it as is.
And it's my understanding that these agricultural uses are specific to commercial agriculture.
So you would have to be selling eggs or something like that.
And I believe with the right to farm laws, you are 100% correct in that they don't want unreasonable restrictions placed on farming.
I believe in that broad right to farm bylaw that the state uses as a boilerplate example, very reasonable restrictions mentioned in the bylaw.
I haven't looked at it in a long time, but that's what I remember from my last review of it.
Well, I recommend that you guys review the 2005 bylaw on right to farm in this town that we adopted.
Because it's very clear. It says, you know, whether holidays, this, that, you have a right to run a tractor, if people complain, you know, you're farming.
That's not news to us. We were here when that was passed.
Right. So the definitions, though, are gray in some spots.
And I wouldn't want this to be considered to be an effort to take away any of the agricultural rights.
It's trying to, trying to lineate them and encourage them.
The whole thing comes from saying people should be able to grow more of their own food or have more of their own animals, whether it's a right to farm community or not, which it certainly is.
Right. But when you mentioned five acres or more, that's a state regulation for definition of a farm.
State says if you own five acres anywhere, you can put a farm on it if you choose to.
You could be in downtown Boston if you had five acres and you wanted to farm, which is probably, you know, not realistic, but people can do it.
But I mean, there's got to be restrictions in terms of animals and how many you can have.
I'm just saying, I'm just recommending to the planning board that you review it and maybe talk to town council with some concise questions.
Otherwise, because you've got to go to, it has to be amended by a town meeting.
And then we have a bylaw, and it's very clear.
There's been no effort from us to amend anything about the right to farm general bylaw.
That's not going to happen.
If somehow something's put out there that's in violation with that, then that clearly would be a mistake.
That's not going to happen.
We're not going to suggest anything in bylaws that is contrary to the right to farm.
I'm just saying, should we review it?
And I can send it along in an email.
Send it, send it anyway, how these do.
But we certainly do know and we're part of the right to farm bylaw.
Johnny, would you agree with that too?
So the state and the federal, it's very loose and it's very vague by design.
And I know you touched on taxes a little bit.
It's a schedule update before.
And if you file a schedule out, that's one of the criteria is to prove your farm, but not the only one.
There's many different ways of proving your agriculture.
And as far as a number, $500 or $1,000, or could have, could have made $500.
Doesn't mean you did.
And that's another criteria.
You're a farmer.
Okay.
You've got wood and you could have sold the wood and you could have made $500, but you didn't.
So you're still a farm.
So there's a lot of gray area in there.
But I see what Bill's mentioned here.
So the 2005 adopted farm, right to farm bylaw, general bylaw.
Yep.
Okay.
And then we're dealing with ours, our existing ones here.
And we're just trying to improve them from what we've learned over the last years.
Exactly.
And update them?
Yes.
Yep.
And we're doing that and it will go to town.
I mean, I don't know.
But not, we're not dealing with the right to farm.
We're not changing anything with the right to farm.
It doesn't really supersede it.
It's complementary.
Well, that process has been subcommittee, which we're doing, and then present it to the board.
And if the board, your comments, taken in any corrections we make.
And when we feel we have something that goes to a public hearing, where the public have comments, which you're familiar with.
And if the public hearing approves the amendments, in this case, you know, farm animals, et cetera, then we'll go to a town meeting.
So that process covers input from the subcommittee, to the board, to the public, to the public hearing, to the town meeting.
I have a question.
When someone moves to our community, since we've become a right to farm community, are they not given disclosures?
It seems like I got a disclosure when I moved here.
Okay.
So you have to know your...
Okay, yeah.
Of course.
It might touch on some things about, well, how many chickens or roosters or horses can you have in the center of one of the villages?
Because that is legitimate zoning in a small parcel, even if they say they're farms, you know, some of that.
So we're trying to get there sensibly without conflicting with anything.
Well, as you know, I've attended a lot of these meetings, and honestly, I'm still a little confused about this topic, even though it's been talked about many times.
Maybe you could summarize the nature of these changes, like what was existing and then what it is you're aiming to accomplish.
Yeah, with this particular topic, yeah.
Well, right now we have one animal, one chicken.
That's what the law says today.
Yes, that's what the law says.
And buddies come up with some language to expand that so you can have 16 chickens in one rooster.
So you won't have a bunch of roosters, you know, especially the village neighbors that don't have chickens, they don't have roosters.
So they have a chance to, we have a chance to control that so the neighbors have some say in this.
And, you know, also a waterfowl, poultry waterfowl, 16.
And then the other one is, you can have farm animals, horses, cows, goat, sheep, but not swine.
So you can have those things in a limited area.
If, you know, however much land you have determines what you can have.
But right now it's very restricted.
So we're trying to make it less restrictive and still have some control.
So if your neighbor isn't a bobber or keeps, you know, chickens and roosters, et cetera, they have some protection in this.
That's exactly right.
And then, you know, to put it in perspective, I could accidentally fall under the commercial use tables for agriculture.
So you have these just like me.
Each one of those fertilized booze eggs I can sell for $75.
And as you know, they produce quite a few eggs.
Usually about, we get 10 between two.
So now I'm up to $750 of potential revenue generated from that activity.
So what this is trying to do is say, look, you're not just restricted to one farm animal on an acre and a half or above property, one lonely chicken.
You actually have the ability to have up to one cow, up to one horse, up to four goats or sheep, and up to 16 poultry.
The intent is to provide clarity.
Because when I read the bylaws, even knowing the rights of farm stipulations, it wasn't clear whether or not I could have them.
And I want to create clarity within the bylaws while respecting the residential right to farm laws.
Does that make sense?
If I may, I think it was pretty clear you couldn't have what you wanted in the village.
In the village.
I mean, if you had gotten two hens or two goats or something, even if you keep them in the barn there, your neighbor could have said, look, the bylaws say you're allowed one.
What are you doing? This guy's, you know, taking his own enforcement.
When I first started, Kerry, you'll remember, there's a guy in the center of town.
The neighbors were curious.
And because of, he didn't have the acreage farm.
So if you have an acre and a half, you can have all the things we just discussed.
And, you know, we're working on if you have like a half an acre and under, what can you have?
So we haven't got there yet, but we're working on that.
So we don't, you just have a half an acre or less and you want to have chickens.
They want to have six chickens.
We're working on trying to accommodate that in our bylaws so that it's not restrictive.
We're trying to make it less restrictive and have the language correct in it.
But it also has to be clear what turns into a nuisance as well.
I mean, we got someone in Gilbertville with a sheep in an apartment complex.
He knows before my time.
But people do that.
There has to be some recourse for people to take the gray area and run.
And again, that's where the Agricultural Commission is supposed to kick in.
Because again, knowing the fact that the right to farm is so subjective and up to interpretation,
that's our elected commission to say, hey, you know what?
You've got 10 pigs on a tenth of an acre.
That's not a good idea for anybody.
Right. And that person shouldn't be able to say there's nothing here saying they can't.
I'm back, if I may, to your question.
You know, or a comment that maybe this would, some of this, maybe something would end up being proposed
to come to consider or even passed that would be equipped to require it to be changed.
I think we're clear that that's not the intention.
I would certainly agree that whatever we come up with better not conflict with the rights that are granted
to everyone in town because it's a right to public community.
That's definitely what we want to have.
What we don't want to have is people complaining because somebody has a couple chickens
or three horses on four and a half acres or something.
And then there's going to be a legal review process.
This will go before the attorney general and the attorney general will make the determination
of whether or not this conflicts with that right to farm by law.
And I totally respect what you're trying to say.
But you should, that right to farm is not the thing.
That's why I moved here.
So one of the reasons I moved here, and I think a lot of us moved here for that reason,
we're just trying to make it a little bit more clear and liberalize it so I can have my piece of that.
Well, see, I can, excuse me, sorry, John, I was just going to say comment.
I come from the understanding of if you have the space and the right to farm, you can have your piece.
There is not an issue right now to have piece.
Because it is a right to farm.
There is in the current. What do you see in West Bay?
Well, under the right to farm, it says goodbye law.
Where's the conflict that you see even between West Bay?
Well, you're saying there's restrictions in the bylaw right now where he cannot have
geese or chicken because of the size of his lot.
So a bylaw.
But under the right to farm, it says you're right to farm.
And it clearly says, right, well, that's why I'm saying it's a general bylaw.
And to amend it, you have to go through the town.
We don't want to change the zoning bylaw.
That's what you're doing.
No, it's not.
In a sense, you are. You are doing that.
So could you make that clear?
Well, I'm just saying, how about we start off?
You read the 2005 right to farm general bylaw, right?
We'll start with that.
And then you should maybe reach out to the Agricultural Commission and tell them, hey,
what you want to do, because they're the ones in charge of this.
Is there anything in this draft?
And if there is, we definitely want to know.
And we'll be looking for anything in the draft that you see.
I haven't reviewed your draft, sir.
All I saw was the animals on your agenda.
Was that available to the public?
This just came tonight.
The subcommittee came. There was something from the last week.
We have one on the books now.
No, no, I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
I thought maybe it was something we should have reviewed.
We're kicking around these drafts with different ideas.
No, I would have done my homework, is all I'm saying.
It's on the books now, 2005.
That's what we're cleaning up.
Okay, well, I mean, it does say on the right to farm that it can't be imposed by zoning.
So you would agree that our 2018 or whatever before that bylaws are wrong?
We were laughing at them.
I'm not saying I'm per se.
Are you referring to the zoning bylaw?
Yes.
Okay, because I think this is the disconnect here.
You're referring to zoning bylaws. He's referring to a general bylaw.
Exactly.
And I think this is the confusion.
We have no intention to change or suggest a change or even challenge in any way
through whatever we do, the right to farm.
That's there.
That's there, and it's a good thing.
What we don't want is bylaws, as we have right now,
bylaws that are in conflict with that, that suggest to somebody that they can,
you know, that their neighbor can't do.
Or maybe they don't know.
Maybe they think they can't do it because of what's in our old bylaws.
This is in the zoning bylaw.
In the old zoning bylaw.
Could you read the relevant, is it big?
Hopefully it's not too big, but the relevant section you're aiming to change in this case?
Section 3.2.1, agricultural produce.
Can we get a copy?
Can we get a copy?
Sure.
My copy.
Right, so you worked on a picture draft.
It's not anything...
To be very clear, there's the general bylaw, which you're referring to.
And within that state law, when they pass the right to farm schedule,
they do that.
Sure.
When they pass the right to farm schedule, that's when to preserve agriculture in Massachusetts.
They, I believe, added language that said that towns could put reasonable restrictions
and not unreasonable restrictions.
And those zoning bylaws are what are under that general bylaw,
which are about those reasonable restrictions.
And the reasonable restrictions today are so restricted that, as I interpret them,
I can't have my chickens and geese.
So that's what, ultimately, we're trying to clean up,
is that relationship between the general bylaw and our zoning bylaw,
to make it so that more people can enjoy the rights of agriculture.
So is it that the existing bylaw literally says he can't have...
I mean, that's...
Okay, this is, yes.
Keeping one horse or one...
The personal use on fossils...
321F, the keeping of one horse, this is our current zoning bylaw,
or one farm animal, the personal use on fossils of 1.5 acres or more.
So if you have under 1.5 acres, you can't have them.
But if you have 1.5 acres, you can.
And then if you have 5 acres, you can do a lot more.
Was that zoning bylaw passed after the 2005 general bylaw?
Yes.
Okay.
2012...
Right, the zoning bylaw doesn't affect...
So would the provision in the general bylaw not invalidate that?
Well, I think it would, but it must have gone by the age of 2012 or something.
Clearly, yeah.
Well, I agree. I think it should be changed.
I'm not disputing that. I'm just trying to understand.
All I'm saying is you might want to do a concise question and bring it to the town council
and say, hey, we want to do this, that we have a bylaw that's on the books from 2005.
And we're going to be potentially, not intentionally, but we're going to be modifying this.
That might affect that.
We typically do.
Well, that's a very concise question.
The 2005 bylaw...
However, yeah.
Last week, we did everything we did.
The open only force got passed.
We did all that without leaning on town council for opinions
at town expense.
So we didn't do that.
We've used Central Mass Regional Planning Commission.
We've used...
You can go to the AG directly for showing them some stuff,
see what they say about it.
We've looked at all the other towns and talked to people on the forums,
the planning forums and so forth,
and come up with things that I think are consistent.
Your point is very good.
I don't want to come up with anything that would violate or encroach on the rights that are there
of the right department.
So yes, we will do that.
We'll make sure it doesn't.
Right, but at the same time, you could amend that general bylaw,
is what I'm saying, some of the language in that general bylaw.
We have to do general bylaws?
I know you don't do it, but what you're talking about the zoning and implying,
that general bylaw says zoning and stuff like that doesn't apply.
What a confusion.
But it doesn't.
It does.
It was passed in 2005.
It was passed in 2005.
2012 amendments went to the AG's office and they approved it.
So our 2012 amendments was after the 2005 general bylaw.
So the AG had the 2005 general bylaw,
and then we had the 2012, and then we had the 2018,
and they said nothing in regards to you can't do this or that.
Because they're only looking at the zoning.
Did they actually look at our general bylaw?
Our general bylaw is the right department general bylaw.
You don't tinker around with that.
You don't amend it now to say it's a little different.
It's the general bylaw, the right department bylaw,
that this town adopted, that the signs are up because we have it.
That isn't something anybody can amend.
You could get rid of it, I suppose,
but you can't go amend it and try to tie it in with some different zoning.
I'm not saying tie it in with zoning at all.
I'm saying amend the actual general bylaw.
No, you can't do that.
You can't amend the general bylaw.
It's not the purview of the planning board.
And that's why I'm saying we're changing definitions
that are going to potentially affect that general bylaw that's still on the books.
We're not going to affect the general bylaw.
We'll get a compliment.
I'm just bringing it up as a conversation.
We're not going to do that, and it's not even an option.
Don't, please, don't let anybody think the planning board is trying to change
the general bylaw right department bylaw.
I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying that general bylaw,
it doesn't matter what you do because it says in that general bylaw
that zoning can't displace it.
That's the language.
Harry has a good point that he passed things after, so it's curious.
We still have a general bylaw,
and most of our bylaws haven't been certified or codified in this town.
There's a good point, but that's a different matter.
So you're relying on bylaws that aren't codified or certified.
Well, they're not, but yeah.
So how are we supposed to update our bylaws?
I mean, we hit a wall every time.
We need to do something.
Well, exactly.
All right.
Buddy, this is helpful.
As we come to looking at the tables, I mean,
pretty much everywhere you've done this, you've gone to yes, yes, yes.
So it's clearly defining different parcels using the state's definition,
which is consistent with your right to farm,
saying that these things are allowed by rights everywhere
with the exception of going down to the half acre to one and a half acres.
Which were there.
We've said you need a special permit on those small parcels that do not,
on a parcel that does not meet the criteria of three to one high above,
which just means that it isn't a, it is not a agriculture property, right?
It's a three-point, if it's one,
the only place that any, the only place that any of these uses isn't allowed
is a half acre to one and a half acres by special permit.
It would be anything under half an acre.
If you go to the very last section, section J,
which is the only area I had a question about.
So if you look at section B, I made that small update,
you fall into one of those three categories, right?
And you see, if you do not meet those criteria,
it's by right in AR 60 and it's by right in AR 40.
However, for everybody else, it's by special permit.
At the very end, I added a section J,
which essentially says the exact same thing,
and I'm wondering if that's a loop point,
and I just need to remove it altogether.
I threw that in just in case it needed to be left in,
but I'm curious on the board.
What's the difference in the I and the J then?
So, I is all of the, that's for structures,
it's for setbacks, it's for uni-fencing,
and they need to be in a shelter in between dusk and dawn,
which is for everybody's benefit, including the farmer.
That, those are, that's what section I addresses.
It also sets the limit in terms of one rooster.
It also says more detox, more guinea fowl on that small parcel
because you can't keep them anywhere.
I have experience with that.
And it also makes the stipulation an output for geese as part of that.
Was your thinking in having a J here at all that a special permit
could be required for those four different districts
and a half an acre to one and a half acre parcel?
For less than.
If it does not meet the criteria in section J,
so if you don't have between half an acre and 1.5 acres,
is there everybody under half an acre?
I'm sorry, let me read this.
I like having that in there.
It's been recourse for.
Use of, this is J, use of land, use of land and or use expansion
and renovation of existing structures.
Okay.
A parcel is greater than or equal to one and a half acre
and less than one and a half.
So here we are talking about half acre to one and a half.
That's a typo.
I apologize.
The one and a half shouldn't have been in there.
It should be anything under half an acre.
Okay.
So I'll make that adjustment.
In that way, if it's a special permit,
if any neighbors have concerns, they can come in
and commission an important check.
So maybe I'm oversimplifying,
but it seems as though this suggestion is for,
I mean, first you've talked about agricultural uses,
and here we're talking about all the state sets,
you know, I mean, agriculture, agriculture, agriculture,
or culture, it's a bit of culture.
Anyway, all of those things,
the term agriculture should be defined,
and it doesn't talk about the size of the parcel.
It talks about the districts,
and it's a yes everywhere until you get down
to the parcels that don't meet the criteria
in 321 of us.
So this is just, that's an income, not a size thing, right?
So if it's a smaller one that doesn't meet the dollar criteria,
then you suggest the special permit could be required
in four districts, four smaller districts.
That, I just wanted to make it consistent with section D,
which makes that stipulation for properties
that don't meet the existing model laws.
But the ones that don't meet the criteria in 321,
321 is what you refer to also in J,
but those are the criteria that have to do
with how agriculture is and how much money and so forth
and what they're doing with the property.
It doesn't have to do with the parcels,
but when you get down to J,
that does have to do with the size of the parcel,
less than half an acre or something.
Correct.
Okay, so it seems as though all agricultural uses
are allowed in every district by right
if they meet the state criteria for agriculture,
which is something that you have to do
with the right to farm and want to do.
Then as you talk about ones that don't meet that,
it's still allowed by right in the two larger districts
with the four smaller ones, a special permit.
So if they don't meet the definition of agriculture,
they've got to come in and ask for a special permit
if they're in the four smaller districts
or the four non-agricultural districts.
That's my understanding.
That seems to be what we were thinking,
and there's no conflict there with the farm.
Yes across the board for the farm stands and so forth.
Skipping horses for the moment,
to get down to I that you're talking about,
it's yes across the board by right for these structures
on anything of a half acre.
Does it need to be changed as well?
Parsons greater than or equal to one half
or less than one half?
So that language update was to make sure
it didn't conflict with the section C.
So I didn't want one parcel to fall into two categories,
B or F.
Okay.
Or B or I.
So I tried to clearly explain that.
You have those three layers,
and those are all by right.
So the only thing we're really restricting
when we get down to less parcels.
Less than half an acre.
Okay.
It's less than half an acre.
Less than half an acre.
You're not going to have less than half an acre.
The two districts were explained right,
but the other ones require special funding,
which I think most of us would say makes sense.
This is again only if somehow you're not meeting
the agricultural definition on a small property.
But if you've got less than half an acre,
and you're not by definition agricultural,
but you want to have both,
you can still adjust.
Because these are the only places
you're talking about special permits.
I mean, it seems very lenient,
and very accommodating for agriculture.
I don't see a conflict.
The setbacks are a little less also for the villages.
Setbacks for the structures?
For the structures.
Which, yeah, sounds like 25 feet.
Well, it's 25, 15, and 10.
And under our current dimensional requirement,
Yodlo Hill is 25, 15, and 10,
but the other villages are 25, 20, and 20.
So making it less restrictive on the setbacks
for the villages.
So, okay.
So if somebody in a village wants to build a garage,
or a new one on there.
This is only in this section.
Yes, but I'm saying they have to follow the setbacks.
If they want to build a chicken coop,
it can be closer.
Well, as you let chickens run around in your ADU,
it can be closer to...
Eggs and chickens.
Does that seem worth making a distinction in that?
I think we'd be splitting hairs at that point.
That's just my own personal position.
In all reality, you want your flock closer to the house.
We have bears.
As many of us know, I had one in the yard three months ago.
And the way I farm, I like to build setbacks
between my neighbors as much as possible.
Now, I'm lucky to do both my neighbors love animals
and are fine with what I'm doing here today.
But that's just my personal approach.
We took the minimum setbacks for all the villages,
and we just used the minimum setbacks
for the uniform for all the districts
as it pertains to putting up a chicken coop
or a group house.
Harry, is that right?
So the setbacks for accessory structure
on property in America now
are going to be bigger setbacks
or less than what's proposed here?
This is just for the structure of keeping them closer.
This says 25, 25 for a 15-year and 10 on the south.
So what are they for?
25, 20, 20.
Gilbertville is 25, 15, 10,
which is what we made across the board for poultry housing.
So ADU and until we change the dimensional requirements,
which we might when we make this amendment
and go through the process,
if we have 25, 20, 20,
we can make them all 25, 15, 10
for every structure.
It seems to make sense because
we know there's limited land in most villages
in this town and probably others,
so to give a little more leeway, I think,
is a benefit to the landowner and the property owners.
Yeah, I guess I'm reminded of some people possibly saying,
okay, you're going to allow them to have it.
The poultry shed too close to my property line
because this allows that more than it would a volume.
Well, my intent is to change the dimensional requirements
in general.
The general setbacks for accessibility structures?
Right, but we're doing this for the poultry,
so my intent is to do it across the board,
to change them when we go to a process,
public hearing, et cetera,
to make that amendment for the other villages,
Hydro Center and Willowhead.
Well, that should be part of the same package
we were talking about with the ADUs then,
because the ADUs are going to follow the structural,
the sensory structure setbacks.
So just to make it even and fair for all the villages,
you know, Gilgill is less five feet, ten feet,
so why not do it in all the villages
and be fair with all the villages, my point.
I think it certainly isn't for the property owner
more often than it is to have this,
but perhaps where they would position a barn or a garage
or whatever.
And as far as J,
as far as J, let's leave it as proposed.
Keep it really less than half an acre.
And as I said earlier,
Buddy and I are working on a half acre or less
to see if we can have chickens,
maybe not 16 and et cetera, et cetera,
but we'll come up with something
so that we can debate that.
Do we need to do that in the bylaw,
or is that something that could come up in the special permit process?
It would be probably better to do that through a special permit process,
aka every property is going to be different,
and I would hesitate to do a blanket process for it.
Well, somebody with less than half an acre.
But we should be abiding by the same rules in System A for every case.
Fair.
Well, somebody with less than half an acre
who wants to have chickens on their back porch
even though they already,
because it's less than half an acre,
is going to come in for a special permit
if it's in those four different districts.
It should be something that's pretty easy to get, I guess,
but if you want to require that much,
a small property with half an acre would be great.
Mr. Chair, just a quick question.
The state does have regulations
that they put in place on poultry and stuff like that.
I mean, there's square footage space per chicken,
so depending on the size of the chicken coops you want to allow,
you know what I mean?
You could base it off of that.
That's actually exactly what we did.
Sorry I didn't interrupt you.
So I took a look at the USDA organic recommendations for square footage,
and it's kind of similar to these little carpet tiles, right?
The chicken basically has to have enough room to spread its wings,
quite frankly, and most commercial farming, factory farms don't,
which is not good.
And that's where that 16 poultry fitting into the 200 square feet comes in.
They have ample room in order to spread their wings.
Yeah, so I think that should cover that.
So this now, I think we're talking about I,
where you've said that it does talk about the setbacks,
but then it says all new construction
for the maximum square footage of 200,
which corresponds to accessory structures.
Anything over 200 square feet.
So this doesn't get to that point, and that's fine.
And then everything quartered and secured in the shelter,
compliant with 321I1.
Is that here?
I don't see a barn inspector modified.
So 16 and 200 is, I mean 16 max in 200 square feet,
that would satisfy any agricultural inspector, yeah?
From my perspective, I don't see a barn inspector.
I don't even know if we have barn inspections here.
I know we do in Milbury.
We had one recently.
I can't see anybody doing a barn inspection
having a problem with that.
Yeah, I mean that's almost double the state.
It's 12.5 square feet per chicken.
That's good.
So it doesn't say, yeah, that's fine.
That's no problem.
There's one thing about all poultry and waterfowl
must be contained within a fence or structure at all times,
unless they're actively supervised
while foraging.
And that really would be probably a good point about it.
I know you like that, so your driveway stays clear.
And I know, frankly, just as an aside,
but one team in Lindsay, the County Patrol officer,
said, if you're going to do anything with farm animals,
put a fine on it so that if I have to corral a cow or something,
there should be a fine.
Nobody's proposed that.
It's a problem for some, but I haven't heard anybody say it.
It is definitely a problem.
I see it being a problem.
It was a problem for us.
We lost hundreds of dollars worth of ginseng.
And we decided not to say anything because, whatever,
for a small town.
But it's an issue.
For those of us that don't have the luxury of living on a farm,
that these things impact us.
Well, let's, you know, we have, yeah, well,
the recourse is agricultural commission.
If there's problems like that,
and I don't know whether there's a fine or anything there.
If we have a zoning thing that says you will keep those on there,
then somebody's going to claim that there's a zoning violation that
said you should have kept them contained and you didn't.
And now it goes to the zoning enforcement officer to assess the
situation and maybe level it up.
Which is, I think that's going to be pretty important.
But if we have a special permit saying, you know,
reiterating with maybe the neighbors coming to the hearing saying,
I foresee this being a problem.
Can you, you know,
work with us and make sure that doesn't happen.
I mean, that's the whole point.
A special permit is to bring everyone who has concerns in together to
talk about it.
And I would hope that having, having it in the language,
having it,
a special permit in some potentially most controversial settings would be
enough to take care of that.
I don't, I don't, I'm not thinking.
I didn't tell Tino Lindsay that we, we had to,
we'll try to get a fine on there for the county.
I mean, I don't hear anybody.
Is there anybody that thinks that we should be looking at a fine
structure?
I would say no.
I think almost every farmer in town.
That's right.
We would find.
I know that.
Well, okay.
So I just mentioned that as a suggestion.
Just so it's defined.
And it's known that that's shouldn't be acceptable.
So what does that mean in practice?
If somebody's in a waterfall,
boltering must be contained within a fence or structure.
So you're,
if your chickens are going to free range on your lawn,
you just got to have them inside a moving tractor or a fenced area or
something like that.
Not quite.
You can let them out as long as they're actively supervised,
but they cannot leave the property.
So for example, in the, in the scenario that Jenna had provided,
you don't get a whoopsie.
I took my eye off them and they went over the property line.
It's a no, that's a violation.
What is the active supervision of a chicken?
I know it sounds crazy.
This is what I do with monkeys.
I actively, when I'm at the farm in Milbury,
I walk them out to a separate paddock and I sit down with them,
supervise them grazing.
Cause we don't have our livestock guardian dog in that separate paddock.
And I make sure that they do not do the property essentially.
So I had chickens too.
And I made sure that they stayed within a certain area when I was,
they only were out when I was home.
They had like a soft fence and my chickens didn't take out my ginseng.
My neighbors did.
I was very careful about my chickens.
I never let them go.
I live right next to the road.
You keep an eye on them.
It's not a big ass.
This doesn't seem like an unreasonable regulation.
I mean,
maybe I'm just a shepherd who's living in another life, but not me.
It wasn't to me as well.
I supervise my chickens.
The big wife supervises most of mine.
Yeah.
In Essex, the people bought the farm and sent the boys out with the cows.
There was no barbed wire on the farm.
There were stone walls.
And he put the kids out with the cows.
It can be done.
It can be done.
It's not a big ass.
Look how you grew up.
No problem.
All right.
Okay.
Where are we on this?
There's still things to look at.
And I think we're getting on barren back.
We'll say maybe we want to.
What do you think?
One bite?
Yeah, we did.
We'll work on the half acre or less.
Were there any suggestions to change anything else?
Not the only notes that I have is to clean up the pipe out.
And just remove that one and a half acres.
What I was trying to do there was to say, look, if you go through,
you're in the highest regulatory category.
And if you fail to meet those criteria and you're not in the ag zones,
you got to go through a special permit process.
That was the intent there.
It needs to be noted that we want to make sure that Mr. Tinker's suggestion
that we not propose anything that runs afoul of the...
You're full of them tonight.
I'm full of them tonight.
The right to farm bylaw is just probably about a thousand years ago.
If you ask NDAR about it, they have questions about it.
I know.
You ran into that.
We're talking about the definition of the farm stand,
how much has grown on the owner's property or on the property.
What does that even mean?
Yeah.
Okay.
I'll be talking to Ryan and then you're welcome first to go in directly.
But we're still on some free hours that we've earned by attendance and such.
So maybe everybody can email the board.
Yes.
We'll do that.
You'll have that.
We'll talk about it, but then we'll take it to...
We'll send it to Ron and see whether he has some thoughts
and specifically mention the right to farm, too, right now that we have none.
Bill, I'll shoot you an email as well with what I have.
Okay.
2005.
Right.
Yeah, that's good.
Excellent.
Okay.
All right.
Now, do you want to make any attempts?
Thank you.
Yes.
Have a good day.
Normally, I would stay out of respect for the board,
but tonight is the really best time.
I feel better, buddy.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year, buddy.
Good to see you.
Have a good one.
Did you guys get a chance to look at that earth-removable one?
I took this from a couple towns, but mostly...
Yeah.
But mostly, I think I got it from...
Seemed overly restrictive in some aspects, so I did remove a few things.
Do you want...
I mean, I'm certainly...
It seems like the ones that...
I can give you my copy when I'm done.
But I'll...
Yeah.
Oh.
I think I gave them out.
Yes.
But it seems like all the ones that are...
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'll take your phone.
Thank you.
See you.
So some tweaks had to be made for importation,
because that seems to be the new thing.
Like I said, this must have changed from...
What is the importation?
Why is that a new thing?
And what is it that it refers to?
So, yeah, there is.
To bring any material from outside of the town to any land area
or the water body that you need.
So that's basically if you're importing truckloads of gravel or whatever.
There's just some rules regarding that as well.
So it's very similar to most recent solar stuff.
So it kind of matches that.
What is far over?
Material?
Any geologic on the neighbor cycle or processed material,
including in its entirety or as a proportion,
play rough sand.
Oh, I looked that up.
I don't remember.
Right.
It had a definition.
I think it says,
the removal or placement of earth material
is often referred to as barrow or rock.
I think just some people may refer to it as that.
Okay.
Yeah, I haven't heard it before.
Me either.
I couldn't find it either.
Thanks.
Animal matter.
Animal matter.
Anything that's probably related to earth removal,
not necessarily agricultural.
Like I said, I mean, this came from North Brookfield,
so we don't have to keep it every little thing.
So if you think that's weird to have in there,
we can put it out.
I mean, this is related to,
this is not agriculture.
We need to kind of put that away now.
This is earth removal projects, gravel projects,
because animal matter in specific relation
to an earth removal project.
I don't, I can't think of an example of what that would be.
I don't know.
Cow skeletons?
I don't know.
Cow skeletons or something?
I don't know, I'm trying to.
Yeah, they put it in here, I'm assuming for a reason,
but I don't know what that means.
The old farmer I bought my place from
warned me that whenever I dig up things,
I'll find bones all over the place
because they literally just buried the cows
wherever they fell down, you know.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, there's a big animal pit on this brick road.
They're everywhere.
They're everywhere.
So I don't know, maybe that's what it means.
I'm not sure.
Okay.
I have a question on 610-2.
Yeah.
Permit required.
The, could we, instead of having a second paragraph,
here under shall expire one year from the day of mission.
Isn't that what we already have?
It is, but I wondered if it would be better
to have it more than one year,
because you get the permit, you do your operation,
and then 60 days before you apply for your next permit,
you have to have to do certain things.
So it's a short time to me to, so if we...
What's the point of having it made in a lot?
You know, one year didn't make a lot of sense,
and yet I think everyone agreed that
it's good to not have it ended,
and that those benchmarks of restoring it
are taking so much of the time,
uncovering so much of the time.
I'm not committed to it.
I just put it because that's what we had.
I understand.
I just wondered, I think it would,
to me it would be better to have maybe two years,
three years before they have to come back.
If somebody has a...
Are we highlighting everything that...
This doesn't all have to be in the minutes,
but let's highlight each thing
that we have to research and decide on.
And by the way...
I also picked 100 cubic yards,
but I feel like I saw another one that said 200.
I think that's what I was saying.
I think this one said 200,
and I think, I remember I changed it to 100
to match what Ars said.
So I don't know if you guys want to revisit that as well.
I think it's, well, I hope there's anything over 100.
That's what this says.
But other ones said 200, so I don't know.
What do you mean, other ones?
No, other ones that I was researching.
Some said 100, some said 200.
I put 100 because that's what I think Ars was,
but I don't know if that's another thing you guys...
Are there...
I'm just thinking of the formatting
and presenting the proposal.
Is this enough, like our other,
our old one that you can change definitions
and change the use-changing,
or are we talking about replacing the entire thing?
And it's still, of course, having to highlight
to everybody we have a difference in that.
I don't know. I'm throwing that out there.
I did a complete rewrite,
but in a very similar format as our old one.
And I took some language from our old one,
but I added a bunch, too, so it matches more,
like our solar is now huge compared to what it was.
This is sort of similar.
So I don't know the answer to that.
Going back to what you mentioned with the 100 cubic yards,
I believe in the town of Weyer,
they allow 800 cubic yards,
and then a lot of the guys annually.
So in December, in December,
they pull out 300 yards,
and the following week in January,
they pull out another 800 yards.
Who is that?
In the town of Weyer.
So they allow that, and that's how we got it.
For all the projects?
Or just one per project,
or for all the projects in town?
Per project.
I've never seen one that high.
But I mean, I didn't.
And they plan on that.
Are you saying they need a permit if they're over 800?
Yes.
That's all.
So they can do 800 and 800 in...
December and 800 in January.
That's a lot.
If we change it from 100,
that's going to be 1600.
Yeah, we were at 100.
I mean, whatever.
The other question is,
who monitors it?
Who monitors it now?
Well, when we had an issue
recently,
I think it was a neighbor complaint,
something called Nicole,
and then
it was brought to our attention.
Was that the road?
Yeah.
And then they came in and...
Well, that...
Somebody wanted a copy of the special...
What's the terms of their special permit?
And...
They were in violation?
Yeah, we're looking back.
They didn't have a special permit.
It comes back some years later,
and we're told,
you can't get an extension.
This is so much different now.
You're going to have to come up with a whole new application.
And...
But then,
they never did.
Right, and they finished the project,
and then they came in.
Well, this most recent thing?
The project was...
That hung on.
Was it Earth Removal?
Yeah.
That, and the fact that somebody said
they were operating before 7 AM,
which is the terms of their old expired permit.
So they...
That stopped.
But I think only after...
But if we never received a complaint...
Right.
But your question about
enforcement is...
I mean, these things...
We have enforcement through the
Zoning Enforcement Officer, obviously,
and there are fines that are in here.
But people usually alert us
if it's something
major and obvious.
Yeah.
Yeah, but
there's a whole thing I've complained about before,
which is that permits
are granted with an expiration,
and then the business just continues
and they don't come back in.
So it's kind of this file of when these things
are going to come back.
And like you said, some of these conditions
are going to say,
you have to have restored X amount.
You can only have X amount out there.
And somebody's got to monitor that.
Now, we have...
Maybe that's a place that
consultants could be used.
Which is the 52G thing
we were talking about earlier.
You can get engineering
to review, but you can also get
environmental consultants
to review.
You can get environmental consultants to do this.
And oversight.
And so, and the company,
it's at their expense,
just like engineering,
to review.
Right.
And that is also becoming...
There's also decommissioning funds and charity bonds
and so forth, because
people have walked away.
That's why all that is in here.
Be careful not to get wrong stories.
I only mentioned any specifics, but
there have been cases where
a gravel pit or whatever
does their business and their
permit and permission
said that they would restore it.
And then they don't. Then they're gone.
So, you know,
the LLC's out of business for the first...
So you've got this big hole
in the ground with nothing there
and the rules completely
defied and
nothing to do.
And then the town can sue the company and then the company
can sue the agency.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have these laws in place
because they might not follow them.
But I think the question about enforcement
is interesting and
monitoring the commissions
and whether that can be accomplished
through
decommissioning
or the
consultant fees
that can be put in and held by
the LLC for that purpose.
Which we have.
There are a lot of people that need this
for a living.
I mean, the Conservation Commission
has environmental consultants
that they can hire
to oversee
to make sure that they're in compliance
with the conservation restriction.
This is a very similar situation.
We actually require
the person
in violation to hire
they are required to hire
an engineer to provide
monitoring and report back
at intervals designated
by the enforcement order
to the commission.
And that's basically what we have in here
is if we have these
restrictions, these very specific
restrictions, they're to give us a report
annually.
And that can include having someone go out.
That's a different enforcement action versus
the bottom line.
I'm sorry.
It is
now, but if you create a framework
that parallels it, I mean, it's not
exactly the same, but
we have
powers that come from the state
obviously on this.
But you're talking about creating a
framework or the bylaw that would have some
similar wording.
Of course, it all comes down to
who wants to pay a lawyer
to enforce it if they get
if they really refuse to do it, then
we get that town council
and all that other crap. But I mean, I would
say that I would be in
favor of at least having something on the
books that you could hold in front
of their face.
It's better than them
saying like, well, there's
nothing here saying we couldn't do that.
And this is just tightening it
up and updating it because
like our solar, this
was pretty outdated. So I feel
like this parallels a lot of
what we did with solar
in terms of restoration
and all that stuff.
One avenue
you can possibly go is
request a surety bond.
Put it in the language that provides
a town with a surety bond.
That's in there.
That was in the old one.
They do that, they've got to have a surety bond
that makes sure that
we're satisfied
that there's money there
to pay a lot of business.
The bond is there. They provide the town
a bond.
And another thing, like what Harry
brought up about the permitting,
and you mentioned you don't want to
open many years of
permitting, but what you could do is
put language in there before that year
is up, they renew it, or
they just fill out some paperwork
so the bond's still active, this is active
and it submits it and saying we're going to work
for another year there. And then
at the end of that year, so that permit
could technically go five years.
It could go as long as they need it.
But as long as they renew it
every year.
That's a good question. We've run into that
a couple times where
in fact with the kennel
situation we're looking at, can you
is it within
the board's authority to grant
a special permit for
a period of time that
can then just be extended if there's not
a problem. Like
all stringing things, you can just do that.
It's not a problem, it's just extended.
But everything I've learned from the other
planners and such is no, you can't
you can even put
a term on the permit
but then to get
a new permit later.
With a new hearing, et cetera.
Except we do have
in our approved bylaw
here about the earth removal,
it talks about
you get the permits for
three years or something and
then you can extend it. You can extend it.
For one year and then extend it.
So that's in the bylaw. Maybe it has to be
there as
for that particular subject.
But
we keep hearing we can't
we can't
we can't just
the occupancy of the trailer. We can't just say
we're going to give you a permit
and then come back in
and we'll decide if we want to extend it
or not because
whatever.
There should be a new hearing.
I'm just going off of like say
electrical permit. I pull an electrical
permit and for whatever reason that job
got delayed and
it got carried out where it's almost the end of the
year. And my permit
should be completed within that year.
I can write the wiring
inspector and say, you know,
please extend this into the following year
because of XYZ
delay.
Issue the same exact
permit. Yeah, it's at our discretion.
I mean it says if an existing operation
ceases excavation
and earth removal or filling
for a period of one year, the operator
may not, it says here,
may not resume earth removal without
application for a new permit.
If they've stopped for a year.
Would it be a new permit or an extension?
It would be a new permit if they stopped
for one year, like a whole year.
So we do
the commission
does similar things where we would grant
permission for
something for two years
say renewable
but they have to come in front of the board
and explain
why
they feel we should
let them continue. And I would say honestly
we usually do because there's usually a reason.
They ran into a problem, right?
And there's usually a reason. I would
say that
if no work has gone on for
a year, that's a de facto
you know, end of the project.
And that I would in that instance say that
I would think you would want to have a new
permit. Set a few aside.
You have to come in for a new special permit.
Which we can grant.
Right, well that, yes,
we're going to be hearing a fee and everything else.
But that might not
be legitimate
in a new or left division.
I mean the state did come down and say
in all of the zoning
permits that
you know, as I said before, if you haven't
begun
constructive work on your permit
within two years,
it's dead. And then they
changed that to three years
in almost every case.
So that you know,
as everybody said, you get three years
to exercise the rights of your permit
granted. This sounds like you've
already started and then stopped and then
it kind of goes backwards. Which I think we've run into
before. We've had people who
have stopped operations for
over a year
and then just want to pick up where they
left off, right?
If I remember is when that first started.
Okay, so it sounds as though they need to
know more about
about
extensions,
purchase renewals,
maybe about
the period of time that they
can go dormant.
We need to know more about sherry bonds
or the
53G account for consultants
possibly with money up front to be
held for that.
We have done that in the past.
Right.
So
yeah, those things
we talked about the hundred.
Let's see again how many
hundred is and whether that's
enough. It's a hundred
in a year.
It says in 12 months or so.
No person
firm or corporation shall excavate or
import more than
a hundred cubic yards collectively
of all this material
blah blah blah from any district in the
town of Hardwick without first.
So if there's no time
period.
I mean this is
these are people coming
to operate a business
and do projects.
So it's not
I mean this is commercial
usually. Usually, but
that's what this is supposed
to distinguish
if somebody says well I want
a hundred
they can do a hundred
but never more than they have to get a special
permit.
Even if it's only next morning.
Somebody says you
can sell a
two truckload of money in a
year
and that's over a hundred you need a permit
then they'd be right to say that.
So
are you suggesting that we have
a one year period for the hundred
cubic yards?
Well I mean
what is a hundred cubic yards anyway?
Five?
Yeah
but you know
so I guess it's a question
is how realistic is it for somebody to be able
to
to excavate itself
or import I guess
more than five
truckloads for their
non-commercial first of all
I think
a hundred cubic yards
is there to prevent
a earth removal
business in itself
so after a hundred
cubic yards now you're
in the business of earth removal
and selling it. So the hundred
cubic yard limit
just cautions
us so that if somebody really
starts a earth removal
gravel operation etc. then they have
to come to us.
Bear in mind this
wouldn't be
agricultural purposes moving us up around
wouldn't come into play at all
either does the excavation of
land for the foundation
for your building.
So this is really
a very narrow lane and this is what we've already
have on the books.
So it was a one year
period for the
hundred cubic yards. Does that make sense?
Yeah I would say so.
It defines it.
What are the other points?
Earth calendar again?
Earth calendar. In regards to
the
say we had
a three
year permit
as an example. So
instead of having a permit for one year
we make it three years.
So in that three year period
I think
I've seen language I don't know if it's in this
or in our current or somebody else's where
we stipulate
that you have
an engineering consultant
going once a year
to see what they're doing and to see
if they're living up to the special conditions
I think annual reports are required.
Required.
I think so. I have to
be in there but I'm not sure. I think so.
So what that
does is shows
us at their expense
that an engineer
in that particular
area or engineering
goes in and says okay
this is your special permit. Show me what
you've begun, what you're ending here
at this year period and
do it every year, do the third
year and make it back in for the
renewal.
Which they shouldn't be able to get if they
haven't met all of their
requirements. Right. So the engineer
will report to us.
Let's look at what the
term by law says here.
Every permit shall contain a condition
that inspection of the operation
may be made at
any reasonable hours by an
agent of the board. Blah, blah, blah.
Yeah. I mean sorry
go ahead. But I think it isn't here
that we get an annual.
Okay.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
We don't have
like an environmental agent.
Just back one second.
In our current one it says no person from
a corporation shall excavate
in any one year more
than a hundred people.
In any one year.
Okay.
Okay.
A
peer review
engineer
or environmental
consultant may be retained by the planning
board. How the
expenses of this peer review engineer
or environmental consultant
shall be paid for by the applicant.
I should
not see
I'm actually not seeing the annual reports.
I'll put that in.
Where is that?
I didn't, I don't see it yet.
Okay.
Under 610.
610-4.
On.
Yep.
In our 610-6.
That's about surety bonds.
Saying this is already.
Oh yeah.
Planning board should require the applicant.
To provide a surety bond or deposit of money.
If you may take the form of assignment and say.
How to send it to the depository bank.
And maybe that may or may not be allowable.
Maybe it says.
There's a certain place the town has to hold it.
Yeah, I updated that on my 6.6.
So.
Under bond.
$4,000 per acre.
To ensure the fulfillment of the requirements of this bylaw.
Because of the conditions of that.
We need to change that.
I did.
I have 610.
6.
Bond or surety.
The planning board shall require the condition of granting.
Of the permit that the applicant shall furnish.
A performance bond.
Or other security satisfactory to the board.
Sufficient to ensure satisfactory performance.
The requirements of this bylaw.
Of such.
Other conditions.
As may be imposed by the permit.
The security shall not be released until the surveyor.
Or engineer has filed with the board.
And as billed plan.
And has also certified that the restoration has been completed.
In compliance with the permit.
So.
So I was taking out the bell or not.
Right.
I did.
In addition to this.
My suggestion.
Would be.
To require initial.
Photographs of the area.
For comparison to.
The restoration.
So we know what the area looks like when they begin.
Before they begin.
And then we know.
Have some guidance.
The restoration.
So I want to ask this.
So.
You know somebody.
Somebody's got a property.
It's permitted for.
For.
Extraction.
And they want to.
Take this five acres or whatever.
And.
Excavated.
We've got some stuff in there.
Maybe.
It says.
Only half of the time.
Or something.
And then restored.
As you go along.
To figure out.
The count.
That.
Causes them.
To.
Satisfy.
You know.
Survey.
Or something.
You know you've started a project like that.
That's a lot of money.
This isn't a lot of money.
To do this.
In accordance with.
The bylaw.
Right?
I mean if you say well you're going to.
No.
I mean you know we're going to put up.
You know.
Whatever.
Ten thousand bucks or something.
Whatever it is to.
To allow us.
At the.
You know.
Four million bucks.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
You know.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
Or whatever.
It's not what it's going to be.
You know, whatever.
Or ever ever ever ever weeks before.
Either way.
Either way.
So.
Whatever.
Leader of the country.
the stuff that is completely inappropriate for sandy soils. So this I would think by not putting
that in there and having it be on an as case basis, a lot of these sandy soils are disturbance
dependent areas like muddy brook. So if you gravel it, you don't want to plant a lawn on top of it.
You don't want to put trees that don't belong there. Oftentimes what's in the seed bank will
come up naturally. So by landscaping it, you basically do the slopes and whatever and leave
it alone. And it will a lot of times be fine. It's clearly on a case by case basis and we would
probably have a consultant confirm that. But Chris says he just cringes every time he sees these
sandy soils be restored to a habitat that they're not designed to be. And that ends up costing way
more money. So it seems like it's costing a lot of money, but in some ways it's saving a lot of money.
So the security bond or the money that may require for something to be put up, who monitors that?
So if we require an annual notice that the security bond is in effect, who does that go to?
Okay, this may answer the question we just raised. In a little bit when we talk about the potential wireless application coming and the consultant piece that we talk to the potential applicant about providing,
that's a good thing to do. And maybe it's something we'll use for the dorm in the hill.
Is that what's called a 53G account? Because we have a 53G account that somehow has a little money in it. We'll have to figure out where that came from.
It's a few thousand bucks, I guess, but it hasn't been used in quite a while. But that's the account into which somebody would put,
in the case of the wireless, they'd put the money in there. Is this the solical we just used for Eagle Hill? Okay, so that account gets money put into it, and then when we take a deposit,
we take money out of it to pay the peer review consultant, and then whatever isn't used on that project is returned, which is what we're going to use for Eagle Hill.
That is what we're going to see as an avenue with the wireless, and I don't know why this would be any different. It's money used to hold the town to hold for compensation to consultants.
For the town treasury?
In a certain account, and I'm not sure who gets the interest on that.
If we have a surety bond, which isn't money in an account, and we require that to be reviewed annually, who does that?
I don't know. That should probably be us on the tickler file that I'm still working on going back all these years of everything we've said in the two like that,
with a timetable or expiration or a renewal on it, and then we would end up, I think, saying, okay, they have to show us that they've done this.
I suppose that would mean the letter going out, telling them, you've got to renew this, prove that you renewed this, or your permit's going to flat, and that sort of thing.
I guess that's what that is, right?
Right, so who keeps track of it?
Right now, I don't know. I don't know that we have any like that right now, right?
Well, we may.
Well, we need to know the answer to your question, for sure.
Who's going to do it? Is it going to be up for us to say, you know, a year from the date of this permit?
Yeah, we've got 11 months. We've got to see that you've renewed this for a year after that.
It might just be nicer to have cash in the account to their credit.
Well, I'm not sure, but would that be something the treasurer would?
Yeah, the treasurer, she seems to know. She answered it quickly in the question I asked them, otherwise, it counts.
So if we told her we have an annual review, she would keep track of that, somehow, somewhere.
I guess we don't, I don't know, but that should be the right place to start.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Wouldn't you keep track of that?
Like, keep a table of everyone you issue a special permit to with an expiration date or something that reminds you or reminds this board?
I think it's, I felt it's the board's responsibility.
It sounded like there were a number of those things that worked.
You know, some things, some things have not been monitored like that.
Some of those deadlines and such.
And the things, the question I think is like, some people would get a permit that's not in effect until they report it to the registry.
Well, and then they don't go and do it.
And then it comes up when there's some problem down the road.
They do it on real estate.
But as soon as it's been doing that, she's been going to the registry and collecting the money for fees like that.
And then it gets recorded and then we see that it's recorded.
But something like a, like, I don't know what happened when we had one gravel, one gravel guy who got a permit for a year and needed to extend it to spend like three or four times to come back in and get another extension.
And there's a couple things I saw about somebody coming in and saying they're done and they want their 800 bucks back or something that was being held.
So I guess there's some history of that.
But who actually does it?
I don't know.
Sometimes, sometimes it doesn't come up.
You know, the people aren't told their permit's done.
And Lucinda barely has enough time to do the minutes.
I'm not trying to pile on anymore.
She already, at the end of the fiscal year, will say, like, I'm just doing minutes.
I am over time.
Right.
Is this permit issued by the building inspector?
Who issues the permit?
The planning board issues special permits.
Okay.
With Marty and Highway and the driveway connect, you're going to put that one in front.
And then Paula releases the check and sends the check back to you.
Paula?
Paula Roberts.
So you mean Riley would do that?
Well, no.
So, yeah.
Just did it last month.
I know.
I didn't think she would.
She's the longest employee in the town.
So she's still got her fingers in there somehow.
But it's...
Does it have anything to do with cemetery or college?
No, it had to do with the driveway permit that I pulled for campus.
And I had to put up $1,500 for the driveway.
Because it was a dirt road.
And once it was finished and completed and Marty signed off, then he had to sign off
for Paula and Paula sent me the check back.
So Paula was involved with that one somehow.
I don't know how that struck me.
Well, it's down there to the pilot questions.
We should try to figure this out.
Yeah, we've got to figure it out.
We will.
We'll use the 53G and we'll use the...
Hey, I have a thought here.
I did see the town exemptions.
Yes, there's a lot of exemptions.
Well, on the town number 4, 610-3, number 4.
Yep.
We should add and to municipal purposes?
Yes, we did.
I noted that.
Because I just assumed the highway department would be doing all of that.
But if you want to umbrella that to any municipal related...
Let me go there if we could.
The largest gravel removal operation in West Arthur is the state of Massachusetts.
And they move 50,000 out at a time.
Can we impose regulations on the state?
That's what I'm asking.
It's in hard work.
It's in hard work.
Did they need a special permit?
I know.
It was the time Roach was pulling out.
They were pulling out at the same time.
And I'm like, geez, how come no one's talking?
Where did they take that from?
We call it the porthole.
But they just took 50,000 out last year.
That's a lot.
It's on Greenland space, I know where you're going.
Go past Mellon Road right there.
There's a gate, there's a pile of...
So they take it directly and they take it into the quad?
On some of the roads?
I believe it all goes back into the quad.
It's somewhere.
I've seen it go past me.
I haven't seen that in any other towns.
I'm not saying I know the answer to that.
But I've looked at a lot of different towns to compare.
They're probably exempt.
I would think so.
You would think so, but are they?
Well, I don't know.
I've seen no other town mention it.
So, I mean, we can compare.
I'm just going to tell you a little bit of a story
to speak of the town from their own...
moving from their own...
No.
Probably not.
And if you want to note that the state is exempt as well,
I suppose we could put a fee on it.
We could put a fee on it.
Well, that's my next.
I'm trying to get there.
So, you know, there's tip-in fees
usually involved with these operations.
And that's usually what allows
these permits to go through.
So, I'm familiar with some of them
where they're a dollar a year.
And the engineers at the end of the year
do their aerial training.
It's a dollar a year.
No, the town is $25,000.
It's a ticket.
Okay, who can look into that further
and see if there are examples
of any town tipping fee
like that from the state?
That would be great.
I have not seen that anywhere.
But if we can put it in there,
I'm not close to it.
I'm just saying I have not seen that anywhere.
Okay.
Is that the only exemption
that you said municipal uses?
We have a bunch of exemptions.
Yeah, and that includes all the
cemetery and agriculture.
That includes all the ones that we had
and maybe even a little more.
The inventions in respect to harm
are, again, making a change.
Yeah, we'll put all
municipal-related, all official
municipal-related uses.
This is just history.
Some of you won't know
what this is about.
It's a cultural exemption
from
doing what you want in respect to
gravel
if it's supporting
agriculture.
And I have it all spelled out.
Agriculture, horticulture,
horticulture, and ecological restoration.
I added that.
But I don't know if there's another
culture if you want in there.
If anybody had one, I don't even know what it is.
And agriculture.
It probably
refers to
the same definitions now as
we were just dealing with the animals
before they were defined all that.
But I just point out that we have some
history, not that we're too far out of this, but up on
Brodyville, right?
There was a property there
that for years and years
was being excavated
supposedly into
a greenhouse up above
or something.
And it's changing this.
And we found it.
Right. And so that
a lot of people hated that.
But it ended up being
and there's no way all that gravel
coming out of there was being used for the greenhouse
business up there. But
it didn't get pressed. It would have cost money
I guess. And it just ended up a huge hole
in the greenhouse.
But I mean it's
you know,
there's nothing about it.
There's no intention that
someone's going to find it.
Okay.
All right. What else on the subject
that's unmovable we want to
research about for time.
You mentioned it
interestingly enough. It's like 800
plus 800 or something.
With that
hand, can we see any
weaknesses that could be
avoided by
anybody in the gravel business
who's trying?
Almost everyone has a hundred.
I don't know anything about this.
So I'm assuming it's for a reason.
Eight loads.
Eight fifty-nine loads.
And if there's any other
account that does that I'd be curious.
Because I looked at a lot of
other accounts.
No. If you find it.
We don't want to be unreasonable
or something. But clearly
the experience of many
towns needs some protection
in order to go out there. Absolutely.
Right. This isn't like the backyard farmer.
This is for someone who comes in and
wants to, I don't know.
And you've got to understand, earth material is
a product. And it's a product used
in ninety percent, ninety
plus percent of all buildings
in America. And it's also
could be profitable
for the towns.
The towns that have these
natural pits.
Natural spuds.
Or if
you just negotiate different things.
All right. Well let's expand that question.
Nothing here is saying that that can't happen.
You're saying that you're going to have a fee
for the permit based on how much you do?
I've heard of it.
I've heard of it.
I've found in such instances that
if you get a gravel permit, we want to know
how much you got to pay us something.
We want ten cents a year.
That might be something for
the planning board forum.
In my research, which
was just piecemeal, I did
not come across that at all.
Maybe that's a general bylaw thing.
I don't know. As usual,
if one of this happens anywhere in the state,
maybe we'll see that it happens.
If it doesn't happen,
we'll try to acknowledge.
We have that in our current
bylaw.
Filing fee and amount established
by the planning board and the plan review
fee determined by detailed engineering
estimates of ten cents per cubic
yard of materials that will
be excavated and removed by the
applicant.
Have we ever? Six, ten, three,
five. Have we ever done that?
We should.
We should.
Especially with the state.
Six, point, ten, three, five.
What page?
Forty-four, forty-five.
Sorry,
six point?
Was it on my draft? No.
Six point,
what is it?
Page forty-five, top,
number five.
Excuse me.
Who would enforce that
if that's ten cents a yard?
That's
the million dollar limit.
The only way to keep
track of it in my mind is by
the slips for the trucks.
For the others.
And
requiring copies of that
from the owner.
Is that something you'd want to do quarterly,
monthly, or yearly?
It sounds like it worked out
that it would be an assessment
or after the fact.
It was ten percent of everything it did.
There's no ten thousand dollars
in popcorn
in one of the projects.
Maybe that's a bad idea.
But you basically
are on a roll tonight.
Nobody keeps track of it, but they say
did this, and here's that money.
Honestly, today it's all done on satellite.
They know.
They know when you start.
We're going to take pictures before they start
when they finish. They'll take the satellite
before they start. And then they'll
monitor that.
If it's set up quarterly or
suddenly.
And then for their new license,
if it's annual, or every two years
or three years, then that report
has to come in. And that satellite,
that engineer with that satellite will tell
you what was removed
within a yard.
So we need to know if there's a precedent for that.
We need to know if it's put
in there, if it comes through
to a foreign bylaw, or some sort of
general bylaw, and how
it could be enforced. The enforcement part might
not be that hard. The permit's going to show
this
many acres, and that would turn
pretty much into
I mean, you'd get a good estimate of what it was going to be
at the time the permit was
and the engineers know what the permit was going to be.
And then they spread it out
over a period of time.
But I mean,
in terms of
Excuse me.
What about the existing
operations that aren't paying
the ten cents a yard credit?
That's a good question.
I don't know if there's a grandfather
thing that goes on there,
or if they just come in after the fact
and say, you know what's on this now? I don't know.
And then if we take R.J. McDonald's
who's an existing business,
they haul in more material,
process it, take back out.
So they would be exempt. That's not
excavated material from
Hardin. So I
don't think they'd fall under
this, because it's
Well, what about
importing?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe that's why I haven't seen
these. I mean, in terms of
enforcement, we can't even get
a light complaint
that we've been complaining about for literally
five years.
I can't
imagine that
anything that needs to be
has to be a general
law.
Because there's, you know,
but it is a bylaw right now. It's a
zoning bylaw.
This ten cents a yard thing.
It's now what Harry was just talking about.
It's an existing bylaw.
I'll look into it.
They'd be glad to pay it.
Right.
As long as they get their permit, they'll be glad to pay that.
Probably
Well, up at the 25 cents, I'll tell you.
Really?
Well, then you guys should multiply it.
Can we change that one, Bill?
So you said page 44
of what?
Page 45 is
what I read.
It comes under
610.35
for the filing fee
and the 10 cents per cubic yard.
Excuse me, John.
You mentioned the satellites and stuff like that.
Who pays for that?
Well, that would be the
operator.
The applicant.
Okay.
Very good.
Do you know, is that an expensive service?
What's expensive?
Everyone has a drone now.
I can't imagine that.
I was just so impressed with
what the guy did at my campground here
for the layout. He just walked around.
We were talking, and I'm like, okay, what are we going to do?
He says, it's all done. I've been following.
That's what I've been doing with this device.
He planned the whole thing out?
The septic system?
The elevations?
Wow.
You should buy that device.
I wouldn't know what I'm running.
So it's
modern technology is helpful too.
It's amazing.
When you know how to run it.
That's the key.
What time do we want to get out of here?
One more thing, because I just am not seeing this.
I don't know anything about the current
fitting.
While you're working,
if I may comment?
Sure.
You were very concerned about
the weight of refuse trucks
on a recent
issue.
These trucks are heavy, right?
And
you know, they're driving on our
roads. I think the town should have
the right to be collecting
should be collecting
these fees
for maintenance of roads and
associated culverts and all the other
things. They're driving or
So to my knowledge
that was
heavily
and hardly discussed
in the
right to commerce
and the taxes you pay on the trucks.
Tax size tax, fuel tax,
road tax, all that stuff.
But
absolutely, let's see if we can get money.
Absolutely.
But I don't know if we can.
But I don't think the planning board should be in the business of
collecting fees because
no.
Well, not on an ongoing basis, but
a collector should collect fees.
But the outside
has to pay for the filing fee, right?
That's why we have a collector.
Exactly.
It doesn't just come in with the application
all over the place.
Do you want me to put
that in an appropriate setting?
The application
includes all of this
and it says the filing fee
and the
plan review
I have $170 that I wrote
probably years ago.
So we've talked about this.
This is the
Okay, let's read this note.
Let's see what we've got here.
It says
the application will include a filing
fee in the amount established
by the planning board.
That to me sounds like
the application fee.
And a plan review fee
determined by
detailed engineering estimates
of 10 cents.
So if
the plan review
fee
to review the plan
you're going to charge them 10 cents
for the amount
that is kind of being permitted to be taken out
over time.
Right up front.
So everyone's application
is $25,000
that's what the permit's for.
So along with the other fees
they're going to pay that 10 cents
per yard up front.
So every special permit application
will be a different
amount.
If we were following this
we've never done this.
We haven't had one of these in a month.
We shaved it out!
What a productive meeting
this is.
How much of the state do you send them a bill?
I want to send them a bill
for every gallon of water that goes
out of Iowa.
We're working on that.
Let's take it
to something.
Do you want me to put that in this
cardinal one? I will.
Let's research whether it's
legit
and there's a precedent for it
and where it should go.
But if it's just a filing fee
it just goes on
and on and on.
What's there of none?
Do we get paid?
Double?
We get double a pay?
Double zero.
Okay.
Time of hand.
Put it in your budget.
There's a little bit more to do
but I'm sensing that we're getting
as far as we want on this.
Do we want to do the minutes?
So I will update this as much as possible.
I'm not putting anything in about the state
unless I hear that.
Mr. Chair
it didn't come up and I'm just curious.
What about the 7 o'clock public hearing
for the kennel? It didn't seem to be
mentioned at all and I don't know what happened.
I know
the applicant didn't come so
It got extended to next time.
Is it not on
the agenda tonight?
January
13th.
Minutes?
Yes.
We certainly can
both from 12 to 16
the open meeting and then
the Nevis kennel hearing
special permit application
that's the second one.
Remember one was still out
one was on the phone
that happened on December 16th.
That's the most recent one.
I'd say
first off that
we'll see
in the minutes if we review those in detail
now that
it was an agreement
extended
or continued
to the 13th.
It would have been mentioned
but the applicant wasn't
in town so we picked the next
meeting and it's the 13th at 7 o'clock.
It's already posted
for the 13th.
But at that
meeting we did not have
a hearing
and so
just jumping
that little bit you will be
reviewing
these minutes even if
they're just in draft form
you'll review
the final draft
prior to
the hearing
and file a form
for the Mullen participation
there with Tal Clark
and you need to listen to the
recording which I'll provide to you.
So
both of those
are here
let's take a look but I'll tell you right off
that on the hearing itself
which is lengthy a lot of points
were made in support and opposition
and so forth and my feeling
was that we've got
to elaborate
a little more on some of that. I had some
suggestions for you quite a few actually
but maybe
too much to
get all incorporated
tonight
knowing that
it needs to be
drafted
finalized and provided
to Jenna in time.
So
but let's at least
let's start with the open meeting.
Let's start with the open meeting
December 16th.
So
the only suggestion I had
on this one was that
the mail file
was in a pre-application
meeting but the pre-application
conference
was scheduled
with KCI
and
SBA
is the tower builder
they were both present on the call
along with
working group
Harry
Cumberford and Bill
Cole.
It wasn't
oh no, no
it was
it was scheduled.
You're right. In fact
you don't have to put the two of us in because
it was after
it was after that we actually did that.
This is just when it was scheduled. Excuse me.
Pre-application conference was scheduled
with KCI and others for December
for December 9th.
Oh we already did.
What am I getting wrong here?
December 9th
was scheduled for
December 9th
but this is the minutes from December 16th?
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay. It wasn't scheduled
then. It had happened then so
you want to say
a pre-application
conference
was held
with KCI
and SBA towers and
working group Harry
Cumberford and Bill Cole
on December 9th.
Okay.
And it was noted that
a minimum of a 48-hour
notice of gum test
was required
in order to
potentially invite
the public
to
an open meeting
for that purpose.
That's what we did earlier.
Okay.
Number seven
by the way it does mention
that we returned to Harvick's
farm status
right to farm status.
It did mention John Barron
after that
in just two hours.
Okay.
That's all
I have.
Motion to accept
the amendments
second.
Motion on the floor is to accept the December
16th
open meeting
for all amendments as amended.
No discussion?
All in favor?
You are here.
Okay.
Now
this is going to
take some time.
May I suggest
I mean each of you got this by
email or got it now right?
This is the
Neva's hearing
from December 16th.
Okay. There's a number of things.
There's some of your spellings and there's
I think more things need to be
included there.
A little more detail about the letters
in support and the senders
of the letters in opposition and
a few things that I'd like to just send
back to Boone my thoughts on that
if you all would do the same thing then I think
could you then shoot back to us at
what would be
a near final and final draft
in the coming days so we can get
that to Jenna?
Is that good for everybody?
Yep.
Then we will table these
until
Lewis
digested some more
incorporated some more minutes
or some more edits to the minutes.
And that's
the end of that
subject.
I had on here something I don't know
a whole lot about which is
unusual.
Updates from the Zoning Enforcement
Officer.
I got a copy from
them from
Christine
to request
because remember we had complained about
Old Forest General Store lighting the second
time. The first time we saw
Zoning Enforcement was
in February but this was the board
that did this.
I know I did two.
One or definitely one.
I thought I did two.
Yeah, this was over the past five years.
Anyway
the letter was
sent to
the Zoning Enforcement Officer
for Old Forest General Store lighting
violation
notifications.
Do you want to
say anything about what that is?
If you don't mind.
Basically it starts the
clock. You send a notification
with certified mail.
Returns to receipt to the town.
So it starts the clock for the
person in violation. You list the
violation and you give them
a cure. Whether that's
30 days, 60 days, 90 days.
Whatever you determine.
They can either
make the
corrections or
they don't. They can go to the zoning
board of appeals
state their case there.
But the whole thing is they have to be
given official notice
for it to start.
I think Paul did that.
Let me ask this of you.
That's what I was asking for.
I was asking for the letter
with this.
Was this in your packet at the meeting?
No.
Usually I just gave
a template
and it would list the zoning
property, mailing
address,
the violation,
you know, it's all listed
and it's signed by the zoning enforcement officer
and dated and it's sent certified
mail with that certified mail
number right on the letter.
Does that require them to go certified mail?
Yeah. Because otherwise
I don't think he sent it certified mail.
Because otherwise you have no receipt.
You have no proof that they've accepted it.
If I may, the mail
loss dates that
the receipt is implied.
So that's it.
The certified note with the number
and all that stuff is for our convenience
of having
confirmation of that.
But for most things the fact that you presented
a letter to the post office
it is assumed that there
is delivery. So
I mean I would personally agree with you that
it should be sent to the return receipt.
I think that would be cleanest.
But if he has already been
served.
So he's been spoken to.
No, but if he's been served by mail
then the person
that did that mailing should
that should be in a file somewhere.
May I say
when Paul
said this and he said he sent this out
after maybe the
third time over the last year and a half
he said what's the status
of that? And he said
I gotta get to that.
And then he sent a copy of
this letter which
October 16th
and he said that
the Choley LLC which is
their business name and the name of
that they got the permit in and
they owned the property in
were their very address.
And he
sent it to the
two persons that are managers
and he mentioned these other building code violations
and said
the additional
time on that however
and then he talked about
the
I want to remind you your special permit
was approved May 24th
22nd
as conditions that run with the property
you must follow
all his own bylaws.
And he talks about the bylaw
which was the one in effect then and still
we've never changed anything about
outdoor lighting.
The only way to enforce this is with a light meter
I have such experience
and I own such a meter
and then
he says on December 12th, 2024
I have the opportunity to inform you
that I did perform a light test
on the number 12.
You must have just talked to him then
and then sent this letter later.
I found the light levels and then he goes into
technical stuff about why I had to follow
the traffic etc.
And then he says
he says
this is what
sent things in the direction they did
involved in their licensing. He says
my inspection
results found this is a violation
of private zone bylaws whatever
and your approved special use permit.
As managers of the story
now that I
have documented the information of the
monitor property you are responsible
to file the terms and conditions of your special use permit
and private zone bylaws
corrected after
this zoning violation
will affect your ability to renew your
off-premise legal notices if not
abated in a timely manner
in accordance with
your
your firm appropriations
responsible. This letter is a legal warning
notice if not abated within 30 days
of receipt of this written legal notice
you will be subject to penalty
by fine in the amount of $25
for first about more than
$25 a day.
I desire to work with you
to achieve compliance
if you feel
that I made an error
you are ready to appeal in 30 days.
Well there was no appeal
although they were in to talk with him
at length
about the whole thing.
Can you just reiterate the date on that again?
October 16th.
Year?
2022?
October 16th, 2025.
Oh, 2025, okay.
So, you know, a couple days later
they get this and get that
because they got it
and they've done everything
so they certainly had it by whatever
late November
excuse me
had it by late October. The 30 days
has gone by late November. They've done nothing
and then it went to this
level of the license
which is suggested. They haven't appealed
and your
decision that night
was something about
conditional
within 30 days
but maybe it wasn't 100% clear
when it was 30 days. 30 days or
90 days, whatever it was
but we wanted to know when they
were notified.
I think after the meeting
I mentioned this day's letter
was this a new packet?
No, it wasn't an old packet.
I've seen that letter.
That letter's been around.
I've read that letter online somewhere.
I've seen that.
I probably
sent it to you all
without talking about it as a complainant
but
I sent it also to
Justine
and Sandy
that come from Paul.
So, anyway
I don't know when 90 days or whatever
started but there's been no
fines so hopefully
they'd ordered one shield
hopefully they'd put it up
solved the problem
and then it's like
I still want my
compliance.
So, I don't understand how that light
communicated compliant with your
bylaws. Having just read them before I
sent in my letter
that that light
does not meet
the criteria of cutoffs
at the cutoff angle and height above ground
and all the other things
that are in the bylaw. It not only shines
in the road, it shines across the street
it illuminates the entire floor.
It blinds you coming down the hill
past Ritchie Woods.
I've been bringing this up for years.
I've written a letter to you guys about this
in the past and so
that light
is faulty and needs to be taken down
it's a hazard
they can come up with other remedies
with new lighting
but they do not need one light
lighting an entire parking lot
intersection and everybody's surrounding
property. You should see the guy who lives
next to it shine right into his
window.
No, it's
horrible. And still it's like
five houses down
lights halfway up the house.
I think the guy that complained was
just on the outside of the tracks, upstairs
he changed something I think.
Maybe they lowered it a little bit.
I don't know.
We've talked
to them privately if you don't just have the
store like
I don't want to talk about the light.
Their answer is no.
But you have remedy
right there.
The first building inspector
refused to deal with it because
he didn't know how.
I'm just making sure he gave them proper notice.
Can we get that letter?
Select board?
You guys, you want to request
this?
You can show me an email or whatever.
I mean that would be easier.
Yeah.
So you're taking this up on your agenda?
We did under the
when we renewed the alcohol beverage
license and the stipulation
under his amendment made for his
store that if he doesn't correct this
within 90 days
and so I wanted to know
from the violation date.
So I wanted to know, I was asking
to find out the notification of that
violation date.
The letter was sent from the select board
to the business?
Justine just recently
sent one, yeah the town administrator sent
one. When does their license actually
renew?
January 1st.
I don't know.
She's receiving
responsibility.
Basically it's in the select board's
hands to
renew the license or not?
The license is renewed.
It's renewed with the stipulation of
he's going to fix this within 90 days.
When is the 90 days up?
Well it was based off of the violation
notice. So that's why I was trying to
find out the notice date.
And to Neil's point, I don't think a simple
small shield, I mean it's like the sun.
It's the incorrect
shield that's going to fix it.
It's the wrong fixture at the wrong location.
How many of those have you seen
are floating?
I don't know why this doesn't fix it.
Anyways, never mind.
You're going to have the same issue with
microplanes.
The wrong fixture is in the wrong place?
Where?
No.
We're almost
done.
Thank you for the
information.
We have
no approval
not required questions or apps.
Visiting
comments?
As needed.
Old business
simply
the update on the expected
special permit and site plan
review applications from KCI
Tech for the South Tower
and Zero Berry Road.
Use of
and fee for
consultants.
As you've seen in the minutes, we approve that we
talked about
the use of consultants
which is in
our bylaws where we had
that pre-application conference.
Harry pointed out
to them that it was in there talking about
engineering peer review
legal
environmental
whatever we
reasonably demanded
be part of
those opinions and information
given to us besides just their
presentation.
And that those fees for that were supposed to be
part of a complete
application which we haven't received yet.
They're waiting to know
how to handle
that.
Should we pay them directly?
Who is it? How much is it?
And so I was waiting until
I heard back from
Eric who had
worked with a
consultant back in
2011
when the South Tower
was closed.
So he looked and
got some of that information
and contacted the same
outfit that was used then
that the engineering consultant
did that as well.
So that was an
iso-trope.
Eric reached out to them
and did his own business and the guy got back
and he said, well, the guy in our firm
is really good. He works more
with municipalities than I do now.
They sell themselves.
So Eric
communicated with him which is one of his
knowledge there.
The guy said,
yes,
we can do that. We can help you review
the whole situation
with respect to
the cell tower
part of it. This may not
include
whether the
driveway is right
or not.
But anyway, the construction of the tower.
Everything to do with the
radio waves and the
coverage
perhaps.
His suggestion
was that we use
the 53G account
and tell
the applicant to put some
money in there and Eric
and I were thinking as soon as we think
about telling
them we want a deposit
for X amount
that would cover
one for sure
and three different
consultants to different degrees.
Is that really legal and then possibly something
about the engineering of the structure?
So those consultants
they've already said
we'll do what it takes.
So
we were thinking
maybe it would be something like
five and three and two
thousand dollars
to ask them to put into
that account
by their application and check the hardware
that they want to use.
These consultants
when their work is done
they'll find anything to them.
Did that
company contact, did they give an idea
of what they would
charge?
His language or something like
Yeah, that sounds kind of low.
What happened?
I don't know
it's probably going to be
well I mean
what happened with Eagle Hill, was that
four thousand or something?
It was fifty five hundred but then it came in
less because we didn't have to make a second visit.
Okay, well anyway
what they said
Here's one more.
Okay, this is the background
but then
Okay
This is one
this is one isotope
guy telling the other one
he says
I said to tell them
meaning ask them to tell.
I said to tell them that a five thousand dollar
deposit to the 53G account
would be a likely target
for isotope services
subject to revision if the process runs
long.
They have no money so they might also note
the expected cost for counsel
to provide advice
and see what the center one
says.
So that's what they said
and you know the legal thing
which was the basis for the
suit in AT&T
and
the card went back
four was about
a couple thousand dollars of legal expense
that AT&T wouldn't pay
because the money was going to go to KP
law and they considered them independent
enough to be an outside consultant
or something.
So that was never paid.
Even though we're told it was right
but it was like expensive to pursue
or something like that.
But we didn't get the money up front.
Getting the money
going up front and saying
and we want two thousand dollars for
potential legal
review of the situation
but I don't really know
you know
I called it up in there
and it's been on the board
for a couple thousand dollars
and he was asking
this guy said
what's the
likelihood of having
significant legal expense
or anything.
Do we have to make it clear that
it would be with our attorney
and not their attorney
or a third party attorney
in light of what happened before?
Maybe if they ask but
I'm thinking that we could start
off by saying
you understand the bylaws say that
you know the advocates
responsible for reasonable consultant fees
all we can do is estimate
that at this point but it seems as though
you know consultants
primarily
you know
Icicle services
I guess I didn't mention
and
possibly
something for
legal counsel and possibly something for engineering
with
you know
more than
you know
we don't even expect it to
and it's a deposit and then we come back
and if we get that much anyway
it's a house hand and the money came in
ten thousand sounds reasonable
I agree
get the bag and then
just a minute
yeah
just
I guess related
but it's in the same letter here
so this is
one Icicle black calendar
the one that's going to be on the page
I invited Eric that the TCA
which is the Telecommunications Act
something that effectively forces
the town to consider the need for the proposed
power and location
that the TCA requires
substantial evidence of the written record
in support of denial
denial should refer to that evidence
this is why legal advice is necessary
if a denial effectively
prevents the provision of personal
wireless services
then either the planning board should prove it
or the courts will
of course the board does not know
if a denial will be the result of the hearings
or a miscollect substantial evidence
and we asked about
our particular bylaws which
the rule followed
to them
there may be something but it sounds here like
the main legal thing would be like
if the town
wanted someone to help write
the whole opinion which is what
the legal was used for
in the decision letter
for Ron Duncourt
you know
it certainly seems like something that could be challenged
if it's
either side
like the ruling side
not on the
side of the subject when you're considering
permitting I would
throw out here that
sort of like cable
issues that
part of the permit be
a request
demand statement of
right
for the town to utilize
hosting space
power
for public safety radio
is that in there
would be okay
yeah I mean just given how
cable
that would be different
state police
police fire etc.
would want to be on the tower
right because we had we did that tabletop
Board of Health state
drill last month
and communications is actually
one of our weaknesses
so just out there
so you
what
you're talking about town stuff or
we would result
if the town deemed it necessary
to say put a repeater
on that town at that
site for fire
given that one of the
deficiencies noted
or we
are so one of the other radio services
to serve the town for public
safety that
we would have space
in the in the
building and potential space
on the tower
because normally they release
certain numbers to different
companies yes
last time a representative
from the state police sent the
limit to us
indicating that they they wanted access
to 800 megahertz
system I think
I think the chief of police might
want to weigh in and I think
as I said we we identified
issues where police actually
are pretty good here he said
it's just there the cost of their radio
system is astronomical
and fire is pretty bad
right now and that
you know we should just
keep that in mind that I've done
a lot of work with emergency
management and radio communication
prior jobs and
and it's always good to have
a place in the room
and potential spot
on the tower if your town
decides it needs that
or something for public
safety and make that a condition of
the time and I'm just throwing that out
there it's sort of like getting
you know things from the cable company when
you give them a permit
I think it's pretty much standard
self-palance
public safety has access
yeah but
some there's been some
talk and maybe sometimes it's about
having a town
receive other
services like
Verizon is the anchor on this
so it's like when somebody's thrown up
and they're like well what could
all of the town's communications
be on Verizon at no cost
Verizon does
Verizon does
sounds like selling
first responder network
that kind of underlies some other
tiers of communication
so there are things that
potentially could be talked about
negotiation
negotiation
I think we can't
I think
zoning and permits cannot
be decided
on the basis of what they're
going to be for you like
you can't
decide to zone
this project if they're going to
build you a high school over there or something
you can't make those kinds of deals
I don't know if it needs to be like that
this wouldn't be building a high school this would be just
preserving space
I'm just throwing it out there
yeah but there's
that just raises maybe a little more
reason that we might
make some more thought on this
have we found the
coverage
the question of coverage is an interesting one because
they haven't presented it yet
but they certainly will be and it's going to show
some dramatic improvement
for South County Chartered Residents I'm sure
and that's why they
chose this location
driven by Verizon
the request to SBA
is the tower builder
the request to SBA was from Verizon
who said we've got
a lot of customers in this area
and we can get a lot more
if a tower is built
there it will be the anchor tent
so they're kind of behind it
and it tells their coverage
I didn't like that
they did it on the box
last year
I don't know
somebody else has told me that they have good Verizon
but now they don't
I don't understand that but
the question of coverage
and then that benefit
would be a really important one
and whatever they show us
I'd also want to make sure that it was
based on that it was recent enough
that it
doesn't include
that came from putting the box on
on their own gun pump tower
and then where
in the whole thing does anything come up
about all kinds of systems
some
some cities
basically they don't do the towers
they've got the little
the 5G
I don't know
but that's
a density thing
I'm guessing that no one's going to say that
it makes any sense to have them around here
I don't think
that's it
it's not really a 5G thing
it's 4G people out here
that's why
that's why
is that what they said?
I think so
well maybe it has the 5G capability
I don't know if it will have
but right now
that's not what we're doing
we don't have that now
you do?
I don't have Verizon
I have AT&T
I don't think I have it when I'm here but when I go to the city
it changes
5 bars of 18 people
right, somehow it comes from Vulture Town or something
or what?
right down in the 32
oh yeah
just to give the field a little bit
but on the wireless we're also going to want to know
the impact of this
how big this is
if people have some idea it's going to be a huge thing
with all the guys and the structure all around
this is a monopole
180 feet tall
the technical question would be does it have to be that tall
depending on the level of benefits we want
if it's going to be smaller
if it's going to kill the plant
180 is really the maximum
and you get over 200
and it's like half an inch
so
this monopole
I think
it's the same height as the one down at ABC
or whatever
but
but that's got
more structure to it
there's a question of like what do you do about
the camouflage
do we want to assist with that being explored
yeah the big tree
yeah
maybe a big
no it's going to be
it'll be slightly in the woods
yeah
oh which is
I looked at the
parcel with
conservation
there's
definitely water there
and then it comes onto the property
in question
back further in the woods
but where they're talking about the base of this
is within 100 feet of that
so I think they're going to find out
that's probably too close
so then they could
move it
move it
to the east a little bit
away from the water
it's still partly hidden by the woods
it's there
and they've changed the road
to proposal
for being going in right across from
towards the farm
to one of those
barways now and then down along the wall
and then down the property line
on the west side they've changed that to
off
straight in
and that's not
through the stone wall
I mean there's a break there but I don't think so
yeah there is at the end of the stone wall
there is a break
there's a lot of trees and stuff
okay well anyway even if there
wasn't it's not
it's not so close
it's not so not
if they are going on so they can change
the
they could put the driveway there
which we don't have to get involved
in
yeah
well
it might be with
the plan if we knew that it was
restricted but it wasn't
so
that's what we're looking at there
okay
alright so
I don't think I need a motion to do what we've
decided we're going to do the last time which is to
apply to them that we want
we have an estimate for what
we suggest that the 53G will work
and we'll
we'll look forward to their
full application and whatever that
and they'll do the cycling
from that application
and send it in I expect
the
estimate
oh
I think
ten thousand dollars
to cover
initially
several consultants
that being
cell tower consultant
engineering consultant
as needed
I'll explain that note to them
but that is good to have them on
on the record so if you tell them we want
ten thousand they can come hard with
and put them on account
so
we can move on we're almost done
we already did all the bylaws
the last
thing is the request from the
town administrator for the planning board
budget
this is the first one I just want to
remind you it's
what we've been doing
what we did
last year
and this end up should be getting a two percent
total at the very minimum
yeah
don't
we
the
the process of
salary
wages
that's for you
we do our two percent increase
oh that's division of local this is something we probably
did but yeah this is
no we're over here
the planning board clerk
eight thousand dollars salary
basically
you know
the planning board expense
three hundred dollars central mass
regional expense we have the control over
but it's
last year
so
anyway the eight thousand
it was eight thousand
26
you can tell her
what to be you know
the same thing
I think we should try to bump that up a little bit because
you said this and doing a lot of
extra stuff that she hasn't
had to do in the past and she's
been running out of time I
would like to see that pumped up to
it was eight now
ten
I will only remind you we did
at the end of the meeting
increase it from what about 56
29 and 25 to eight thousand
dollars and 26
I
don't
I just hate when she
runs out of time and has to volunteer
her time to do stuff that needs to
get done I don't think that's fair
that happened a whole lot especially with
bylaws
and we have more bylaws coming up
what do you think Osenda
have you been overworked lately
do you want to answer that
I recommend you bump it to
ten
I mean if it gets rejected
I think we're the lowest
in the group
oh well that's true
they have some office hours and I agree
more but some of them
maybe once a month or something and we try to make that
six or seven times a month
at least
it's okay to ask questions
may I ask questions
through the chair
how many hours does she work roughly for the planning board
do you have a rough estimate
if you
there is
well I'd say on average we have
three minutes
running around
when I was chair she had to come to the library
for me to sign stuff
the
minutes
yeah
the graph
changes
and stuff like this
I guess there's various research stuff
you think you can do about $500
to send the hours
I know some of them are weekends as well
oh it's got
$500 a year
easy right
so at $18
that's $9,000 and some change
so sure she's doing
more than $500
okay
I'm going to book it up to
Evans 10 and see if it gets there
that's what I'm saying
it's realistic it's not unreasonable
the planning board expenses
$300
we use that pretty fully
we use it for the occasional
$45
seminar fees
seminar fees
that we've done
we've often shared a couple of people watching
for one fee or something
some of it's free
but I'd say the biggest
single expense has been
ink
ink and paper
which I've done
I mean I know I've been coming in and trying to use the town stuff
at home
on my printer
I just
I mean
I don't think it adds up as much as it does
but it's ridiculous
it's ridiculous yeah
so I don't know that's probably
the only thing that's
for the course of the year
but that's I just wouldn't be
embarrassed by them for that I don't know why
I don't have any reason to say this
rehab isn't enough but if we're going to do
more training
there's no
I'm sure there's
all the things that we've talked about
so if we bump that up a little
bit and say we don't use all of it
is that something that could just go back
into the general plan
so it's not necessarily
we're talking about
$500 or $600
we're not it'll get used
I don't think we'd be able to
$500 or $600
that's an implied commitment
by each of you to participate in
seminar
wow
the central mass regional
it's going to be
whatever they say it is
centrally
and
the total is
$1,000
$300
$345
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
$14,000
$15,000
$17,000
$18,000
and
motion
some move
fiscal year
2027 planning board budget
our request to the
county ministry
10,000 balance salary
$500 planning board expense
$845 same as last year
for central mass regional
and totaling
$11,000
$11,000
one discussion
all in favor
property on north road
it's been an issue with the common
free driveways
and wetland issues
is back on the market
again
property is a separate
one's access from north
one's from left
there was
there was two
so that was
they combined two of the parcels
into one parcel
and according to
the owner they were planning
to combine
the parcel that had
the contested driveway
with the parcel next to it
north
enforcement
we just
got notified
that
we made them put up signage
all along the wetlands
to define the boundary
permanent metal
like enameled markers
we were just notified that
those had been placed
and were trying to arrange a site
visit
so
both properties for sale
we only
were notified of the one we care about
which is the one that comes up in north road
I would assume he's going to sell
the other one
one property as well
no
off the clap
we're going to have to need to
sign a plan
to divide it
well it's
it's not dividing
you need to be involved
but I believe you guys
approved breaking it into three
no we approve
we didn't
we didn't approve
they didn't need
this is one of the reasons the bylaws
will change
we didn't need a special permit
to do
two
right
I think you need a special permit
for all the common drivers
sort of to avoid the same thing
which was such a nightmare up there
so what he decided was the common driveway thing
was such a mess
that he would build one house
off the clap roadside and one house
off the north side
so it doesn't have any access
because it's too wet
well no it was identified
a narrow pathway along
the east side
of the property along the stone wall
there where we actually
approved the engineering drawing
that we said we would accept
you submitting this
to the
different driveway with a retaining wall
and a bunch of other stuff
to stay out of the wetland
but
he seemed open to those
criteria
for us
and then we heard that
he was selling it so I don't think he actually
ever cleared the driveway
I haven't been up there recently
so
whoever bought
that would have to come back to
the conservation commission
if
they either buy his plans
or whatever they're going to have
to come back to the conservation commission
because we would have
to sign off on the final drawing
we
told him we would
if he gave us drawings
with these criteria
but if he's selling it
how public is that information
if someone wants to buy that property
how do they know
the history without actively
coming in
is there anything on the deed
or anything that would give them an indication
there is, there was something even on the property list
the property
has
been a problem longer than I've
looked in hard way
so
I just know
my 80 years
work
but it has
it has an enforcement order
on it so
he can sell it but the enforcement order
is going to transfer
I just hope that whoever buys it is aware that
it's flagged
for various issues
not that that's our
that's our
yeah I know
that was one thing that has been a problem
the other thing that has been a problem
sounds like a real surprise
to disclose the information
in the last
I'll mention that
the one on North Road is the one that's offered for sale
for 150,000
dollars
for a small town living
probably even mentions it's an air little wire
yeah
just minutes from town center quiet country road
five acre parcel
private country estate
within 35 minutes of room two
wow
Mass bike and Worcester Airport
seller has a septic permit
well permit in order of conditions
you're in conditions in the end it is
sounds like a plus
yes
who's got it two weeks?
the realtor?
yeah
and there's a sign on clap road
clap also so that's the other parcel
it's on clap road
that's the other parcel because the North Road parcel
does not have access
same owner gathering in both cases but not for sale
it's dad
the other thing was we hosted
breakfast with Santa
at the winery
one of the families
that came was
a kid that got mauled by the dog
and he sat with Santa
and it was pretty special
and he's doing great
it's amazing what he did
I'm not sure if anyone saw the pictures
I thought it was a girl
I thought a girl got fed and the boys were with him
but it was the same
but he looks good
and it's amazing because he did
and
it was tough to see
tough to talk to
and all that
and now
I'm being asked to
support a dog kennel
in the neighborhood
I think everyone
knows where I stand for the dog kennel
but I just want to remind the board
that it was a young
four year old who almost lost his life
not from any of them dogs
in question or any of the applications
but
neither
it's tough
it's tough
it's nine dogs
or 20 dogs or whatever
that's another subject
so one quick thing
I looked up while you guys were doing minutes
and according to AI
which I know is
questionable, it says in Massachusetts
towns generally cannot
charge the state or its agencies
fees for local permits or
earth removal related to
state projects as the commonwealth is
typically exempt from local fees
and bylaws unless specifically
provided otherwise by state
generally
the first four words
I do not think we can supersede that
I'm going to try
I don't want this whole thing kicked back
because we're trying something that no other town
has tried
if no other town does it, let's do it
but I don't want all of this for naught
it's not the commercial one
that's the difference
I know, but
I know
I know
I don't think we can do it
but I don't want to try it
I don't want to risk
our next meeting is on the 13th
as you know and it will have his
kennel hearing
we're going to get Jenna the stuff she needs
and I will send that form to Ryan as well
motion to adjourn
thank you for your attendance and interest