2026-09-28 - Planning Board

00:10caring for a a request for a

00:12modification of site plan at 660 Main

00:15Street Old Road Realy LLC.

00:18The applicant is requesting modification

00:21to an approved site plan to increase the

00:23office space dispatch use for coastal

00:26medical transportation.

00:28At 6:50, we'll have another public

00:29hearing proposed on proposed zoning

00:31amendments to the solar bylaws. It'll be

00:34to amend uh paragraph 300 uh 2.2

00:38uh terms by uh inserting a new

00:41definition for the site footprint solar

00:44energy facility solar facility building

00:46mounted in solar energy facility canopy

00:49and remove the outdated reference to

00:51large stool solar energy uh consistent

00:54with changes to mass general law.

00:57There'll be another amendment on

00:59paragraph 305.6 use regulations and also

01:03amending article 10 of the solar energy

01:06facilities.

01:08After that we'll have the town planner

01:09update then old and new business and

01:12then adjournment. So uh and this meeting

01:14is being uh broadcast and also uh

01:18recorded.

01:19So uh has everyone had the opportunity

01:21to review the minutes of August 24th?

01:23Mhm.

01:24>> Mhm.

01:25>> Any questions, comments, or changes? If

01:27not, we have a motion to approve. Second

01:30move.

01:32>> I'll second.

01:32>> Second. Okay. All in favor.

01:36>> Very good.

01:38>> Okay. Well, it is a flight 635.

01:41And do you want to start on your uh

01:43update?

01:44>> Town planner update.

01:45>> Yes.

01:46>> Yeah, I can do that. Um [clears throat]

01:50so the first item there I had is um

01:54Sturbridge Plaza. Um initially I was

01:57just going to update you and let you

01:58know that the site will be doing a um

02:02full repaving and they will be

02:04installing two new light poles um to

02:07accom accommodate the new businesses

02:09that have gone in over the years. Um no

02:12sort of planning board approvals

02:14required as they're not um disturbing

02:16any traffic flows. No parking will be uh

02:19taken up by the light poles and it's

02:22just myself, building inspector and um

02:25DPW director that will be reviewing it.

02:28Um since that determination was given, I

02:30also found out this morning that some

02:33trees were removed on site um that

02:36didn't receive any sort of approval. So,

02:38um, further updates will, uh, come on

02:41that and we'll be taking enforcement

02:43action if if necessary. Um, but we

02:46haven't reached out to the owners yet.

02:48Um, the second item was Village Pizza.

02:51Um, they recently

02:53um, had a change of business owner and

02:57um, there was a miscommunication between

02:59the property owner and the business

03:00owner and the site was repaved and

03:02restriped. Um, as of today, those spaces

03:05have been coned off and we will be

03:08working with the owners going forward to

03:11um modify that site plan or um return it

03:15to its original condition. Um, next item

03:20was Hobsbrook. Uh, similarly,

03:23uh, there were an addition of a couple

03:25new stop signs there, um, which has not

03:28been well received by the community.

03:31And uh I did go out to the site. I've

03:34reviewed it. Jana and I have uh dug up

03:36all the old site plans and I've started

03:38reviewing those. We haven't gotten in

03:39touch with the new owner uh with the

03:42current owners uh yet, but we will be

03:44doing that and follow up with uh any

03:46action that's necessary.

03:48And then the last item here, my well

03:52penultimate item is uh Dowy Road. Um I

03:56have flyers here for you all. Uh

03:59Wednesday the 7th,

04:01uh we'll be holding a community guided

04:04site tour. Uh just to briefly visit the

04:08site and have town staff discuss

04:10potential plans and where we're at with

04:13and with that site and what sort of

04:15developments have been made since the

04:17last public forum.

04:19uh I will follow up via email and uh let

04:22everyone know, but we encourage you to

04:24let any members of the community know

04:26and look forward to seeing all of you

04:28there. And last item would be just

04:31upcoming meetings on October 26th and

04:34November 9th.

04:36>> Okay. On the October 26th meeting, I

04:38most likely won't be here. Uh, it's

04:40possible I could uh come in uh remotely,

04:43but maybe not definite at this point.

04:46But keep that in mind.

04:48>> You're busy getting your Halloween

04:49outfit ready,

04:50>> right? [laughter]

04:51>> More or less.

04:52>> I got a lot of work to do for that.

04:54>> Yeah.

04:55>> Um, so yeah, we can talk about that

04:57later on. And also on the on two of the

04:59items you had regarding the village

05:01pizza and Senator Hosbrook, I'm sure

05:03we'll probably want to have a few

05:04questions or comments later on when we

05:06get back into your report, but thank you

05:07for that update. Okay. Okay. I do have

05:10um 6:35 now and so I guess uh Sue would

05:14like to open the public hearing by

05:15reading the notice.

05:17>> I would.

05:25Okay. In accordance with the provisions

05:26of Massachusetts General Law, chapter

05:2940A,

05:30section 11, the Sturbridge Planning

05:32Board will hold a public hearing in the

05:34center office building, second floor,

05:36located at 301 Main Street, Sturbridge,

05:38Mass, andor by virtual means of

05:41circumstances warrant in accordance with

05:44the applicable law on Monday, September

05:4728th, 2026 at 6:35

05:50on the application of Old Road Realy LLC

05:55on West Boilston Street, Worcester,

05:57Mass. The applicant requests

05:59modification of an approved site plan

06:02for the property located at 660 Main

06:05Street. The applicant seeks modification

06:08to the site plan approval granted on

06:10August 11th, 2025

06:13for the creation of a 40,150

06:16square ft building for manufacturing

06:18facility. The applicant requests to

06:21revise the site plan to increase the

06:23office space dispatch patch use for

06:26coastal medical transportation as shown

06:29in the plans and application submitted.

06:32A copy of the site plan and application

06:34can be inspected on the Sturbridge Town

06:36website or arrangements can be made to

06:39view the application packet by

06:40contacting the Sturbridge planning

06:42department. Any person interested or

06:44wishing to be heard on this proposal

06:47should appear at the time and place

06:48designated. Members of the public may

06:51watch the virtual meeting via the town's

06:53on demand video broadcast or via cable

06:56television on channel 191.

06:59It is the intent to have the public

07:01hearing in person. However,

07:03circumstances warrant, the board may

07:05choose to hold this hearing via virtual

07:07or hybrid. in person and virtual means.

07:10Please note that the meeting hearing

07:12will not be suspended or terminated if

07:14technological problems interrupt the

07:16virtual broadcast unless otherwise

07:19required by law.

07:21>> Very good. Thank you very much.

07:22>> Aiden, would you like to have any

07:24comments or introduce the situation

07:26here, what we're dealing with? Um, so

07:29before you tonight are uh the applicants

07:32for 660 Main Street who were here just

07:35over a year ago for initial approval on

07:37the site. Um this was always a

07:41possibility that there may be uh

07:43different tenants and um the way things

07:47turned out is they're now seeking a site

07:49plan approval to accommodate the uh

07:52tenant that they feel will be best for

07:54the building there uh this portion of

07:56the building. And um this began in July

08:02uh and then uh in early August we did

08:06have a uh pre-application uh land use

08:10meeting with all the town staff there

08:12and we vetted a lot of um the questions

08:16we had and questions they had and they

08:18took all that input and guidance and

08:21they prepared this submission for you

08:23this evening. So I'll turn it over to

08:25them.

08:25>> Okay, great. If you could just introduce

08:27yourself for the record that would be

08:28great.

08:28>> Absolutely. So Dan Shu with Hilly and

08:30Lord and with me as well is Mr. Chatrony

08:33himself.

08:34>> Developer.

08:35>> Very good.

08:37>> Terrific. So I'll give you guys a quick

08:38overview. The planes really haven't

08:40changed too much, but I do think it's

08:41important to at least cover some of the

08:42obvious changes. Um, one of the biggest

08:45ones, the really only thing that's being

08:47added to the site is the two overhead

08:49doors on the south

08:52western side of the building in that

08:53little hatched paved area. That's the

08:55only new impervious that's really been

08:57added to the site. We did take a look

08:59into this in consideration for the storm

09:01water management system and honestly

09:03it's a drop in the bucket in comparison

09:05to the rest of the development as a

09:07whole. Uh so it really didn't have any

09:08impact there. Um the other line work

09:11that you do see on here as well. For

09:12example, you kind of see the center line

09:15come up the street as well as the paved

09:17arrows. This was part of your original

09:19decision. One of the conditions was to

09:21try to, you know, help alleviate some

09:23traffic flows and from the traffic

09:25engineer, those are the guidance they

09:26were given. So, I just figured it made

09:28sense to throw them in the plan, seeing

09:29how we're going to be before you again

09:30today. Um, that's really all there

09:33really has changed from a sites

09:35perspective. Some of the trees did move,

09:38for example, the silver maple and the

09:39southwestern corner because we added

09:41that driveway to kind of accommodate the

09:43drive-in. We did just relocate that more

09:46northerly. So, still the same amount of

09:48plantings. Nothing really has changed in

09:50that regard. Just trying to tweak it to

09:52kind of be the best fit. Um, that's

09:55really all I have for you. Again, this

09:56is really more for a change of use. Um,

09:59typically with a change of use, the

10:00first question that comes into mind is

10:02parking. This site has ample parking to

10:04supply that [clears throat] uh for that

10:06change in use. We do show that in the

10:07table off to the side. I don't know if

10:09Jenna, if you could just scroll over to

10:10the left.

10:13So we we do show all the new buildings

10:16and with the the new breakdown on um

10:19office space and you still have a

10:23required 380 parking space and the site

10:26has 472. So does still have ample space

10:30for it. Some of the other changes were

10:31just kind of again trying to allocate

10:33the space properly. It made sense for

10:36Coastal to have kind of that closer

10:38parking bank if you will. So we did add

10:40some signs there. for example, that

10:42proposed sign, coastal employee parking

10:43between signs. Just trying to really,

10:46you know, designate who has what, uh,

10:48parking spaces throughout the site.

10:50That's really all I have. I'd be more

10:52than happy to answer any questions or

10:53concerns.

10:54>> Well, you know, one of the things I

10:56know, uh, in the original letter, you

10:58had indicated there would be sort of a

10:59dialogue from them about what the

11:00process was.

11:01>> Yep.

11:02>> Um, so I I in and I guess in one of the

11:05things that I do read on, there was a

11:07talk about maybe 40 employees involved

11:09with that. So, in other words, Does it

11:11show really the calculation difference

11:13that you have as far as what in that

11:15space rather than the manufacturing that

11:17was there?

11:18>> Yeah. So, I'm going to try to break it

11:19down the best I can here. So, if you go

11:21down right underneath the building

11:23floor, there's that manufacturing line

11:25itself required one space per two

11:28employees, 60 employees divided by two

11:30gives you 30. And then underneath that,

11:31that new building showing that breakdown

11:34for that specific office space. So, one

11:36space per 500 ft² plus one space per

11:39employee working on the largest shift,

11:427,750 ft² plus 12,000 divid by 500 there

11:46gives you 40 uh plus potential of 10

11:48employees. Um, giving you that total of

11:51full parking spaces there that you need.

11:54Um, so for this site itself, I believe

11:56the maximum employees that were

11:58anticipated for just the office portion

12:00was about 10 to 14 employees. Um, we

12:03went off that that basis itself. again

12:05where parking really isn't too much of a

12:06concern because there is such an

12:08overflow for this site. Um we didn't see

12:10that as a any major concern there. Um to

12:13get into a little bit of their

12:14operations, I did speak with some of the

12:16people from Coastal. Fortunately,

12:17they're not here today to kind of, you

12:19know, be the experts in the room. But

12:21the understanding that I have is that

12:22the site itself will have four um

12:25ambulance within the building. Um but a

12:27typical shift those ambulances leave and

12:29then they're out on the road for the

12:31entirety of the day. Um, the only time

12:33you actually have people really in in

12:35this station, if you will, is if for the

12:3724-hour shifts. So, sometimes they might

12:39come back, you know, and then move on

12:43out from there. But this isn't going to

12:44be like a um a dispatch office where

12:46you're getting phone calls coming in

12:4724/7 around the clock. These are more

12:50for, you know, carding people around

12:52that may have some medical needs, for

12:54example, transporting from one hospital

12:55to another. They would kind of act as

12:57that liaison.

12:59Um, I hope that kind of covers any

13:02questions, but that that's my

13:03understanding of how this out operates.

13:05>> Yeah. So, how much space are they

13:06actually taking within the building?

13:08>> Yep. Uh, so great question. I believe it

13:11is, let's see,

13:12>> 15,000.

13:12>> 15,000. Thank you, Jim.

13:17>> Okay. Um,

13:19does anyone have any questions or

13:21comments?

13:22>> Two questions.

13:23>> Go ahead.

13:24>> One is, do you know how big the increase

13:26in imperous area is? I don't disagree

13:28that it's a minimous. I'm just curious

13:30how big is it?

13:31>> Yeah, it was roughly between 200 and 300

13:33square feet. So, it's really not too too

13:35much, but that's that's the number,

13:36>> right? The other one is it sounds like

13:39the site is under park in the existing

13:41condition and has existing relief for

13:43that. Is that true?

13:47>> Can you repeat that again? Sorry.

13:48>> The site has less parking than required

13:51and has existing relief for that

13:54currently.

13:55>> No, no more parking required.

14:01And is there any indication currently

14:04operationally that there's not enough

14:06parking? Are there ever cars circling

14:08looking for parking spaces?

14:09>> Not at rule. Okay. Not at rule. That was

14:12my only two questions. Thank you.

14:15Hey,

14:17>> so the uh the new tenant, the medical uh

14:20transportation company will be at the

14:22the southern end, correct? the building

14:23and that's where the the addition's

14:25going to go with the two overhead doors

14:27for their bays for that thing. The rest

14:29of the building is is it um going to be

14:31utilized as it was originally going to

14:33be

14:33>> manufacturing existence for

14:35>> Yeah. Yeah.

14:37>> Okay.

14:41>> Thank you.

14:43>> No questions.

14:45>> Another beautiful building. Want to see

14:46if they'll

14:47>> Yeah.

14:48>> Brad, any comments or anything? No. No

14:50comments. So I guess the only thing the

14:52question I would have in other words um

14:54you know we've heard they're going to be

14:55four ambulances but we again haven't

14:57seen any real description do uh I guess

15:01if it did change significantly that all

15:03of a sudden they had more ambulances and

15:06you know u

15:08calls coming and going from there would

15:10be a big difference what we had. So uh

15:13do we need any documentation to shown

15:14that what it is that we expect to have

15:17that we are approving? Would that be

15:19helpful? I mean, we've heard it

15:21verbally, but we haven't seen anything

15:23really, you know, in writing as far as,

15:25you know, what their operations are. And

15:28I mean, we are approving a different use

15:30than what we thought was intended.

15:31Really?

15:32>> Absolutely.

15:33>> I'd be more than happy to follow up.

15:34They gave me an email. I'd be more than

15:36happy to forward that along to Aiden and

15:38Jenna just so we have something in

15:40formal writing. Um, but whatever I can

15:42do to kind of accommodate, I'd be more

15:43than happy to do so.

15:44>> All right. Good. Andy, have you thoughts

15:46or comments on this?

15:48>> Uh, no. I have no comments. Um, at this

15:51point, I would recommend modification

15:53and uh or approval of the modification.

15:56>> Okay, very good. So, I guess we just

15:58need a motion then to approve the uh

16:01modification of the site plan as

16:02requested.

16:03>> Yeah, as requested. And I would

16:04recommend that just part of the record.

16:06It's subject to the same site plan

16:08review criteria and conditions even

16:11though many of these conditions have

16:13already been met.

16:14>> Very good. Very good. Motion in a

16:17second. need to close the public

16:19hearing.

16:19>> Oh, you're right. Good. And I had

16:20written it down, too. [laughter]

16:24>> I'm going to write it bigger.

16:26>> A motion to close the public hearing.

16:28So, moved.

16:28>> Second. All in favor? Okay. Now, we can

16:32take a motion to um approve the uh

16:35modification to the site plan as

16:37suggested by the town planner.

16:39>> So, moved.

16:40>> Second.

16:41>> Any other discussion? All in favor?

16:44>> Very good. Thank you very much. Good

16:45luck.

16:46>> Thank you.

16:54Okay. So, we have a few more minutes

16:55before 6:50. So, um

16:59did anyone have any other thoughts or

17:01comments on I I know the issues have

17:03been kind of, you know, discussed a bit

17:05on the stop signs and so I get any

17:07concerns on that uh or even uh what's

17:10going on with Village Pizza?

17:13Um, village features is a is on a route

17:1620 near the senior center that's doing

17:18it.

17:19>> Yeah. So, would they just repave it?

17:21Just repaint it wrong.

17:23>> No. Yeah. Well, what happened is before

17:25the site I plan to prove I I think had

17:27three packing spaces that were um

17:29parallel to the building,

17:31>> right?

17:31>> And when they changed it, they have uh

17:34now five spaces plus a handicap space

17:36sort of at an angle where you could

17:38drive in and drive out. you know, the

17:40problem being that they become very

17:42close to the road line. So, that's

17:45really what you know, the issue is, but

17:46you want to maybe explain a little

17:48>> it is. It's um so the the most recent

17:52site plan approval they have on files

17:54dated 1996.

17:56Um it indicates parking in the rear um

18:00for customers and then three employee

18:03spaces and then there's more customer

18:06parking to the west of the building. And

18:08then um as a part of the initial site

18:12plan approval, there were always two

18:14parallel parking spaces at the front of

18:16the building. Um those used to be

18:19protected from Route 20 by a landscaping

18:22island, which has since been removed by

18:24Mass DOT. Um, so the fact that they have

18:28now put in six total, five regular and

18:31one ADA parking spaces angled at the

18:33front of the building. Um,

18:36that's, you know,

18:39that's a a modification to a site plan

18:41that wasn't properly reviewed by any,

18:44you know, staff or planning board. So,

18:46um, we'll be working with them going

18:48forward to, uh, determine whether they

18:51want to proceed with that route or if we

18:53can come up with some sort of

18:54alternative, but ultimately they'll most

18:56likely need to restore it to its

18:59original condition or they will need to

19:02request a modification to their site

19:04plan. But as it is now, they've been um

19:07coned off because um it is quite

19:10dangerous to have those spots there that

19:13they also may be angled incorrectly.

19:15They need to be angled the other way

19:17potentially for better backing in and

19:19out if that's even a possibility that

19:21cars can back out safely next to Route

19:2420 there.

19:28All right. Um

19:32Okay. Um

19:36I you know I had sent you along some uh

19:38photographs I think Aiden about other

19:41places we have further on that are very

19:42similar to that where they they actually

19:45do have uh parking spaces angled in

19:47they're again very close you know to the

19:50to the road and those have been in place

19:52for a while so I don't know I we have

19:56several the worst case the worst culprit

19:59is in front of the u the church across

20:01the street going on at the Maple Street.

20:03they're angled in and they come out

20:04there and it's very very difficult

20:06because they it's makes them narrows the

20:08road really really badly and uh you

20:11could become a statistic right there as

20:13people are backing in and out of the

20:14library in the church and there other

20:17small spots around town that do this you

20:19the same thing in front of the oldest

20:21block the blackington building there

20:23there's uh some

20:26depends what time the day time of day it

20:28is people either park parallel or

20:30diagonally

20:31>> yeah one time they're Mac diagonally

20:33because that actually is their property,

20:35not not the state.

20:37>> But it's it's it's

20:39different. But isn't there a granite

20:41curb in front of the the village pizza

20:43between the their um one portion of the

20:46driveway and and Route 20?

20:48>> No.

20:49>> No. I think there's a there's maybe a uh

20:51a BM, but it's not. All right.

20:54>> [snorts]

20:54>> Okay.

20:54>> The the only I want to say about that is

20:56that you know over the years you know

20:58whatever business has been in you know

21:00that particular building has always had

21:02an issue with with you know not quite

21:04having enough parking or parking being

21:06very difficult. So I think if there is

21:08any way it could be designed to allow

21:10more parking spaces in front safely, I

21:12think that would be a good thing because

21:15um you know for years whether it was

21:17that place or I think before that it was

21:19a a convenience store and before that it

21:21was a retail store but nonetheless um

21:25the parking has always been difficult on

21:26that site and I know there's been a lot

21:28of concern to say well it's totally

21:30unsafe but again you know as you go up

21:32to the whistling uh gypsy there you know

21:35there are seven spaces that are really

21:37in the same position. Not the ones right

21:39in front of the building, but next to

21:40the building strip right there, and

21:42they're within the same distance to that

21:44road. So, I know people talk about the

21:46fact that it's illegal to back out on

21:48Route 20 or whatever it happens to be,

21:50but I think we ought to be careful to

21:51just, you know, give it as much

21:53consideration as we can, keeping in mind

21:55that we do have several spaces uh

21:58further up Route 20 that are very

21:59similar to the location and backing out

22:02toward the highway.

22:05Okay.

22:07And with that, we have time for the next

22:09public hearing.

22:11Good.

22:13>> All right. In accordance with the

22:15provisions of Massachusetts General Law,

22:17chapter 40A, section 11, the Sturbridge

22:20Planning Board will hold a public

22:22hearing in the Center Office Building,

22:25second floor, located at 301 Main

22:27Street, Sturbridge, Mass, and or by

22:30virtual means if circumstances warrant

22:32in accordance with applicable law. on

22:34Monday, September 28th, 2026 at 6:50

22:38p.m. to consider amendments to the

22:41town's zoning bylaws. The proposed

22:43amendments will amend three 302.2 two

22:49terms defined by inserting a new

22:51definition for site footprint,

22:54solar energy facility, solar energy

22:57facility building mounted and solar

23:00energy facility canopy and remove the

23:04outdated definition of large solar

23:06energy facility consistent with recent

23:08changes in Massachusetts general law.

23:13Number two, amend 305.6 six use

23:17regulations by inserting a new allowed

23:20by special permit use into the

23:22groundwater protection district

23:24regulations for solar MBESS.

23:28Number three, amend article 10 solar

23:31energy facilities by updating 310.1

23:36through 310.12

23:39and to establish a new 310.13

23:42and 310.14

23:45to insert language to accommodate

23:47battery injury energy storage systems

23:51and the consolidated local permit

23:53guidelines per recent changes to

23:55Massachusetts general laws. A copy of

23:58the zoning bylaw proposal can be viewed

24:01on the Sturbridge Town website.

24:03Arrangements can be made to view the

24:05zoning bylaw proposal by contacting the

24:08Sturbridge Planning Department. Any

24:10person interested or wishing to be heard

24:12on this proposal should appear at the

24:14time and place designated. Members of

24:16the public may watch the meeting online

24:19via the town's ondemand video broadcast

24:22or via cable television on channel 191.

24:25[snorts] It is the intent to have the

24:27public hearing in person. However,

24:29circumstances warrant. The board may

24:31choose to hold this hearing via virtual

24:33or hybrid in person and virtual means.

24:37Please note that the meeting hearing

24:39will not be suspended or terminated if

24:41technological problems interrupt the

24:44virtual broadcast unless otherwise

24:46required by law.

24:48>> Very good. Thank you. Aiden, you want to

24:50take over and

24:51>> of course this. Um, so the last time we

24:54discussed this matter was on, uh, August

24:5824th, uh, which was a continuation of

25:01when, uh, we first discussed this on

25:03August 10th. And obviously, this is a

25:06process that goes all the way back to

25:08February when we first received

25:09assistance and then we kind of ramped up

25:12on this process through the summer. So

25:15since that August 24th meeting, um there

25:18haven't been too many actions taken

25:20because we know we were waiting to

25:22really open a public hearing. But since

25:24then, um I did present to the select

25:27board on September 8th, just passing

25:29along the petition and then they started

25:32the passback process to us. Um this was

25:35duly advertised in the paper on the 10th

25:38and the 17th of September. And during

25:41that time frame, the um track change

25:45version of the bylaw was updated to

25:48incorporate all of your input and votes

25:51on those key considerations, the seven

25:54of them, along with adding in um all of

25:58the guidance provided by town council.

26:01uh most of which is um clarifying

26:05uh various parts of the text and adding

26:08in some um important protections. So um

26:13again there hasn't been much much action

26:16but um just clarifying and cleaning up

26:18the text removing all the comments so

26:20that way um we have a very clear track

26:23change version um to eventually

26:28uh go to a special town meeting. So, the

26:30goal for this evening obviously is to

26:33open the public hearing um for the board

26:36to

26:37provide any guidance or um to hear any

26:42testimony if anyone does show up and

26:45consider that testimony and incorporate

26:47everything um that you find necessary

26:50into this document. Um so the final goal

26:54for this evening would be if the board

26:56feels that you're satisfied with the

26:58text as is um then you should vote to

27:04um approve as is and um recommend that

27:07this be placed on the town meeting

27:10warrants. And if you're not satisfied

27:12then you should provide uh staff

27:15guidance for what needs to be amended

27:18going forward. and um we will continue

27:20the public hearing if if needed.

27:24Um so if it's helpful, I can kind of

27:29um I I don't feel there's any need to go

27:32over line by line um as there have not

27:36been any significant changes really just

27:38incorporating those key considerations.

27:41Um but I can turn it back over to

27:43Charlie or any other board member that

27:45may have questions. Um, yeah, that

27:48sounds good. We'll certainly go through

27:49and see if we have any questions. One of

27:51the things that I brought up, I think to

27:53Aiden earlier, is last time we um, you

27:55know, approved this, we did make the

27:57comment that there may be changes to

27:59that section that, um, tied in the

28:01requirements for the combined permit

28:03with what we had there. And we said that

28:05town council might be modifying that.

28:07And you indicated that there were some

28:09modifications here uh, from what we saw

28:11before. You mentioned they were in

28:13purple. Is that like this

28:15>> um

28:16>> this reddish bluish thing?

28:18>> Yeah, there there is no legend here, but

28:20uh the purple comments uh are the

28:22comments of town council in this case.

28:26Um one of the main recommendations here,

28:30um

28:30>> I think they printed out more of his

28:31blue. You're talking about the blue ones

28:33then for our copy.

28:35>> I'm also seeing a purple.

28:36>> Oh, you're not?

28:37>> Yeah. On I don't know what page number

28:39I'm on, but there there is

28:40>> Oh, so there's another color. There's a

28:42red, a blue, and

28:44>> all right the extent of the purple is,

28:46but I am seeing some purple.

28:48>> All right, we're done with that.

28:49>> Red happens to be all the initial

28:52changes. Blue is my changes throughout

28:55these past couple weeks, and then purple

28:57is town council. Um but the main changes

29:01for those

29:03>> uh two last sections 10.13 and 10.14

29:08>> are kind of uh well it's it's moving

29:10best to be um its own separate section

29:15and um 10.14

29:19also has um a lot of clarifying edits

29:23from

29:25um town council so that way when we

29:28actually receive a um what we would call

29:33a bylaw uh review application only where

29:37the applicant doesn't choose to go under

29:39the consolidated permit. We can still

29:41enforce the standards of the

29:43consolidated permit. Uh most

29:46importantly, uh you'll see under 10

29:5010.14 subsection H application of site

29:54suitability guidance. Um you'll see my

29:57edit here in blue um where the

30:01application of site suitability guidance

30:03as uh codified by CMR. Um and this was a

30:08recommendation by town council that we

30:10incorporate this directly into our

30:12bylaw. So that way if an applicant does

30:16choose to proceed by local review or

30:19local bylaw only and not the

30:21consolidated permit, we can still

30:23request that um they go through the

30:26whole site suitability process and they

30:28receive their score and we get that

30:30initial determination as whether um this

30:33is a feasible and applicable site.

30:37>> So Jonathan felt that that was very

30:38important.

30:39>> Okay, good. Mhm.

30:42>> All right. Uh Dan, do you have any

30:44questions, comments, or

30:45>> no?

30:49Thank you.

30:50>> I'm all set. Thank you.

30:52>> Nothing. Okay. So I guess for me the

30:55only concern I have is just around the

30:57bees content and if we need to do

31:00anything as far as a safety precaution

31:03fires. Do we need any language in there

31:05that relates to how fires from a bees

31:08gets managed or additional safety

31:11concerns that can be added in?

31:16>> Um if there's an incident those things

31:19are intense.

31:21So that's one of the only like concerns

31:24going into this looking at it that that

31:27I want to make sure is addressed that

31:29we're covering ourselves for whether

31:31it's costs to the fire department or how

31:34that gets managed.

31:35>> There's a fire runoff management plan

31:39in the zoning.

31:41>> I would say um I I needed a second to

31:44review the text. We've shifted around.

31:47>> Yeah.

31:48Did you see at 305.6

31:52there's some language at the end in blue

31:54about that?

31:55>> See

31:55>> it doesn't go into the level of detail

31:58that you were talking about but it's

31:59probably the area you're looking for. So

32:02in section um

32:04>> 5.300-5.6

32:07those are additional safety precautions

32:09for any best installations within the

32:12groundwater protection district.

32:14>> Sure. But the main um you know site

32:18mitigation minimization and protection

32:21standards are outlined in 300-10.3.

32:25Okay.

32:26>> Um and that is 10.3 subsection 9 where

32:30we have our emergency response plan the

32:32ERP and this has been written to apply

32:37to um all solar and all best uh

32:41installations.

32:45Okay. I guess I don't know the details

32:47of that. So, you know,

32:51>> for example, does um require a

32:54firefighting plan? Um and then various

32:59other safety precautions in in case of

33:02an emergency.

33:02>> So, in the from the that perspective, is

33:04that something that comes into

33:05consideration? Would the if we go to if

33:07we get to a scenario where somebody's

33:09coming to us for approval on this, do we

33:11then go bring the fire department in for

33:13that conversation of how does this get

33:15supported? When is that budgeted for

33:18them to be able to handle something like

33:20that?

33:21Um, you know, safety would be looped in

33:24from the beginning and then if it was um

33:28a local review only um it may also be

33:33reviewed not only by town staff before

33:36it goes to the planning board, but it

33:37may also be reviewed um by an external

33:41consultant. And

33:42>> so if we feel that could be a cause of

33:44saying yes, we don't feel we can

33:45support, you know, safely having this

33:47there in case something happens, we

33:48won't be able to handle it.

33:50>> Right. Is that that what you're saying

33:51with that in that terms in that scenario

33:53>> a review criteria for

33:56>> approval or denial?

33:57>> Right.

33:58>> Yes. If it it was not supporting the

34:01safety and welfare of the community um

34:03because it's lacking uh these materials

34:06that could be grounds for a denial.

34:09>> All right. I just want to make sure that

34:10we have that called out. Yeah. So,

34:12>> okay. Yeah. Now also uh Aiden um

34:17that section that does you know address

34:19you know particularly the fire concerns

34:21about the vest you know systems I mean

34:23the fire department did have input on

34:24that right I mean they

34:26>> yes uh Jen Ash has been looped in and uh

34:29she's provided

34:30>> she provided a lot of that information

34:31as to the procedures that needed to be

34:33put in here

34:34>> right and then again you know if a

34:36project did come forward we would have

34:37the opportunity to make sure that they

34:39were in full compliance with that and

34:41understood you know what their

34:42responsibilities were before we approved

34:44the project.

34:45>> Correct. Well, this is setting the

34:47requirement that this be done and then

34:49there's further review certainly on a

34:51particular project to make sure that

34:52they have met that and there are no

34:54additional concerns say from public

34:56safety or you know anyone else really

34:59from that standpoint

35:01>> and under the consolidated local permit

35:03I think that process is a uh much larger

35:08scale version of when you receive our

35:10departmental memos

35:12um you know and it's it lists for

35:15various ious you know site plan review

35:17various comments by town staff members

35:19the consolidated permit I will be or the

35:22town planner will be the local

35:23government representative who's

35:25responsible for coordinating the review

35:28of every staff member who's necessitated

35:31by the type of proposal

35:36>> all right any other comments or

35:37questions not so uh we don't have well

35:41we have any public comments from the

35:43public here on this

35:44>> [laughter]

35:46>> Do we have any uh calls or anything?

35:48Nothing virtual or anything like that.

35:50All right. So, I guess if there are no

35:52other questions from um from the uh uh

35:57board here, we will uh have a request

36:00then to close the public hearing.

36:03>> Motion

36:05moved.

36:06>> Second.

36:06>> Second. Any comments or question? All in

36:08favor? Okay. So, Aiden, what would be

36:11the uh motion we need to make to uh

36:14approve this and send it forward?

36:16>> Uh my recommended motion would be to

36:19adopt the proposed amendments as written

36:22and uh include those on the We'll vote

36:25to include those on the special town

36:27meeting warrant.

36:28>> Very good. Okay. Can I have that motion?

36:30>> Yes. So moved.

36:32>> Second.

36:32>> Second. Any other discussion or

36:34questions? If not, all in favor?

36:37>> Very good. Okay.

36:41All right, let's see. Um,

36:45so we've gone through most. Now, the

36:46only other, you know, kind of comment I

36:48had on this Senate Cosbrook issue, um,

36:50it seems like like from the discussion

36:52we've had, you you're really not even,

36:55uh, or we're not really sure of the

36:57owner or the the right person that we

37:00should be talking to about what really

37:01happened there. Is that what the problem

37:03is here? Um

37:05the issue is simply it's going through

37:10the whole review history first. You

37:13know, I need to have a good

37:14understanding of the site and whether

37:17this is something that's entirely new or

37:19it was proposed on a former um site

37:22plan. But at this point, the status is

37:26um determining the correct uh ownership

37:29or project manager and then reaching out

37:32to them.

37:33>> Yeah. So that's actually my point,

37:34Aiden. I, you know, I wouldn't think

37:36that like if they've had changes in

37:37ownership and so forth, they we should

37:39be at a point where we have to decide or

37:41find out who is really in charge. In

37:43other words, when something like this

37:44occurs where all of a sudden, at least,

37:47you know, it seems that the the biggest

37:49complaint I've seen about this thing is

37:50the fact that the new stop sign closest

37:54to Route 20 seems to be very close to

37:56Route 20 and has that potential to

37:58really in busy times, you know, cause

38:01even more backup, you know, onto um the

38:03road because if you have a green arrow

38:04to come in and you can't come in because

38:06people are waiting to go through that,

38:08that seems to be a pretty big deal.

38:10backed up the other day all the way up

38:11to road 20. I was there when it

38:13happened.

38:14>> Yeah. And I mean really, so I guess the

38:16point should be that we should always

38:18have enough information so that we know

38:20who is in charge of that at the point so

38:22that we can make that call. And I'm not

38:24criticizing anyone, you know, here or on

38:26our part of it. But it would seem to me

38:28that we should have have the

38:30[clears throat] opportunity to be able

38:31to reach out to somebody right away and

38:32find out, okay, how did you do this? I

38:34mean, did they actually just throw the

38:35sign up or did they have uh an engineer

38:38look at this and say, "Yes, this is a

38:40safe place to put these."

38:41>> I got to say, it feels like some of them

38:42were just thrown up because I went

38:44through the other day and you can't see

38:46them.

38:46>> Oh, that's a couple

38:50and they're covered by relatively small

38:51branches that could have been cut right

38:53down if they really saw that. So, I

38:55guess the question becomes, you know,

38:57why did they do it? How did they do it?

38:58What was the criteria? What was the

38:59decision process? I mean certainly

39:01>> the question comes up you know should

39:03they have known that they needed to have

39:04a site plan modification I would think

39:06something like that is a big enough

39:07change that they should have known that

39:09and so when we see that we should have

39:11an opportunity I think to at least go to

39:12the records and say okay this is the

39:14person to contact I know we try to do

39:16that on every project we have you know

39:17we want to who's on site who's in charge

39:19during construction but we certainly

39:21should be able to know who is in charge

39:24of changes like that um ongoing on an

39:27ongoing basis so something we need to as

39:29we go through this maybe get you know a

39:33better way to get that information to

39:34know to be sure that we can respond

39:36quicker to some of these questions that

39:38do come up.

39:39>> So the assessor's office obviously would

39:41track ownership but do they

39:43[clears throat] have phone numbers and

39:44contact info?

39:45>> I don't know about the assessor as much

39:46as even the town clerk I mean you know

39:48maybe I don't know if they have to file

39:50new certificates when they have new

39:51ownership but I mean there should be

39:53>> I reach out to the assessor's office

39:54they had an address but no other contact

39:56information.

39:56>> That's what I would assume from the

39:58assessor. That makes sense to me.

40:00>> Yeah. So I mean we should have I mean we

40:01should

40:01>> trying to think how do we solve this

40:02problem because to your point at

40:04application we have contact info but

40:06then in 10 five years you don't and

40:09that's just how the process works. So

40:11what's a better way?

40:12>> Well we better think about that if we

40:14don't have the process.

40:15>> Yeah. No I agree with you think you

40:16should always have the ability to

40:17understand of a major project like that

40:20or you know who the owner is and who the

40:22contact is if something like safety or

40:24anything else comes up. really any

40:26commercial public access project, even

40:28not the big ones, really any of them

40:30that has a public face. Yeah.

40:32>> Right.

40:33>> At at this point, the last thing I would

40:35say is I I think it's more so uh a new

40:39staff member coming in who's not fully

40:41integrated and understanding of all the

40:43systems yet. So, I'm just a little bit

40:45slower to act than say Jean would be,

40:48but it is something that we will be that

40:51I will be trying to get.

40:53>> No shame on you, buddy. That's not what

40:54we're talking about. Not really at all.

40:56The idea is if you wanted to just say

40:58find out, okay, who did it? We should

41:00have something.

41:01>> You wouldn't know either. We'd be s we'd

41:02be having the same conversation.

41:04>> It's because somebody sold the property

41:06and nobody updated a phone number.

41:07>> Yeah, it we need to have

41:10>> and they put them up in the shadow of

41:11night.

41:11>> They did [laughter]

41:12apparently.

41:13>> And the safety should couldn't the

41:15police department have something to do

41:17with that? Could we go to them for

41:19assistance because it is a public safety

41:22issue as they stream out onto 20?

41:24>> Well, I mean it's a gray area on

41:26private, you know, I mean it looks like

41:28it might be, but whether they could

41:29determine that it is unless they see it,

41:31>> that would be a different situation.

41:32>> I just trying to think of safety.

41:34>> Assuming we're on the topic of the end

41:37of the conversation of the meeting, but

41:38I had that comment about both the

41:41striping at Village Pizza and the

41:43Hobsbrook stop signs. Is there no

41:45enforcement to immediately roll it back

41:48>> or do we just live with a potentially

41:50dangerous situation for weeks or months

41:52while this gets figured out,

41:54>> right?

41:55>> That's where we're at apparently.

41:57>> And that is my question as well. And

42:01>> I'm not aware of an enforcement.

42:02>> Well, you know, I think one of the

42:04things is like what the actual urgency

42:07of the potential safety issue really is.

42:09I mean, um, you know, I know that when

42:13those, um, parking spaces were first

42:16noticed at Village Pizza, the idea is,

42:17well, they're too close to the road. You

42:19know, that certainly seems reasonable.

42:21But then again, I counted at least 24 of

42:23them up further, which may not have the

42:26kind of volume you'd get down there, but

42:27they still have the situation where you

42:29have a vehicle in that place that does

42:30come out onto Route 20. So, it's not

42:32that it it doesn't happen. It's not

42:34unique.

42:35>> And so, whether that makes it urgent

42:37enough to say, "Okay, put the cones up

42:38and stop it." you know, maybe it did.

42:40That's fine. But, uh, and I think the

42:42same thing really on the on the stop

42:44sign. I mean, the anticipation is it's

42:46going to be really bad when it gets

42:47there. So, I I guess the thing is, you

42:50know, getting that dialogue started as

42:51soon as we can. Um, you know, even on

42:54the case of of say um,

42:58Village Pizza not being aware that they

42:59even maybe needed to, you know, address

43:02the idea of a of a uh, the site plan

43:05revision. I mean, the site plan is, you

43:07know, 30 years ago and they've had

43:08different owners and

43:10>> I'm sure there were times that other

43:12businesses went in there and we either

43:13had a waiver of sight plane or something

43:15because, you know, they weren't changing

43:16parking or anything.

43:18>> So, I guess um what you're saying,

43:21>> you know, then I would think then I

43:23would do that, Charlie, because any any

43:25of these papers that have gone through

43:26paving different places in in this area

43:28are going to know that there's a plan

43:29review for most mun municipalities.

43:32>> I want to see the guy that striped them

43:34backwards. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I've

43:36never done this before. And or the stop

43:39sign is so cuz it's only going to take

43:41one accident for this to be, you know,

43:44and then who's responsible.

43:45>> Yeah. So I I mean the faster we can roll

43:47it back those kind of things.

43:49>> And all all the tenants up there have a

43:51contact number for for what's happening

43:53there. If they lose a window or

43:54something like that or somebody knocks

43:55over a ball or they have a number to

43:57call. So we can just ask any one of

43:59those people from and we should have a

44:01number.

44:02>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, as far as the

44:03question about whether they striped them

44:04backwards with the wrong angle with with

44:06the arrow coming in, I had the idea that

44:08they wanted you to pull in there, then

44:09back out, and then go out the other

44:10side. Is that the way they designed it?

44:12I mean,

44:12>> I can't tell you what they were

44:13thinking.

44:14>> No, but I mean, to have the idea that

44:16they're not like striped the right way.

44:18I mean, they give more room, I suppose,

44:20to, you know, to back out if as long as

44:22you're going to try to stay on the

44:23property and then go forward to come

44:25out, you know, they might work better. I

44:27don't know.

44:30My thing is when you back out of those,

44:32you're facing head-on traffic from Route

44:3520 and there's no granite. There's no

44:37divider. It's

44:39>> fully wide open. I to have a head-on if

44:41I backed out and saw a head-on car

44:43coming right at me from 3 ft on my

44:45shoulder.

44:46>> It's just jarring.

44:48>> I don't know. I saw a big Hback van

44:50parked there the other day. Nobody could

44:51see anything.

44:52>> Mhm.

44:54It seems like we don't have a

44:58real urgency or ability to change that.

45:01It seems like Village Pizzas currently

45:03got cones in the way for all the spaces

45:06except for their handicapped accessible

45:08space and Hobsbrook is stop signs still

45:12exist. So, seems like where we're at.

45:16>> I would say that's where we're at.

45:18>> That is the status unfortunately for

45:21now. We I I would say that where we've

45:23gotten to with Village Pizza where they

45:26are just blocking off the spaces while

45:29we work with them going forward is the

45:32preferred method to deal with them. We

45:34want to preserve, you know, healthy

45:37business relations with them and

45:38remediate this um and maintain a good

45:42relationship with them. But

45:44>> yeah, I'll echo Charlie's point. I'm

45:46very sensitive to pro business parking

45:48needs, especially on Route 20 in that

45:50area. We get a lot of the community is

45:53blessed with all of the pass by traffic

45:55in that corridor. It's a challenging

45:57narrow area. Sure, we can find a happy

46:00compromise for everybody.

46:02>> The village we're all just surprised

46:03that it happened.

46:04>> Yeah, the village pizza one's always

46:05that spot's always been, you know,

46:08dangerous. I'm more concerned with the

46:09stop signs. I would, you know,

46:10>> there's an urgency there with the with

46:11the with the Hobsbrook thing. And I

46:13think the urgency is is such that since

46:14I witnessed it the other day and there

46:16was there was a long line going out onto

46:18Route 20 and up Route 20 and there's a

46:20long line of traffic for people getting

46:21out of Staples trying to pull across

46:23there. There was no way. So what they

46:24ended up doing was they're going back to

46:26stop and shop turning around and coming

46:27back up again. It's not a way to do it

46:30and it's it's it's a major safety crisis

46:32and I I believe it has to be addressed.

46:34And I think if we have to have somebody

46:36from the police department to stop by,

46:38get a number, make a call and say that

46:40sign has got to come out right now.

46:42We'll work on the other ones, but that

46:43one has got to come out right now. That

46:45should be done now. You know, it's it's

46:47too much of a safety thing. And we're

46:49not going to wait for another accident.

46:50We have issues up and down route 20

46:51there. This has got to be addressed now.

46:58>> Yeah.

47:01>> Can't say it better than that.

47:03>> Huh?

47:03>> Can't say it better than that. There's

47:04already enough people trying to turn

47:05around on Fist Hill

47:07>> and turn around that way as it was. And

47:09this is just the newest Cracker Barrel

47:10intersection type thing that

47:12>> Right.

47:13>> Exactly.

47:15>> Okay.

47:16>> The Facebook comments have been

47:17entertaining though.

47:18>> I'm sure we certainly looking, you know,

47:22more information on what you do find out

47:24about this. All right. What we can do.

47:26>> Great.

47:27>> Okay. Uh let's see. We've talked about

47:30the next meeting dates. Do you have

47:31anything else for the update?

47:33>> No, that's it. I encourage anyone who

47:35can make it to the Downey Road um site

47:38tour, please come. It should be a great

47:42event.

47:42>> Okay, great. Thank you. Now, uh the next

47:44is Olden who visits. Any other Olden who

47:46visit? Any?

47:47>> Nope. All done. So, no. Nothing. No.

47:51Nope. All

47:52>> right. How about a motion to adjurnn?

47:54So, move. Seconded. All in favor? Yep.