2026-08-04 - Planning Board

01:56planning board meeting for August 4th,

01:59Tuesday. Uh my name is Hazel Nurse. I'm

02:01chairman of the board. To my far left is

02:03Christian.

02:05[clears throat] Um

02:11>> thank you Chris. Who's our assistant

02:13town planner? Carolyn Regan next to her.

02:15Christina Keller next. John Bazonian on

02:18my left. John Galsuch on my right. And

02:21Ann Marie Decker our administrative

02:23assistant. Um let's see. This my call to

02:26order. Our next order of business is the

02:29open forum. But I will just make a note

02:32that from now on the open forum will be

02:35at the end of the meeting and not at the

02:37beginning. But since it is on the agenda

02:39tonight to be on the beginning, we will

02:41have it at the beginning. Is there

02:43anybody who wish to comment at the open

02:45forum this evening? Yes, ma'am. If you

02:46would make sure to give your name and

02:49address

02:50>> here or there.

02:51>> Yes, please.

02:52>> Hello. Hi, my name is Julie Squires, 15

02:56State Street. I serve on the active

02:58transportation and safety committee. At

03:00our June 15th meeting, it was reported

03:02by planning department Kristen B that

03:05the Kimley Horn Rotary design final

03:07report with recommendations was due at

03:09any moment. June 23rd at the select

03:12board meeting, it was stated the final

03:13report was not received. That select

03:16board is waiting for the planning board

03:17recommendations. On July 6th, active

03:20transportation and safety committee

03:21meeting, it was [snorts] reported by the

03:23town manager that the report had not

03:25been received. July 7th planning board

03:28meeting, there was no mention of final

03:30report and it was not on the agenda. On

03:33July 21st select board meeting, it was

03:36mentioned that the report had been

03:37received. [snorts] On the town planning

03:40department website, there is a Kimley

03:41Horn report noted June 2026. I believe

03:45this to be the updated report. Today,

03:48August 4th, at the planning board

03:50meeting, there's no mention of a final

03:52report or recommendations on the agenda.

03:54I'm requesting an update from the

03:56planning board of recommendations for

03:58this report. Thank you.

04:00>> Thank you.

04:01>> Is there anybody else who'd like to

04:03speak? Yes, ma'am.

04:07>> Good evening. Joanne Aramini, 7 Meadow

04:09Road. I'm here tonight to talk about the

04:11active transportation plan project that

04:14is happening now. Um, I have some

04:16concerns about it. My first concern is

04:18that there are no residents on the

04:20active transportation plan working

04:22group. Members are town officials and

04:25one committee member. There were and of

04:27those people only two actually live in

04:30Westbrook and one of them is the

04:32committee person Don Burn who has major

04:35conflict of interest issues sitting on

04:37that working group. We the residents are

04:40paying the bill and I think we should

04:41have representation on that working

04:43group. Um, I know there are two public

04:45outreach meetings planned, but outreach

04:47meetings are not the same as being a

04:50participant on the workg group, and I'd

04:52like to ask that you include some

04:53residents. Second concern is the project

04:57says that they will hold stake

04:59stakeholder interviews. Who are the

05:01stakeholders? They're not defined and

05:03they're not mentioned. Is the public

05:05going to be included as stakeholders?

05:07Again, we are the ones paying the bill.

05:10Third concern, the cost of the project

05:12including maintenance costs and

05:14associated infrastructure costs are not

05:17included in the prioritization process.

05:20Why isn't necessity and return on

05:22investment of a project included as part

05:25of the prioritization process? How do

05:27you do a project without knowing the

05:29cost? When you read the project, it

05:32reads as if as if every single project

05:34in that plan is going to be

05:36accomplished. The consultants say that

05:38they will deliver an implementation

05:40plan. There's no prioritization here.

05:42Instead, we have a pecking order of

05:44what's going to be done.

05:47The project talks about existing how

05:50existing plans and documents are going

05:52to be used and that all sounds

05:53reasonable and it's appropriate.

05:55However,

05:57bad data equals bad outcomes. In other

05:59words, garbage in and garbage out. For

06:02example, some of the documents that are

06:03being used, the BWAL concept plan of

06:062015,

06:08almost 12 years old, the BWAL

06:10feasibility study of 2021, major issues

06:13with that. I can come back at another

06:15open forum and outline them for you or

06:17you can watch the select board meeting

06:19because I've been there multiple times

06:20outlining them. The master plan of 2021,

06:24again, I've made multiple comments about

06:26the master plan. It has multiple pages

06:28of high priorities. It's not been

06:30re-evaluated throughout its lifetime at

06:33all and the needs and the wants of the

06:35town have changed and the master plan

06:38does not reflect those changes. And

06:40lastly, the downtown improvement plan is

06:42being looked at and I think you all know

06:44what the public thinks about that. Last

06:46concern, as you read the presentation,

06:48the project seems to be focused on

06:50bikes. It says the consultants will

06:52include trail network, pedestrian

06:54network, and bicycle network. What about

06:57other transportation projects where the

06:58focus is safety for all users, including

07:01vehicles? This project is going to

07:03create another story map. We already

07:05have a story map. We have a complete

07:07streets project listing and we have safe

07:09routes to school audit findings. And now

07:11we're going to get another regurgitated

07:14story map. What we don't have is a

07:16prioritization of all these projects

07:18based on cost, need, and return on

07:20investment per the public's input. We

07:23can't afford everything in this town.

07:25our taxes keep going up. We have to make

07:27thoughtful choices. Thank you.

07:29>> Thank you.

07:32>> Is there anyone else who'd like to speak

07:33this evening?

07:34>> Yes.

07:38>> Good evening, members of the board.

07:39Kevin Barry, 8 Indian Pond Road. Um, the

07:42first comment I want to make is not

07:43necessarily directed at all the board

07:44members, but bottom line is something

07:46I've noticed with now open form two

07:48sessions as well as public hearings is

07:50bottom line is when people take the time

07:52to speak, the least they should receive

07:55receive is eye contact, acknowledgement,

07:57and genuine consideration, common

07:59courtesy. We're residents, business

08:01owners, property owners, your fellow

08:03residents, your board members, elected

08:06officials. Yet, when people speak, they

08:08shouldn't be looking at their computer

08:10screen. They shouldn't be looking at

08:11paperwork whether they like the person

08:12or not. It's common courtesy. Pay

08:14attention. That's why why it's there. Um

08:17my main crux of what I need to speak is

08:20transpar transparency and communication.

08:22Um bottom line is that's what we've been

08:25expressing in different projects,

08:27different things with town boards,

08:28committees, you name it, is we're

08:30looking for transparency and

08:32communication. bottom line, a downtown

08:33improvement project, as Julie will put,

08:36basically it's one of the most

08:37polarizing uh topics in town, aside from

08:40rising taxes, both residents, business

08:42owners, and property owners made their

08:44concerns unexplicably

08:47uh clear. Basically, your joint meeting

08:49that you had with the select board

08:51obviously counted on the next steps,

08:52which is the final report from Kimley

08:54Horn. Yet, basically, it was quietly

08:56posted out online. There was no

08:58announcement, there was no

08:59acknowledgement, and it's not an agenda

09:00item, right? So, we're here now as of

09:03August 4th. Select board's waiting for

09:04that. You've had the report since mid

09:07July is what we were told for the most

09:09part of the select board hearing. But

09:10basically, there's no public discussion.

09:12No timeline has been shared and there's

09:14no perspectives communicated. So, for

09:16the most part is with that next select

09:18board meeting is September 1st.

09:21We miss the opportunity to present

09:23something to to the select board on

09:25August 18th. So, we're talking

09:26midseptember to late September before

09:28this kind of moves along, leaving

09:30stakeholders in the dark. Bottom line,

09:32as Julie said, I respectfully request

09:33that we acknowledge these concerns

09:35publicly, clearly outline the timeline

09:37as far as reviewing the Kimley Horn

09:39report, finalize the recommendations and

09:41what the timeline is, and for the most

09:43part, most importantly, is engage in

09:44transparent dialogue out in the open in

09:47discussions, not hidden in memos, not

09:49hidden in emails, but each one of your

09:51perspectives as far as that report and

09:53how you receive that and what your

09:55recommendations are. It's all we ask,

09:56transparency and communication, bottom

09:59line. And same thing as far as the

10:01active transportation plan. Very minimal

10:03information's coming out of that. Little

10:05regard as far as public uh interaction.

10:07And last but not least, the elephant in

10:09the room is the attorney general notice

10:11on the defect as far as that public

10:12notice. If anybody didn't pay attention

10:14to it, they wouldn't have seen it in

10:16that community advocate legal notice

10:18section. So thankfully someone did

10:19notice it and brought it to people's

10:20attention, but has not been openly

10:22acknowledged by anybody by any town

10:24official, let alone the community

10:25advocate who got paid for that legal

10:27notice. Shame on them for not doing a uh

10:30a story on that. Thank you for your

10:31time.

10:35>> All right. Is there anyone else who wish

10:36to speak during the public hearing? If

10:39not, we will move to our agenda. First

10:43matter is public meeting is 228 Ruggle

10:46Street.

10:50>> [clears throat]

10:51>> Um so as the board is aware 228 Ruggle

10:54Street is a definitive subdivision plan

10:57um that we have before us. We received

11:01uh an initial um site plan from WDA um

11:05Barry's here um to represent them. Um

11:08after comments received from departments

11:12and um comments from abutters um they

11:16went back and revised the site plans um

11:19to address some of those concerns and

11:21they resubmitted a new site plan um

11:24revised site plan to the portal. Um it's

11:27essentially almost a new project. So we

11:30went back and we um got comments from

11:33all the departments again as well as the

11:36peer reviewer. Um so at this point CI

11:40provided their peer review for the new

11:43revised plans as of July 23rd and then

11:47WDA responded to those comments on July

11:5130th. Um that was only a few days ago.

11:54So CI has not had the opportunity to do

11:57the final um you know sign off of WDA's

12:02response. Um so we still um need to

12:06engage that. Um but for the most part

12:08WDA's addressed all of the concerns. Um

12:12they are going before the conservation

12:15commission um at their next meeting on

12:18August 11th um to talk about their NOI

12:23application.

12:24Um WDA also provided a response to the

12:29ABUTRE comments um in the portal as

12:32well. there's a revised storm water

12:34report and then um we also asked him to

12:38do a revised narrative since lots of the

12:41things changed and he updated the waiver

12:44requests on that. Um and then Barry's

12:48here. He was just going to go through

12:50some of the changes. I believe

12:52>> I think there were six um items which

12:56>> um were the problem that he needed to

12:58address on this

13:00>> the waiverss. Um

13:03the CI report I think there were six

13:05items that had not

13:08pour through. I think you sent us a note

13:11on that

13:15>> address in the original.

13:17>> Yeah, the most recent comments I think

13:20everything's addressed but like I said,

13:22>> okay,

13:22>> CI has to verify that what he said was

13:25done was actually done on the plan.

13:27>> Six items that I think had to go

13:29through. Okay, Barry.

13:34>> [clears throat]

13:35>> Uh so primarily in the uh CI

13:39>> I think sorry sir I think you need the

13:41mic [clears throat]

13:43>> can't hear me. There we go.

13:46[clears throat] primarily in the CI

13:48comments. Uh there was um

13:52clean up of inverts and some numbers and

13:55some uh descriptions to uh water manes

13:59and leaders and little things that they

14:01wanted us to clean up.

14:03The uh most recent uh issue and that we

14:07had was the uh zone A

14:12where they wanted us to make sure that

14:14all our equipment and so forth was out

14:16of the zone A. Any kind of discharge of

14:20storm water and so forth was out of zone

14:23A. Uh we've pulled everything back. Uh,

14:26and this is the revised sheet that

14:29Christian was talking about where we've

14:31pulled the uh the next one.

15:02Here's our zone A.

15:05We pulled the pipe, made that a

15:08waterproof uh it's a double line uh pipe

15:12with confinement. move the E1 out

15:16directed the line up to uh the cleanout

15:19manhole up to the street and move that

15:22forward out of the uh zone one. So I

15:26don't have any sewer with the exception

15:29of this one portion to get out of the

15:31house.

15:32Um,

15:36one of the uh residents in his comments

15:40uh referenced

15:42uh CMR

15:44regulations.

15:46Um because this is a private force main

15:50a private pump station

15:53um it does not fall under that criteria

15:58because we don't need to file a permit.

16:00However, we do because the town and

16:04their approval, the approval process for

16:06this will be through the board of health

16:09uh DPW and we don't need to file

16:12anything with D in regards to this

16:15either one of those uh CMRs that were

16:18referenced.

16:20uh however still applies to be good

16:23judgment to keep as much out of the uh

16:25zone A and eliminate any discharge

16:29uh possibilities. So that's why we've

16:32moved everything out and uh double

16:34contained the one pipe that I need to

16:38keep coming through that uh from the

16:40front of the house uh in here.

16:44Um we did do additional uh test pits uh

16:50up in the basins since the last and they

16:53were all confirmed our assumptions. Uh

16:56they've been reviewed by CI and

16:59discussed in the latest uh requirements.

17:03Uh so long story short, I believe we've

17:07answered all their uh little comments

17:10that they had uh to clean up the

17:12drawings.

17:14uh and addressed the storm water. And as

17:17uh Kristen said, we've gone in front of

17:18the uh the uh conservation commission

17:23and had a positive uh experience there.

17:26>> Except you do have to go back to

17:27conservation.

17:29>> Yep.

17:29>> Um based on this new plan, I assume.

17:33>> Yeah, it got continued because they

17:35wanted to hear what you guys had to say

17:37and it's a little

17:40back and forth on that. So it got

17:43continued to the next meeting.

17:45>> So we're still waiting for your return

17:47to the conservation committee plus the

17:49fact that to make sure the CI goes over

17:52and make sure that you answered all the

17:54questions that were correct. Okay.

17:56>> Yeah.

17:57>> We've still got some open issues on this

17:59matter.

18:01>> Are there any questions from any board

18:03members on this matter?

18:07>> Kristen,

18:08>> I just had a couple questions for Barry.

18:10>> Sure. Um, one of the Did you see the

18:13comments that fire provided?

18:16>> No.

18:17>> Recently, um, if you're able to answer

18:20>> might be able to.

18:21>> The, um, driveway grade appears to

18:24exceed the 10%.

18:27Um, he he asked if the homes will have

18:30automatic fire sprinkler systems.

18:34>> Uh,

18:36I didn't think they were over the 10%.

18:38Uh I do remember him talking about being

18:41able to get down there and getting his

18:42ladder up on top of the thing which he

18:44shouldn't have any problem, but we can

18:46certainly discuss and if that's a

18:48requirement uh for that, we can

18:51certainly put him in. Okay.

18:53>> So through the chair, um it's not going

18:55to be a requirement for the fire

18:56department, but I would also support uh

18:58residential fire sprinklers. It's pretty

19:00far away from the the fire station. So,

19:03life safety is always a concern for fire

19:06departments and getting even a minute or

19:09two extra would be helpful, especially

19:10that distance.

19:11>> Great.

19:12>> I would I would recommend or encourage

19:14the the developer to put in fire

19:16sprinklers in the houses even if it's

19:18not required.

19:21>> Anything else,

19:23Kristen? Anything? Um the other comment

19:25that he had was just um noting where the

19:30fire hydrant was located is in an area

19:32that had been designated for snow

19:34storage. Um so making sure that there's

19:38a clear space maintained around the

19:40hydrant is important. If you could

19:42double check

19:44>> um make sure

19:51>> that was it from fire.

19:53>> Thank you. Um, this is still a public

19:55hearing. Is there anyone in the audience

19:56you'd like to speak on this project?

19:59Yes, sir.

20:08Hello. Uh, Anton Abaya, three long

20:10drive.

20:12Um, I just wanted to quickly address uh

20:15the one comment that was made. I don't

20:17we we don't believe that WDA has

20:20addressed everything uh and all the

20:22issues. Uh so the abutters are closely

20:26watching this case and we're tracking 18

20:29distinct material issues 16 of which are

20:32major two are important arising from the

20:35applicant's plans continued revisions uh

20:38agency comments uh the peer reviewers um

20:42so my first question is does CI have

20:45sufficient funds to continue the peer

20:46review process

20:49>> um that's something they provided a

20:51proposal proposal for um up until this

20:54round they expended their escrow. So now

20:57we have an amendment for the additional

20:59review um which WDA is um waiting to

21:04talk to the owner about getting those

21:06funds secured.

21:08>> Thank you. Um I wanted to talk about the

21:11zone A sewer issue. Um

21:14I did mention the two uh the CMR706

21:18paragraph 3 and 1208 paragraph 10. Uh I

21:23wanted to ask whether I guess which

21:26board or which agency within

21:29Westboroough is responsible for making

21:31the determination on those CMRs as it

21:34pertains to zone A. The reason I ask is

21:37um if we can go back to

21:41uh C302 sheet please

21:57uh

21:57>> through through the board I can answer

21:59that real quick.

22:00>> Okay.

22:01>> Board of Health,

22:02>> excuse me. Board of Health.

22:05>> It's jurisdiction

22:06>> makes a determination.

22:08>> Yeah. Because it's drinking water.

22:11>> Okay. Um, so I I had submitted an

22:15annotated version of this sheet a few

22:18days ago. Um and it was quickly updated

22:21by WDA to uh move the sewer lines and a

22:26pertinances so accessories related to

22:28sewer outside of that map zone A uh

22:32boundary. Uh so they quickly changed it.

22:34Um and I the reason I'm asking is uh you

22:39know those two CMRs do prohibit sewer

22:42lines in zone A. Um, I did check with

22:44Mass Depp directly who told me that yes,

22:47my interpretation is correct, but

22:48they're leaving it up to the town to

22:51make that decision. So, again, I wanted

22:53to ask um if you read the CMRs, they

22:57require an exception um to have those

23:00sewer uh lines and pertinances. And from

23:03what I can tell, even in the latest

23:05revision that moved as many of them as

23:07possible, uh if you look at that house,

23:10um on the right,

23:14there is still a sewer line crossing

23:17over uh the zone A boundary.

23:25So, I guess my I'll I'll end with this.

23:27So, I'm going to leave it to the town to

23:30uh to decide on that one. My point is

23:32also that it seems that

23:35we have flags right um that depicts the

23:39wetlands. We don't have flags depicting

23:42zone A exactly where it is and to move

23:46the sewer lines and a pertinance is just

23:49outside if you look at the two versions

23:51just outside um it seems too easy to do

23:54on a piece of paper right um and I'm not

23:57sure if this just warrants more review

24:00given that these regulations exist for a

24:03reason.

24:05Um the last thing I wanted to just bring

24:06up is that I

24:11whether the easement um issue between

24:15228 and 230 rugles has been uh resolved.

24:19I believe that was included in the CI

24:22comments from I think DPW if I'm not

24:24mistaken and that it needs to be

24:26resolved and I wanted to ask if there

24:28was a formal resolution on that um or an

24:31agreement between the property owners.

24:34>> Barry, do you have an answer on that?

24:36>> Yeah, I believe there's an agreement

24:38between the homeowners. Um,

24:41unfortunately there was some discussion

24:43early on and bad rumors that got passed

24:46that you have a drain line that's on my

24:50property or comes over. So, thus you got

24:52to terminate it, move it, block it,

24:55whatever. And that's obviously not going

24:57to be the case at all. Uh, we've

24:59included in our storm water reports the

25:01amount of water and so forth. Um, we'll

25:04manage that as it comes down. that's

25:06going to actually flow into uh this

25:09design uh seamlessly. So uh any kind of

25:14easements

25:15uh will be drafted up uh officially

25:19after we get approval of these plans.

25:22Don't want to spend uh legal money at

25:25the moment to uh formally create those

25:29easements for operation and maintenance

25:31of his neighbor's line. But, uh, as far

25:35as the flow, it it's not intended to be

25:37capped. We'll do some improvements to

25:39make sure it flows into our system,

25:42>> um, flawlessly. And

25:46>> I mean, my assumption is that it will be

25:48a condition of any approvals that we

25:50give. And

25:51>> if you can't get an agreement, then sort

25:54of ends it right there. They've talked

25:56and we after the last meeting and we've

25:59come up with verbal agreements and so

26:02forth and he agreed with how we're

26:04approach and handling the uh the flow as

26:07it currently exists. So I don't foresee

26:12any kind of issue there.

26:16>> That answer your question on that? Um I

26:19just wanted to put on record that to my

26:20knowledge that agreement has not been

26:22met and I and I do speak with uh the

26:24other property.

26:25>> Well, as I said to you in or it will be

26:27probably a condition of the approval and

26:29if they can't get the agreement

26:32then there's going to be a problem with

26:33the plan. They'll have to come back here

26:34and figure something out if they're

26:36going to continue.

26:37>> Understood. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

26:40[clears throat]

26:41>> Is there anyone else in the audience

26:42who'd like to comment on this project at

26:45uh 228 Regal Street?

26:48>> [clears throat]

26:49>> If there are any other questions from

26:51the board, otherwise I think we will

26:53continue this matter until our September

26:55meeting.

26:58>> I move we continue the hearing until the

27:01>> first

27:02>> September

27:03>> 1st.

27:04>> 1st

27:05>> 1st 2026 meeting date.

27:08>> Second.

27:09>> All in favor?

27:10>> Oops. Okay, Barry, we'll see you on the

27:131st of September.

27:15>> Excellent.

27:16>> Okay. have a great rest of the summer.

27:18All

27:19>> thank you. And if you could just do some

27:22more clarification on this zone A and

27:24where exactly that sewer pipe is going

27:26so that it doesn't crop up as a problem

27:28later on. I mean, obviously it's the

27:31town that's going to make the decision

27:32in the approvals on this, but

27:34>> y

27:34>> we've been in discussion with Lisa DPW

27:37on that plan already. Yeah, we

27:39[clears throat] certainly want a written

27:41opinion from them on how it's being

27:45placed and what's being done with it.

27:46>> Y

27:48>> thanks.

27:48>> And CI as part of the additional review

27:51they're going to do, they would be

27:54looking at those uh the solution that

27:56Barry provided for the zone A.

27:58>> Okay. Thank you.

28:00>> Thank you.

28:01>> All right. Um Five Technology Drive.

28:07>> Uh let's see.

28:11So,

28:14Five Technology Drive came to us last

28:17time and they described um how they had

28:20revised their plans to move the

28:23footprint over a little bit to um get

28:27away from the wetland area. Um they have

28:32submitted since the last meeting a

28:33revised storm water report. Um, McCarti

28:38provided a response to CI's peerreview

28:42comments on July 29th and then CEI

28:47provided their um review to those

28:50comments on August 3rd. So, we just got

28:52those in. They went through everything

28:54that McCarti had responded and I spoke

28:58with CI yesterday and they're um we're

29:01in agreement. Everything's been

29:03addressed. Um they also provided um a

29:08traffic memorandum. Um something that

29:12Jenny had recommended was um for them to

29:16um at a minimum note the estimated

29:20employee counts by shift um anticipated

29:24delivery frequency and truck types and

29:27basic site circulation operations. Um so

29:31they did provide their memo that

29:34discusses those items. Um and then we

29:38also had talked about a pilot agreement

29:41a payment in lie of taxes. Um so they

29:44shared the letter um that they had um

29:48sent to select board. Um I don't think

29:51that's been formalized yet but we could

29:53um reference that in a decision um at

29:56that point. So um and then fire also

30:00wanted a sweat path analysis which did

30:02get uploaded um to the portal. So

30:06>> and you still have to go back to

30:08conservation I gathered at the next

30:09meeting on the vernal pool issue.

30:12>> Yes.

30:12>> Yes.

30:13>> And so the only thing that right now is

30:14outstanding is just some additional

30:16landscaping that they're requesting for

30:17in the uh vernal pool buffer. And so at

30:20the last meeting they didn't have a

30:21quorum uh enough members for us to be

30:23heard. a couple other items they did

30:25have enough members for, but for ours

30:27they didn't have enough members for. So,

30:29we're in front of them next week for

30:30just to talk about landscaping and the

30:32buffer zone, but at this point we, as

30:34Kristen said, we're all set with CI, all

30:36set with engineering. We've taken care

30:37of all the comments. Um, and now we just

30:40need a draft decision from the board to

30:42be, I think, taken care of by Jenny, um,

30:44when she has a chance to, and I know

30:46what your next meeting is probably

30:47about, but September 1st, right? So, uh,

30:50the hope is that we can go next week to

30:52get a decision from the conser space

30:54commission and be back before you on

30:56September 1st to have a vote

30:59>> finalized on this. Yeah.

31:00>> Yeah. I knew that those were the issues

31:02that were outstanding and I'm I am um I

31:06would like to um recommend to the board

31:08that we continue the public hearing on

31:10this. I don't really want to close the

31:12public hearing because they need to go

31:14back to conservation. So my inclination

31:17is to continue the public hearing until

31:20September 1st and it hopefully we will

31:22have ironed out all the problems and

31:24have a a decision a draft decision at

31:26that meeting.

31:28>> Are there any questions from any board

31:29member on this matter?

31:31>> I just want to see if the applicant had

31:33anything to add.

31:35No, nope. Everything that we were asked

31:38for since the last meeting, we presented

31:40to the planning department and uh like I

31:43said, we were that it's too bad we

31:44weren't able to have the conversation

31:45with the conservation commission because

31:46we're hoping to come to at least tonight

31:48with all that taken care of too at the

31:49same time, right?

31:51>> Um where are you on the pilot? So, the

31:56applicant submitted the pilot back to

31:57the select board a long time ago now and

32:00they still haven't heard any kind of

32:01response back from anybody in the town

32:03on their thoughts in the pilot and so

32:05they're willing to negotiate with the

32:06town on the pilot part of it, but they

32:07haven't heard anything back from anybody

32:09in the the town. So,

32:10>> okay. All right, Kristen, maybe you

32:12could follow up on that and see where

32:13the town is on it.

32:15>> Okay. Any other questions from any board

32:18members? Could I have a motion then? I

32:21move we continue the hearing until

32:22September 1st, 2026.

32:24>> Is there a second?

32:25>> Second.

32:26>> Wait a minute. Oh, before I'm sorry.

32:28Before that, was there anyone in the

32:29audience who wished to comment on this

32:31project?

32:34Okay. If not,

32:36I had a motion and a second. All in

32:39favor?

32:41Thank you. All right. uh 220 Turnpike

32:45Road and 161 Milk.

32:50>> Okay. So, this is a special permit for

32:54the sign. Um there's two signs, one at

32:59161 Milk and one at 220 Turnpike. So, we

33:02have two separate decisions. For the

33:04most part, the body of the decision is

33:06the same except 220 Turnpike has one

33:10additional waiver. Um they had the issue

33:14with the bylaw requiring 35 feet from

33:19not only Turnpike Road but from all lot

33:21lines where 161 milk does not have that

33:25issue. Um so I was going to start with

33:28the 220 turnpike decision and if you're

33:31okay with that 161's pretty much the

33:34same.

33:38Um, I provided a copy of the draft to

33:41McCarti. Um, you had an opportunity to

33:44review with the owners,

33:46>> correct? So, on the turnpike road ones,

33:48we didn't have any comments on and just

33:50on the 15961.

33:53I think was on uh condition number five

33:56where it says 159161

33:58if we could did it 159 and 161 just so

34:02it's the wording of it because I know

34:04they're concerned about how it's worded

34:06about regards to how many signed spots

34:08they have.

34:09>> Okay.

34:09>> And so each user from 159 and 161 gets

34:12one spot in the signs.

34:14>> Okay. Now my question on that, one of

34:16the things is that in the location of

34:18the property and on page one, we

34:21originally listed this at just 220

34:23Turnpike Road, but the reference within

34:25the body of the um opinion of the body

34:29of the uh motion for the permit, it

34:33talks about 218220

34:36and I this is somewhat confusing. Um I

34:41in some ways so I was uh my thought was

34:46um where it says location of property

34:48and

34:50um on the special permit decision on

34:52page one of the decision that it say um

34:59um 220 turnpike road also known as 218

35:03or in some way there needs some

35:05clarification that we're talking two two

35:08different addresses.

35:10But it's one parcel, right?

35:12>> It's

35:12>> it's one parcel.

35:13>> It's one parcel, but it's got two

35:15addresses and that's

35:17>> so So it's

35:18>> there's an ANR plan that cut up the

35:20piece of property into properties.

35:22>> And so the sign actually will be on

35:25um

35:27actually the sign's going to be on two

35:30218

35:31I think is how

35:32>> so it does reference that on the front

35:34page.

35:34>> Yeah.

35:36>> Her location. I I think um that it was

35:39changed. Yeah. I mean, I talked to

35:40Kristen about if that's and I didn't

35:42know whether um

35:45>> um John you'd see that change only

35:47because I was concerned about confusion

35:50with the decision

35:52with the permit um to make sure that we

35:55referenced both those addresses.

35:58>> I think they were in another part of the

36:00decision.

36:01>> Yeah. But I the actual sign is going to

36:03be on the 218 Turnpike Road property.

36:06>> Okay. And the sign is going to say 218

36:09and 220.

36:10>> Correct.

36:11>> On the on the sign itself.

36:13>> Yes.

36:14>> Okay.

36:16And I know you have an agreement between

36:19the owners as to who gets what

36:21percentage of the particular signs.

36:23>> Correct. So 218 the turnpike uh 159 and

36:28161 milk all get one placard on the sign

36:31and then 220 gets two placards because

36:34there's two businesses in that building.

36:37>> All right.

36:38>> So that's five total.

36:39>> All right

36:40>> is how the decision.

36:41>> Just want to make sure if someone's

36:42trying to find the building they know

36:44what they're looking for.

36:45>> Yes. It it'll be clear for them. Yes.

36:47>> All right.

36:47>> Yep.

36:50>> Does the board understand why I had a

36:52question about this? Yes.

36:53>> Trying to

36:54>> get some clarification.

36:56>> Did Fred's concerns get addressed?

36:59>> Yes.

37:00>> Okay.

37:01>> Yeah. On the on the sign, the 35 ft.

37:04Yeah.

37:07>> I think there was a a decision on that

37:10with Bill, was there not?

37:11>> Yeah. Fred Larard, community development

37:13director for the town. Uh they have a

37:15satisfactor agreement. That's part of

37:17the condition that we myself and the

37:19building commissioner both agreed that

37:21it was it was fine

37:23>> is a short answer.

37:24>> Thumbs up. Yes.

37:26>> Okay. Thank you.

37:26>> Thank you.

37:29>> All right.

37:30>> Um

37:32>> Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt you,

37:33Christian. I guess you can go on

37:35through. Um

37:37>> one second. I just want to find the

37:39latest version that made that had those

37:42changes.

37:43>> There were many changes in many

37:44different versions. Let me pull those

37:46up. So, I'll go with 220.

38:02>> The version that you guys have, does it

38:04have the the 159161

38:08and

38:08>> Yes.

38:08>> Yes.

38:10>> I'm not That's not pulling up for me.

38:13>> Which one are we doing? Milk Street. Are

38:15we doing 220?

38:17>> 220, I think, because that has the

38:19additional waiver,

38:20>> right? Okay.

38:21>> Um I'm just trying to find the version

38:23that has the changes in it that I sent.

38:26>> The newest one I think you sent this

38:28afternoon about 4:30.

38:30>> Yeah. It didn't have that.

38:43Emry, do you have the newest version?

38:47Any chance?

38:47>> I didn't.

38:49>> We We just made the board.

39:00>> Which are you looking for?

39:02It's the I made a change with the

39:06comments that um McCarti provided and

39:09that version isn't

39:12>> I think all I can tell you is that um it

39:15was print and Marie printed them out. So

39:18>> yeah,

39:18>> do you want the printed out version or

39:20you're trying to find your computer?

39:21>> I was just trying to find it so we could

39:22share it on the screen but um

39:25>> I think it was about 4:30.

39:26>> I guess I'll just use what we have was

39:28my memory.

39:30Um,

39:31>> it's the one you emailed me, right? Can

39:33you find the Could you email me the two

39:34of them after you updated them?

39:36>> You have the updated one.

39:37>> Yeah, you did. Yeah.

39:38>> Pardon me.

39:39>> I do have the updated ones. Yes.

39:40>> Oh, okay.

39:41>> Do you want me to forward them to you?

39:43>> Yeah. If you could email it, I could

39:44just pull it up on my screen.

39:47>> The email that you sent today

39:49>> as it was the last one. I said it was

39:51about 4:30 maybe.

39:54>> Uh, 4:30.

39:57>> 12:40. No, way after that

39:59>> was after that

40:06>> the draft decisions.

40:09>> Don't have an email later than that with

40:10draft decisions.

40:28Oh, okay.

40:42>> The ones today.

40:42>> Yes.

40:49Oh, this doesn't show it.

40:58>> Yeah, I made those changes

41:01>> after you sent it.

41:05>> This has it. The printed out copy has

41:06it.

41:06>> It does. Yeah.

41:07>> Right. We're just trying to find the

41:09file.

41:10>> The file so we could put it up in the

41:12board.

41:14>> Yeah, I know.

41:14>> Yeah. If you could email it. Oh, yeah.

41:16If the electronic version doesn't

41:18>> He doesn't have it.

41:19>> Yeah.

41:20>> Okay. I don't think you emailed that to

41:22us. At least I didn't get it.

41:23>> All right.

41:24>> That may be.

41:24>> So, we'll just go with this one and then

41:26>> Yeah, go with that.

41:28>> Yeah. Go with that and then we'll just

41:29show where the changes are

41:32>> because I think the 12:41 12:40 p.m. was

41:35the last one we got.

41:41>> Now, look, this one has it. Oh, that's

41:44[cough] 161.

41:47220.

41:51All right.

41:55Oh,

41:56>> doesn't have it.

41:58>> It doesn't. So, what we'll have to do is

42:00we'll add up here. We put um

42:05also known as

42:08218.

42:10And then do you want us to put and 220

42:13turnpike?

42:14>> No, it was just it was under one of the

42:17conditions on uh the Milk Street one

42:18that we were worried about

42:22>> wording of it.

42:28>> Um so this is the application for 220

42:31turnpike. Um, and then if we go to the

42:35first page,

42:38the applicant is Westiss McCarti

42:41Engineering representing 10X at 220

42:45Turnpike LLC on behalf of Everise. The

42:48location of the property is 220 Turnpike

42:51Road, map 27, parcel 4A. Um,

42:56>> and Kristen, add there the same

42:57language.

42:58>> The same language.

42:59>> Same language that you had on the first

43:01page. Yep.

43:07As 218 slash220.

43:18Um, we have the statement of facts. Um,

43:21do you want me to go through and read

43:24these items?

43:25>> I don't think you need to go through

43:27each one. I think we've all read them

43:29and we have them on the board there.

43:32>> Okay. Um

43:35>> so let's move on to the findings.

43:37>> Okay.

43:42>> Um let's see. The findings of fact state

43:45the owner um the land is situated in the

43:49zoning district classified under 4.1 of

43:52the zoning bylaw as business highway or

43:55highway business. Um,

43:57>> I think you could just in that first

43:59sentence if you want to just make the

44:01reference on the one the 218 there.

44:06>> Um,

44:06>> what about just 218 and 220 on that one?

44:10>> Yeah, that you could put 220 and 218

44:13>> and on 13.

44:16>> I guess the question on 13 then uh the

44:18sign's actually on 218 only. Do we want

44:20to just put down 218 on that?

44:24Uh let's

44:26>> the larger sign to be located at

44:28>> it's going to be on the 218 turnpike.

44:30>> Oh 218 not 220.

44:32>> Correct.

44:32>> Okay then. Yes.

44:35>> As a maximum height of 153 in and a

44:38maximum width of 19 in both the larger

44:41and smaller signs will display Route 9

44:43self storage mass restoration

44:47everrise and bald financial services

44:49with one placard reserved on each sign

44:52for a future tenant.

44:55Multiple businesses associated with 159

44:58and 161 Milk Street and 218 and 220

45:00Turnpike Road share a common entrance

45:03and internal access roadway.

45:06The applicant of and the owner of 218

45:10and 220 Turnpike Road have executed a

45:14shared property allocation agreement,

45:16street signs, allocating ownership and

45:19use of each of the two street signs

45:22among the four addresses

45:24with 159 and 161 Milk Street allocated

45:28one of the five designated spaces on

45:31each sign respectively. So that's where

45:34if you [clears throat] could change the

45:35slash to and

45:37>> Yep.

45:37>> And I don't think they should be called

45:39street signs,

45:41>> not street signs,

45:44>> property signs,

45:45>> pylon. What are those usually called?

45:46Advertising signs. Pylon.

45:48>> Pylon.

45:49>> Yeah, pylon. So yeah, pylon business

45:50signs. However you want to

45:52>> change it to pylon signs. The

45:53>> dimensions on the larger sign.

45:56>> Yeah, looking at that. [clears throat]

45:58Yeah,

45:58>> I have 189 by

46:04When are we called a pylon business sign

46:07for clarification?

46:09>> Pylon

46:10>> business.

46:13>> Um,

46:21and then the maximum

46:24>> 189.

46:25>> John, what was the other change you had?

46:31No,

46:35>> this has a width of 19 in.

46:38>> Who is this?

46:38>> Oh, okay.

46:39>> Cuz that's that's the width the other

46:41way.

46:41>> But don't we have

46:44>> Yeah. Another

46:46>> thing. So the

46:51maximum height is

47:06maximum width of

47:19which is 10.58 ft.

47:21>> Uh just 10 feet there.

47:23>> What?

47:23>> 10 ft.

47:24>> Just 10 ft even.

47:25>> Yeah. And then it's

47:27>> 189 in.

47:38I'm just 15.

47:48And then for 14,

47:51did you want to

47:53>> That's fine.

47:53>> That's fine.

47:54>> Yep. It was just the wording at the end

47:56of 15.

47:56>> Okay.

47:57>> That uh I know Mark Johnson was just

47:59want to make sure that his interest at

48:02159 and 161 was stated correctly.

48:04>> Okay. Um pursuant to section 6.2H1, to

48:08H1. The board finds that because of the

48:10conditions peculiar to this case, but

48:12not generally true for similar signage

48:15on other sites in the district, granting

48:17the special permit will not create a

48:19nuisance, hazard, or congestion and will

48:21not result in substantial harm to the

48:23neighborhood or derrigation from the

48:25intent and purpose of the bylaw.

48:30All right. Waiver findings and

48:33performance standards in section 6.2.

48:37Um

48:42so it says that the waiverss won't

48:44create a nuisance.

48:46Um

48:49they relate solely to the sign content

48:53allocation and setback.

48:56Um they do not alter site access,

48:58parking or circulation and do not

49:01increase demand on municipal services or

49:03facilities.

49:05Um it fits in with the character of the

49:08existing signage along Turnpike Road

49:11Milk Street corridor.

49:13Um the board finds that the objectives

49:16of the sign regulations are achieved.

49:19Permitting shared wayfinding signage

49:21across the two related properties

49:23provides clear consolidated

49:25identification for businesses sharing a

49:27common access without proliferation of

49:30additional freestanding signs consistent

49:33with the performance objective of

49:35improved site signage under section

49:386.2J2G.

49:42Um the the remaining performance

49:45objectives um are not applicable to the

49:48sign um special permit for the sign.

49:53Um based on the foregoing the board

49:55makes the following specific waiver

49:58findings

50:00um a off- premises signs from section

50:038.2F.

50:05The board finds good cause to wave

50:07section 8.2F 2F given the shared

50:09entrance internal access roadway and

50:11common ownership arrangement documented

50:13in the shared property allocation

50:15agreement

50:17B one ground sign per enterprise

50:21um that's from section 8.2E2B 2 E2B.

50:25To the extent this section would

50:26otherwise limit each enterprise

50:28appearing on the Turnpike Road sign from

50:31also appearing on the Milk Street sign,

50:33the board finds good cause to wave

50:35strict application of this provision

50:37subject to the ownership and space

50:39allocation set forth in the shared

50:41property allocation agreement which

50:44shall govern each party's right to

50:47display, storage, sale, or transfer of

50:49its allocated sign space.

50:52Um C, equal tenant sign area section 8.2

50:57E2D.

50:58The shared property allocation agreement

51:00allocate spaces unequally among the four

51:03addresses. 220 Turnpike Road, two of

51:07five designated spaces, 218 Turnpike

51:10Road,

51:11159 Milk Street and 161 Milk Street, one

51:14of five designated spaces each. The

51:17board finds good cause to wave the equal

51:19sharing requirement as the allocation

51:21was negotiated and agreed among the

51:24affected property owners, does not

51:26increase the overall sign area otherwise

51:29permitted and does not create nuisance,

51:31hazard or deraggation from the intent of

51:34the bylaw.

51:36Then finally D um lot line setback

51:39requirements in section 8.2 2 C8F

51:44to allow a pylon sign to be located

51:46approximately 11 ft from the lot line

51:49rather than the required 35 ft setback.

51:52The proposed sign will be located

51:54approximately 36 ft from Turnpike Road,

51:57thereby satisfying the general intent of

51:59the bylaw's roadway setback requirement

52:03and maintaining the intended visual

52:04character and safety along the corridor.

52:07>> Thank I just have one question. Um I you

52:10talked to the building department and to

52:12Fred about this and they are in

52:14agreement that these waiverss are

52:16appropriate for this particular property

52:18in the sign. Fred, do you have any

52:20comments on this?

52:28>> Yeah. Further, community development

52:30director. Yes, I think that's

52:31appropriate.

52:32>> Okay. I just want to check on that.

52:36>> Yes.

52:36>> Thank you.

52:37>> Okay. Um

52:40and then otherwise except as

52:42specifically waved above it shall comply

52:44with the applicable performance

52:46standards of section 8.2.

52:48Um

52:49>> are there any questions the board on

52:51this? Any additions or changes? Uh could

52:54I have a motion to accept the findings?

52:57>> Uh I move that the board vote to accept

53:00and approve the findings as previously

53:02listed. [snorts]

53:04>> Second.

53:05>> All in favor?

53:085 nothing.

53:12>> Okay.

53:14Um then we move into the decision.

53:19Um

53:21these are all the standard

53:24um boilerplate

53:27items to begin with. Um

53:29>> in condition one, Kristen, we want to do

53:31we want to change street signs to Tylon

53:34business sign?

53:35>> Yes.

53:37Uh so

53:40>> number one where it says street signs.

53:42>> Oh to pylon signs.

53:44>> Pylon business signs.

53:46>> Does it in three

53:50pylon business signs?

53:52>> Mhm.

53:54>> I mean that's a better description I

53:56think really of what we're talking

53:57about.

54:08And you need to change it on three also.

54:19And then the last sentence if we're

54:21doing the 218 220

54:25that should say Turnpike Road too

54:28Milk Street.

54:29>> I'm sorry. Can you say that again? at

54:31the very end

54:32>> very last the very last line

54:34>> below 10.

54:35>> The above requested relief is for the

54:36property located at 220 Milk Street

54:38[snorts]

54:41>> cuz this is the one this

54:44220 turn.

54:59This got to be so complicated because

55:01the decisions are

55:04almost 100% that same. However, it's

55:08just making sure that you designated

55:11which property we're talking about.

55:12>> Yep.

55:14>> Um

55:16else do you want to go through any of

55:17these?

55:22>> Application could apply plan.

55:27That was one that the asbuilt plan.

55:30>> Yeah, we're

55:32>> took that out. Um

55:38standards

55:42um

55:47in the event the permit is not exercised

55:48within 3 years of the date of recording

55:52um the permit shall be deemed null and

55:54void.

55:55um

55:59and failure to comply with the

56:01conditions shall be considered a

56:03violation and grounds for revocation of

56:05this approval following a public hearing

56:07as required by chapter 48.

56:11>> Um one suggestion I would make is if we

56:13just change the language in nine to say

56:15except for good cause is determined by

56:17the planning board just say unless

56:18extended by the planning board.

56:23>> Good idea.

56:26So instead of determined, you want to

56:28extend it.

56:29>> I mean, we can extend the the expiration

56:32date, but then we have to find good

56:34cause, have to agree what the good cause

56:35is, and it's it's easier to just extend

56:38it if

56:38>> So, what was the change? Exactly.

56:40>> Uh it would just say um in the event

56:42that the permit is not exercised within

56:44three years of the date of recording

56:46except if extended

56:48>> unless unless unless extended by the

56:52board the permit shall be deemed null

56:54and void.

57:03>> Okay. Any board members for any other

57:04changes on this? If not, could I have a

57:08motion?

57:10I move that we approve the special

57:12permit for 220 218 220 Turnpike Road.

57:19>> Second.

57:21>> All in favor?

57:24Thank you. Okay, number one. Let's move

57:26on to milk.

57:29So 161

57:33um has the

57:37159 and 169 Milk Street in the location

57:41of the property

57:43>> right

57:43>> description.

57:45Um

57:50>> and the same location on page two.

57:54Everything is the same except when we

57:56get to

57:57>> 15 I think is where the

57:58>> number nine there was a AB C D and it

58:02there was a D for 220. This one doesn't

58:05have that. It doesn't apply. So it's

58:06just ABC.

58:09>> Um

58:10>> before we move any further, um

58:159C of statement of facts has street

58:17signs.

58:19>> Sorry. 9C in statement of facts has

58:22street signs instead of pylon business

58:24signs.

58:28>> Start again.

58:31>> 15 has it.

58:4515. And that's the one that if we could

58:47change the the slash to and if you don't

58:49mind.

58:50>> Right. I think we also need to change

58:53>> at the top right there. Yeah, please.

58:55>> And we need to change 10.

58:58We're just 161 Milk Street.

59:01>> Yes. Yeah. Right. To put 159161.

59:11>> This is 159

59:13slash 161.

59:16And the sign is located at 161 Milk

59:19Street. Is that correct?

59:24>> We're not. I'm sorry. Did you have a

59:27comment? Yeah.

59:27>> Yeah. Mark Johnson, uh, the owner of

59:30Camden, uh, property. So, I think the

59:32official address with the town, Kristen,

59:34correct me if I'm wrong, is the whole

59:35property is titled for 161 Milk Street,

59:38but we have another address on that same

59:40parcel of land, which is the 159. That's

59:42what we're trying to

59:44>> put into this to make sure that it makes

59:46sense so that when someone goes to look

59:48for it,

59:48>> if they're trying to look up,

59:50>> they can see what the uh the decision

59:53was. Otherwise, they're not going to

59:55ever find this again.

59:56>> Yeah. Correct. So, to answer your

59:57question, I think the the proper should

59:59be 161 Milk Street because that's what

1:00:01the land is

1:00:02>> okay.

1:00:03>> addressed at. It's just we have that

1:00:04second building on the same property.

1:00:06So,

1:00:11>> do we need the width Kristen on number

1:00:1413?

1:00:14>> Those are correct.

1:00:16>> Okay,

1:00:17>> those are correct.

1:00:19>> Yeah, that's why I just asked the

1:00:20actually the sign is on 161.

1:00:25>> Okay.

1:00:26>> Or the depth. I mean, did we need all

1:00:28three measurements?

1:00:30>> We did it on the last one.

1:00:31>> Okay.

1:00:40Okay, you cut 15.

1:00:43>> Yep.

1:00:43>> Okay.

1:00:46>> And

1:00:47>> is this different? Is that supposed to

1:00:50be August 4th?

1:00:51>> No, I think we highlighted it because we

1:00:53were making sure we got it. We just got

1:00:55it today.

1:00:55>> Got it. Okay. Thank you.

1:00:58>> Are we all set with findings?

1:01:00>> We all set with findings. Okay. Get a

1:01:02motion on the findings. I move that the

1:01:04board approve and accept the findings as

1:01:07previously written.

1:01:10>> Second.

1:01:11>> All in favor?

1:01:13It's five to nothing.

1:01:16All right. Decision.

1:01:18Is there anything different on this from

1:01:20the preceding decision?

1:01:23>> Oh, you want to change nine

1:01:27>> and one three and

1:01:33or have street signs in it as well.

1:01:37>> Yeah, four does. Yeah.

1:01:38>> Yeah. So, just mimic mimic the

1:01:39conditions from the previous

1:01:40>> previous one. Okay. And add the language

1:01:44on nine

1:01:47that we put in the preceding decision.

1:02:01And I think on the last sentence it'd be

1:02:04um 15961

1:02:06Mil Street

1:02:17>> cuz on nine it was what the unless

1:02:20extended by the planning board. Is that

1:02:21right?

1:02:22>> We added that language. [clears throat]

1:02:23Yeah. Right. on uh that would be on uh

1:02:27nine

1:02:27>> um nine.

1:02:32>> It'll just mirror the other decision

1:02:45>> and then at the at the end it just says

1:02:48161.

1:03:12like that's everything.

1:03:17Have we confused you enough, Crystal?

1:03:22>> All in there.

1:03:24>> All set. Okay. Are there any other

1:03:26additions or changes? If not, could I

1:03:28have a motion?

1:03:30>> I move that we approve the special

1:03:31permit for 159 161 Milk Street.

1:03:34>> Second.

1:03:35>> All in favor?

1:03:37>> Okay. Thank you, Wes.

1:03:38>> Thank you very much.

1:03:39>> Appreciate it.

1:03:40>> I move that we close the public hearing

1:03:41for

1:03:43these two applications.

1:03:45>> Is there a second? Second.

1:03:47>> All in favor? I'm sorry. Before that,

1:03:49was there anyone needed wanted to

1:03:50comment on this application?

1:03:53If not, I close the public hearing.

1:03:56All in favor? Okay. Thank you.

1:04:01>> Decisions were well written.

1:04:07>> Good job.

1:04:08>> Okay.

1:04:11What do you think?

1:04:13>> Yeah.

1:04:15Okay.

1:04:16>> All right.

1:04:18The next matter is a um a dimminimous

1:04:22modification

1:04:24for 171 Milk Street in 225 222 Turnpike

1:04:29Road. Um it's a change in the unit

1:04:32composition which had a request from um

1:04:35postdevelopment.

1:04:37if you could explain what you're doing

1:04:39and why and uh the fact that there is no

1:04:44change that would cause us to have to

1:04:47>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Brian Fog

1:04:49from Myrick U attorney uh here on behalf

1:04:51of the applicant, Post Road Residential.

1:04:54Um this is entirely an internal change.

1:04:57Um the total number of units stays the

1:04:59same at 206. Total number of parking

1:05:02spaces, building layout, dimensions,

1:05:04everything external to the building

1:05:05stays the same within the building. We

1:05:08shifted around the bedroom counts among

1:05:11the different unit types, studio,

1:05:13onebedroom, and twobedroom. And that

1:05:15results in a net increase of 12

1:05:18bedrooms. So, we go from 297 bedrooms to

1:05:21309 bedrooms, but the total number of

1:05:24units stays the same again at 206. Um,

1:05:27we increased the number of studios and

1:05:30two bedrooms at the expense of some

1:05:32one-bedrooms. Um, overall the total mix

1:05:35is 54% either uh studio or onebedroom.

1:05:39So, we're still on the smaller side

1:05:41overall.

1:05:43>> Okay. And then I know that we uh I asked

1:05:45Kristen to um check and make sure there

1:05:49was no problem with the septic and I

1:05:51think everyone had a copy of the letter

1:05:53>> on this that it would not make any

1:05:55change on that aspect. I think was that

1:05:58was my major concern is that there would

1:06:00be no change as far as that went.

1:06:03>> Okay. Um any questions for the

1:06:05applicant.

1:06:06>> What was the driver of this change? Um,

1:06:08so as we're getting closer to

1:06:10construction drawings, um, made some

1:06:13changes to some of the common spaces and

1:06:15just basically wall design and placement

1:06:17and it made the most sense to do this.

1:06:19It really was partially market but

1:06:21partially um just the layout of the

1:06:23building as we fine-tune the the

1:06:25program.

1:06:29>> Kristen, do you have any comments on

1:06:30this?

1:06:31>> Uh, no. just that I wanted, you know, to

1:06:33confirm like he said, there's no

1:06:35additional um, you know, as far as the

1:06:38affordability com component. Um, that

1:06:41was all based on percentages. So, a

1:06:43percentage of the total units. It wasn't

1:06:45like a specific type of unit. So, none

1:06:48of that really is affected. They still

1:06:50have to do 10% at 80% and 5% at 120. So,

1:06:56none of that aspect is changed. Um,

1:07:00parking is the same because that was

1:07:02based on units, 1.4 spaces per unit. Um,

1:07:07and then like like Hazel had said, I

1:07:10reached out to Lisa and she confirmed,

1:07:12you know, the 12 additional bedrooms um

1:07:16is insubstantial for the sewer

1:07:18allocation. We have more than enough to

1:07:20provide that. Um, it doesn't have any

1:07:23effect on

1:07:25um flows etc. So

1:07:29>> would it have a

1:07:32positive effect of increasing the number

1:07:34of affordable bedrooms, keeping the unit

1:07:36the affordable units the same, but some

1:07:38of those units may increase in bedroom

1:07:40size or bedroom number?

1:07:42>> Um yes. Um because we have to have um of

1:07:46our 15% total affordable. It has to be

1:07:49evenly distributed across the unit types

1:07:51and and within the building. Um so more

1:07:54bedrooms would have more affordability.

1:07:56Absolutely.

1:08:00Okay. Hey, I just have a quick

1:08:02[clears throat] question. So, um, in the

1:08:04emails Kristen, you had sent along from

1:08:07Tom, he mentioned about trying to get

1:08:09building permits by December.

1:08:12>> Now, he said something about the stretch

1:08:14code and trying to get in before that.

1:08:17Is that the new stretch code that

1:08:20Westbro voted on at this last town

1:08:23meeting?

1:08:23>> That's correct. um through the chair

1:08:25that takes effect January 1st. So, a

1:08:28building permit application that is um

1:08:30submitted and approved before January

1:08:321st would be subject to the the current

1:08:34building code, the stretch code.

1:08:35>> And I think I know the answer to this,

1:08:38but why does he want to get it in before

1:08:41that stretch energy code kicks in?

1:08:44>> Um when they planned the project and did

1:08:47the proformas and and calculated, you

1:08:49know, the buildability and financability

1:08:51of the project, it was under the stretch

1:08:53code. it wasn't under the the new um

1:08:56energy code um which um definitely adds

1:08:58cost to um a project.

1:09:00>> Okay. Thank you.

1:09:03>> Any other questions for the applicant?

1:09:07>> Right. Um could I have a motion then?

1:09:09>> Do we need to make a determination of

1:09:11that minor modification or just approve

1:09:12the minor modification?

1:09:13>> I think we make a determination that it

1:09:16is dimminimous and then approve it.

1:09:22I move that the planning board find that

1:09:24the proposed changes for 171 Milk Street

1:09:26and 222 Turnpike Road.

1:09:28>> I think this only applies to one

1:09:30building, doesn't it?

1:09:31>> That's correct. This is for the north

1:09:32parcel only.

1:09:33>> Only for the north parcel.

1:09:34>> Yeah.

1:09:35>> Which is the one on

1:09:37>> 171,

1:09:38>> which is the address on that one?

1:09:40>> 171.

1:09:40>> Addresses on the agenda. That's why I'm

1:09:42reading.

1:09:42>> Yeah. You'd only need one address on

1:09:44that, I think, because it's only one

1:09:45building.

1:09:46>> Okay.

1:09:47>> So, is it 16 171? So it's and this is

1:09:50from the decision. It's a couple

1:09:52different parcels that comprise of the

1:09:55north parcel and they do it. So it's 171

1:09:57Milk Street, 221 Turnpike Road, 223

1:10:01Turnpike Road. That's the

1:10:03>> the the three addresses that make up the

1:10:05North Parcel. Okay. 171, 221, and 222.

1:10:09>> 171 Milk and then 221 and 223 Turnpike

1:10:13Road.

1:10:14>> Okay.

1:10:17Okay.

1:10:18>> I move that the planning board find that

1:10:19the proposed unit count change for 171

1:10:23Milk Street, 221 and 220 223 Turnpike

1:10:27Road are considered dimminimous and we

1:10:30approve that change.

1:10:33>> Second.

1:10:34>> All in favor?

1:10:37>> Thank you very much.

1:10:38>> Thank you.

1:10:38>> Good luck on the project.

1:10:40>> Thank you.

1:10:43All right, Kristen, any

1:10:47update from the planning department?

1:10:49>> Yep.

1:10:51Okay.

1:10:54Um,

1:10:56so in regards to the downtown

1:10:58improvement project, um, Kimley Horn did

1:11:02provide their final report um that was

1:11:07posted on uh the town's website. If you

1:11:10go to departments planning and then

1:11:14downtown improvement project under plans

1:11:18and resources

1:11:20um there's a downtown improvement final

1:11:22report dated June of 2026.

1:11:26Um so that has been posted um we've

1:11:29shared that with the board. I believe um

1:11:32everyone here has been reviewing and

1:11:35analyzing the report and um it will need

1:11:38to be determined at what point there'll

1:11:40be further discussion and a planning

1:11:42board agenda item um for this topic.

1:11:46Yeah, I mean we're trying to work also

1:11:48with the board of select on this and set

1:11:51up some sort of a schedule um because

1:11:53obviously there will be a public hearing

1:11:55and want to make sure that everybody's

1:11:58had a chance to look and analyze it and

1:12:00then move forward with a public hearing.

1:12:03>> Hazel, didn't we also say that um you

1:12:06know until we have a new planning

1:12:08director that we wouldn't be making any

1:12:11decisions? I think this is something

1:12:14obviously that we would very much like

1:12:17to have before we move forward. Um, and

1:12:20just an update on that quickly is that I

1:12:23have not heard anything from Christie.

1:12:25I've asked her whether we've had any

1:12:26applications. Um, so far I've had no

1:12:29information from her on this. She has

1:12:31been on vacation. I know though, and

1:12:33just got back this week. So, um,

1:12:36hopefully we'll have an update soon.

1:12:39>> Can I can I just add to that? I I I feel

1:12:42like we shouldn't wait for uh to hire a

1:12:45new planner to review this if that's

1:12:49what you're saying.

1:12:49>> Oh, that that's what I thought we had

1:12:51said at a previous

1:12:52>> Yeah, I'm just now that I like think

1:12:54more about it, I I don't know how long

1:12:56it'll take for us to find someone.

1:12:58>> I think this is the problem is that we

1:13:00thought maybe this would be a quick

1:13:01process. We can move forward

1:13:03accordingly. But I think at this point

1:13:05it's a matter of setting up some sort of

1:13:07a schedule and following that schedule

1:13:10whether or not we have a new planner.

1:13:12>> But we need to, you know, move forward.

1:13:15Obviously, we can't wait forever on

1:13:16this. But I would like to make sure that

1:13:19we work with the board of select because

1:13:21we certainly want their um help on this

1:13:25which really should include the board of

1:13:30select or the planning board to I think

1:13:33um hold some open hearings on this so

1:13:37that the people that are really involved

1:13:39in this as far as the town management

1:13:41goes are included in any hearings that

1:13:45we have and any discussions.

1:13:47So would you rather do it a joint

1:13:49meeting rather than

1:13:50>> I don't I don't think we need a joint

1:13:52meeting but I do think that we want to

1:13:55do things in concert so we don't have

1:13:57the board of select doing one thing and

1:13:59the planning board doing another thing

1:14:01even though it's been turned over to us

1:14:03because um you will note and I don't

1:14:06know I think um Christie did send a memo

1:14:10out to everyone concerning um parking

1:14:12spaces

1:14:13>> in the downtown area And the thing is

1:14:16that they sort of put in our in our

1:14:19ballpark, but at the same time any um

1:14:24research or information that would come

1:14:26from that should be something that came

1:14:29from the police department who would

1:14:31should be making the decision for safety

1:14:33reasons as to which parking slots should

1:14:37be removed. It's not up to the planning

1:14:39board to make a decision on that. So

1:14:42that there is information that we need

1:14:44to get that has to be directed actually

1:14:47by the board of select. We cannot direct

1:14:50the police department to do this kind of

1:14:53a um review, but it would be up to the

1:14:57board of select to direct them to do

1:15:00that. Um and I think that probably is

1:15:02the kind of information that we need in

1:15:05order to really review the kind of step

1:15:07forward that we might want to take.

1:15:14So I guess what are we what are we what

1:15:16are you proposing as uh next steps?

1:15:19>> Well for us at the moment I think we

1:15:20need to set up a schedule but I'm not

1:15:22quite sure how to move forward on that

1:15:25because there is information we need. I

1:15:27think at this point um what we might do

1:15:29is request the board of select to direct

1:15:33the police department to do a review of

1:15:36the parking situation downtown and the

1:15:41um

1:15:43their suggestion that some of the spots

1:15:45perhaps be removed for safety reasons.

1:15:49Um, so perhaps a letter from the

1:15:51planning board or request from the

1:15:53planning board asking them to direct the

1:15:55police department to move forward on

1:15:57that might be appropriate at this time.

1:16:00>> I I don't think and obviously this is

1:16:03just my opinion. I don't think we need

1:16:05to wait for that to have the

1:16:07conversation about the consultants

1:16:10report.

1:16:12I I from just from my perspective, I

1:16:15feel like we can either make a

1:16:17suggestion of moving forward with the

1:16:20the peanut call it whatever you want to

1:16:23call it. We can either keep downtown

1:16:26exactly the way it is or we can move

1:16:28forward with some type of hybrid uh

1:16:31which was like this short-term internal

1:16:33plan, right? So,

1:16:35>> I think we at least need to come, you

1:16:37know, we have this report. I think maybe

1:16:40by next meeting.

1:16:41>> No, that I wasn't turn I wasn't saying

1:16:43we shouldn't discuss it to the next

1:16:45meeting. Okay.

1:16:46>> No, I wasn't saying we shouldn't do

1:16:48that. What I'm saying is in concert with

1:16:50this, we also should be if there's more

1:16:52information which we'd like to have. We

1:16:54need to get started now. So that's all

1:16:56I'm saying. Yeah. No, I mean we have

1:16:58received the report. We will have to

1:17:00make a decision as to whether we're

1:17:02going to accept the report, whether

1:17:04we're not going to accept the report,

1:17:06whether we're going to accept a part of

1:17:08the report. So, we will need to make a

1:17:10decision on that ourselves before we

1:17:12move forward.

1:17:14>> Kristen,

1:17:15>> I think one suggestion that I have um

1:17:17for the board is, you know, for your

1:17:19homework between now and the next board

1:17:21meeting um to go to that table at the

1:17:25back of the report where they gave the

1:17:27suggested short-term improvements. I

1:17:29think there were 15. Maybe there were

1:17:32several. And maybe in your head or mark

1:17:35on your sheet if you had to name them

1:17:37from one to 15, you know, what your

1:17:41highest priority you believe to be and

1:17:44then we can have that that'll guide our

1:17:47discussion to see where you're in

1:17:48consensus with each other. Um and then

1:17:51go from there.

1:17:53>> Yeah. That's if if you want to do like

1:17:55the short term,

1:17:57>> right?

1:17:58>> Right. if you want to do peanut,

1:18:00>> right? That's part of the discussion,

1:18:01but at least for that section,

1:18:03>> but looking at the report, it gives

1:18:06rough pricing, which obviously I

1:18:10>> I don't know what this cost, and I'm

1:18:12going to take it for its word right now,

1:18:14but

1:18:15>> at at least can get us in the direction

1:18:17we need to go.

1:18:21>> Good. Thank you. So, it will be on the

1:18:23agenda then our next meeting. And the

1:18:25report was sent to us on the 15th of

1:18:28July.

1:18:28>> July. Yes. Right. Yeah.

1:18:30>> And is available for the public.

1:18:34>> All right. Um the next item, the zoning

1:18:38article number 31. Um that was for the

1:18:41downtown business district. Um that was

1:18:44approved at the Springtown meeting. Um

1:18:48we were notified by attorney general

1:18:50that there was an administrative error

1:18:52with the posting at the clerk. Um it's

1:18:55required to be 14 days prior to the

1:18:57hearing date. Um which was February 3rd

1:19:01was the hearing. So it needed to have a

1:19:03stamp from the clerk um January 20th and

1:19:07that was posted January 27th. So there

1:19:10it was posted a week ahead of time

1:19:11instead of 14 days. Um so now the um

1:19:16town council is um handling that

1:19:22error. Yeah, Kristen. Um, I mean, I look

1:19:25on as administrative error. I don't know

1:19:27how it's going to be dealt with as far

1:19:29as the attorney general and our town

1:19:31council. Um, however, one thing I'm a

1:19:34little concerned about is that if this

1:19:37would have to be renoticed and repput

1:19:39before the town. Um, would we be able

1:19:43to, someone needs to check or could you

1:19:45check with Christie or town council to

1:19:48find out whether there's a possibility

1:19:50that we would put this on the October

1:19:53meeting because otherwise any town

1:19:55meeting is going to have to wait till

1:19:56the spring to run this through again.

1:19:59Um, so if there's some possible way um I

1:20:04believe there was an appeal

1:20:07um on this by

1:20:09>> this Friday um August 7th that period

1:20:14closes. So we should be able to get um

1:20:17in touch with the town attorney to

1:20:19understand how quickly after that we

1:20:21would get a decision from the attorney

1:20:23general to know if we would need to go

1:20:26to

1:20:27>> Exactly. on that. That's mainly my

1:20:29concern because have to wait till next

1:20:32the next time around um if we can get

1:20:35some timing on that.

1:20:39Okay. Um

1:20:43I've mentioned before there's a regional

1:20:45walk audit train the trainer event. Um

1:20:48we're having that August 28th. Um so the

1:20:53intent is a train the trainer. were

1:20:56going to invite um people groups in town

1:21:01that would then go and train others

1:21:04interested in doing this in the future.

1:21:06Um so I've invited active transportation

1:21:09and safety committee. Um the friends of

1:21:12BEWalt expressed an interest and then I

1:21:14also invited disability commission. Um,

1:21:17so within those groups, there's people

1:21:19that are going to volunteer to be

1:21:22trained as the experts. And then if

1:21:25someone comes forward from the community

1:21:27and says, "I'd really like to do a walk

1:21:29audit in my neighborhood,"

1:21:31one of these groups, um, if staff's not

1:21:34available because we don't have

1:21:36bandwidth, one of the people from these

1:21:38groups could go out and tell them how to

1:21:40do it or assist them with their walk

1:21:42audit. Um, so we're excited about that

1:21:44because it's a great networking

1:21:45opportunity with our neighbors. Um, get

1:21:48a chance to meet people that are

1:21:50involved in these transportation type

1:21:52projects in other towns. Um, so just

1:21:55wanted to let you know that's happening.

1:21:57Um, and I'll report back at our next

1:21:59meeting how that goes.

1:22:01Um, the active transportation plan, um,

1:22:06we kicked off the project. Um, that's

1:22:09pretty much all that we've done to this

1:22:11point. Um, BHB, our consultant, is

1:22:14working on reviewing and analyzing

1:22:17existing conditions. Um, part of that is

1:22:20reviewing reports that we have that have

1:22:23been created.

1:22:24Um, and then they'll continue on doing a

1:22:27gap analysis. Next, um, we have not

1:22:31identified um, advisory

1:22:34groups or who would be involved in as

1:22:37far as stakeholders. Um, all we've done

1:22:40is kicked off the project and determined

1:22:43what the timeline, the general timeline

1:22:45is going to be. Um, while they do their

1:22:48preparation and homework, um, the public

1:22:52workshop would be the first engagement.

1:22:56Um, instead of a public meeting, it's

1:22:58going to be designed more like a

1:22:59workshop with small tables and working

1:23:02groups. Um, anyone will be invited to

1:23:05that. Um that time frame is September,

1:23:08October.

1:23:10Um so in the meantime

1:23:12um you know as VHB reaches out to

1:23:16collect different data that they need.

1:23:19Um I'll be in communications with them.

1:23:21We're at the farmers market on um

1:23:25Thursdays. So there might be an

1:23:27opportunity between now and when we do

1:23:29that first public workshop to um do

1:23:33surveys, ask questions, get people

1:23:35involved even before the first workshop

1:23:37starts. So if anyone has um suggestions

1:23:41or comments on that, we're definitely

1:23:43open. I can relay that message to VHB.

1:23:47Um the let's see

1:23:52the only other thing was the um the

1:23:55email I think that I forwarded the board

1:23:56about the suggestion for open forum that

1:24:00um was shared on the planners list

1:24:02serve. Um many planning boards are

1:24:05discussing open forum and one thing that

1:24:10was um commented on was that they

1:24:14utilized it at the end of the meeting

1:24:15and they found that to be really

1:24:16helpful. So, um, that might be something

1:24:19that you consider as an agenda item on

1:24:22one of your next agenda.

1:24:23>> Well, I think we really, um, as of

1:24:26September 1st, we will be putting open

1:24:28form at the end versus at the beginning.

1:24:32>> We want to share um like I thought the

1:24:35rationale was strong. It essentially

1:24:38I'll miss some of the points I'm sure

1:24:40but it was essentially you know if there

1:24:42was an open item that would give the

1:24:44board an opportunity to respond and then

1:24:47if not at the by the end of the meeting

1:24:49if the response is still kind of um

1:24:52someone still wants to share that then

1:24:54it's easier to know whether it goes onto

1:24:57the an agenda item for a future meeting

1:24:59versus being addressed within that

1:25:01meeting itself.

1:25:01>> Yeah.

1:25:06Um

1:25:07>> if you just share it um at the farmers

1:25:10market, you were at the farmers market

1:25:12with uh

1:25:13>> Yep.

1:25:13>> the building inspector.

1:25:15>> I mean with the with Bill, the chairman

1:25:17of the building department.

1:25:18>> Um I don't know if Westboroough TV where

1:25:21we position the easels if you're able to

1:25:23show that. Um but um planning was at the

1:25:29farmers market this past week. We have a

1:25:32project um in community development

1:25:35called the municipal vulnerability

1:25:37preparedness 2.0 project um that's

1:25:41making sure that Westboro addresses the

1:25:43needs of people, neighborhoods, and

1:25:46environment in the face of climate

1:25:48change impacts like extreme heat,

1:25:50flooding, strong storms. And we want to

1:25:53make sure we engage with people in

1:25:55Westboro who experience higher social

1:25:58and environmental burdens. um focusing

1:26:01on populations that have historic

1:26:03historically been left out of

1:26:04decision-making such as English as a

1:26:07second language, renters, um people

1:26:09experiencing food instability, seniors

1:26:12and youth, and people with disabilities.

1:26:15Um so we'll be working on that project.

1:26:18Um we created these boards that show um

1:26:22broke it breaks Westboro into a north

1:26:25and a south section. And as people

1:26:27stopped by the table, we asked them um

1:26:30where they lived. So we put a red dot to

1:26:33show where people live that are coming

1:26:35to the farmers market. And then we asked

1:26:38um two questions, you know, what do you

1:26:41love about your neighborhood or Westboro

1:26:44in general? And then what could improve

1:26:48uh life for your family? And people gave

1:26:51us some suggestions. Um, this is only

1:26:54the first time we've done this. So,

1:26:55we'll bring the boards back at the next

1:26:57farmers market and continue to add to

1:27:00those responses. Um, but it is

1:27:03interesting if you just look at the

1:27:04initial round, most of the people at the

1:27:06farmers market were in that southern

1:27:09section of town, not above Route 9. Um,

1:27:15and so we talk about some of the impacts

1:27:17of Route 9 and how people can't get to

1:27:19services that they need sometimes. Um

1:27:22those are the kind of things that we're

1:27:24trying to fish out. So I thought it was

1:27:26really helpful. Um so

1:27:28>> were there any unexpected questions to

1:27:30the planning board while you were there?

1:27:33>> Uh curiosity.

1:27:35>> No, not this time. I don't think so. Um

1:27:39but people people love to talk and we're

1:27:41there. We're we sign up for at least

1:27:43once a month. Um planning is usually

1:27:46there a couple times a month. So, if

1:27:48anybody ever has anything they want to

1:27:51discuss, um, just like John had his

1:27:54office hours at the library for a while

1:27:57on Fridays, um, you can use the farmers

1:28:00market for that same purpose.

1:28:02>> Well, thank you for doing it. Really

1:28:04appreciate it.

1:28:07>> Okay. Have anybody been to any committee

1:28:09meetings?

1:28:10>> No, but capital expenditures is starting

1:28:13to kick off their fall effort soon.

1:28:18All right.

1:28:19>> Haven't had a meeting yet, but we we've

1:28:21scheduled the meetings for September.

1:28:22>> That's a start.

1:28:23>> Yeah. Okay. [sighs]

1:28:24>> All right. Um, minutes

1:28:27>> minutes of July 7th. Have everyone has

1:28:29everyone had a chance to look at them?

1:28:30>> Yep. Yes.

1:28:31>> Any edits?

1:28:33>> Can I have

1:28:34>> vote on these since I was not here?

1:28:35>> Yes, you can vote on minutes since I did

1:28:37review those.

1:28:38>> Yeah, you could vote even though you

1:28:39weren't there. Yeah.

1:28:40>> Um, the only changes I would have are

1:28:41there's just a couple looks like track

1:28:42changes just to get rid of those. I

1:28:45think it's on page four. All

1:28:48right. Okay. I move that we accept the

1:28:51minutes for July 7th with minor

1:28:56corrections.

1:28:58>> Second.

1:29:00>> All in favor? Five to nothing.

1:29:05>> All right. Our upcoming meeting dates

1:29:07are the 1st of

1:29:10September and the 15th of September.

1:29:14Um,

1:29:16now I do know that um the warrants going

1:29:18to close the end of September for the

1:29:21October meeting and

1:29:25we have no zoning things as such at this

1:29:28particular time.

1:29:29>> What about the signs? When are we going

1:29:31to get the signs on for the fall town

1:29:32meeting?

1:29:33>> Not this year. I don't I don't I don't

1:29:36see that happening at this point. I

1:29:38think we have to wait till the next one

1:29:39on this one. Um but my main concern was

1:29:42whether we have to renotice on the um

1:29:45the business downtown zoning.

1:29:48So that would have to be in there before

1:29:50the end of September in order for them

1:29:52to

1:29:53>> town meeting.

1:29:54>> Excuse me. What

1:29:55>> do you know what day is town meeting?

1:29:57October.

1:29:58>> Um I've seen it. It's in the early 20s.

1:30:02>> 20s 24.

1:30:04>> Remember I think it's on a Monday too,

1:30:06isn't it?

1:30:10It's usually Monday night.

1:30:11>> Oh, that's right. Okay.

1:30:12>> I think it's Monday night.

1:30:17>> Is there anything else anybody'd like to

1:30:19bring before the board tonight? If not,

1:30:21could I have a motion to adjourn?

1:30:22>> So moved.

1:30:23>> Second.

1:30:23>> All in favor? Five to nothing. Thank you

1:30:26very much. Enjoy the rest of your

1:30:28summer.