Chevron the recording in progress. Thank you. Thank you. Gentlemen. It’s 7:01 P.m., and I Am calling the march 26th. Uh 2024 Planning board meeting to order. Uh, I will take role of So board members. When I, Call. Your name, would you please indicate that your present Pat Norton. Present. Jonathan. Poor Jonathan Poor present.

Bill Wheaton Bill Wheaton present Amel Alquist Amil dost present with her present Rick Mitchell present. Matt Hamill present and Marty Crouch present. We don’t do have a full agenda tonight. But as a matter of courtesy, I am going to call. Um, the two A and R matters. Um, before we turn. Uh uh over, Um

Our discussion to the athletic field projects. So, uh, we have two A and R request, both of which are, um Pertain to amendments to request that have already been approved. So, um I if you would be so kind as to read Item two and we will hear

from, um The Applicant 2 55 2 50 Excuse Me Cutler Road, uh, first in accordance with mass general law chapter 41 section 81 the applicant 250 Cutler Road LLC at 14 Boardman Lane Hamilton Mass is seeking a fore approval not required endorsement from the planning Board for multiple parcels at

250 Cutler Road. Which is assessor’s map. 30. Lot two. They exist. 293,135 square feet. Lot is to be divided into three parcels. To be known as lots, A, B and C. The Collective property is located within the R, a zoning district. Thank you. Would you state your name, please. And your address.

Sure, James Longley 14 Portman Lane in Hamilton. Yeah. So we we We came in a few months ago and got the a NR approved for these properties. Uh, we moved the plot line slightly about 3 ft, Um, and we’re just hoping to get a re reapproval on the conforming lots and then no other changes were made in the

perimeters of of the project. When I board members have any questions? Could you just describe where Exactly the changes the drawings weren’t terrifically clear to me, so Yeah there There was a deck that we didn’t take into account when we originally did the the initial drawing, So. It’s It’s right next to the house that’s already on the

property. So the setback line now is adjusted. So it just kisses the Dirk. Is that what I’m, seeing push further away from deck, But. Yeah. Yeah, it’s It’s OK I. I see? Thank you so it impacted all three lots. Yes. No. Uh lot. The middle lot was already conformed. We had we had room

to move it. It was the, uh lot with the house that we need to make a slight adjustment on The writing is so small. It’s so to see Not any other questions. Any discussion. Yeah. Uh, hearing none. I will entertain a motion to approve the Is this a new A and R Patrick or an

amendment to the A and R. It would be a new A and R since they’re eliminating the prior one. OK so I will entertain a motion to approve the A and R request of 250 color Road. So moved Seconded. So when I call your name. Uh, would you please

indicate that you assent to the, um And request. Um Of 250 cut the road. Pat Norton. I Jonathan. Poor, Jonathan Poor I. Phil Wheaton Bill Wheaton I Amal Quist Amal DST a that her I and Marie Crouch. I And Rick Mitchell on. Excuse Me. He’s still here. Gone but not forgotten. Not gone yet and

you’ll never be forgotten. So I thank you, sir. Thank, you and our next matter is, uh There you go. Another A and R Amendment. Now is this one an amendment or a new one? The applicant is here to advise us, OK? I believe that’s uh, Mr

Alop. It’s gonna be a new way, You know at the podium, please. And Joe Grillo from Hayes Engineering representing Jeff Allsop. So the original A and R plan divided into five laws. ABC and DNA. This is do Alteration, which you can see in the red and the blue for the new and the old between lot.

CD. It’s Now lot Sea 0.1 and D 0.1. Um, we had to do this for a side setback requirement. English. Mm. So just to clarify It moves the line closer to the tennis court in the pool that are slated to be removed and those are still being removed. Is that correct that is correct.

Mm. Just curious. Why did you change the way you did down by the tennis court, and why not further? And so close to the building. Um Speak on that show. It was, um, a reaction to Jeff. Sorry. And That was a response to a mature plantings on the

property, so we we moved it so that they could be Yeah, undivided and taken care of right and and that was really the only reason to do that. Up there? Yes, Yeah, yeah. Any other questions by board members. I will entertain a motion to approve the A and R request. Um Wait, Wait a minute.

Oh. I’m Sorry. I apologize. Did You have a question? Bob grade 935 Bay Road. Uh, my question is This is all under, uh, cons. Uh, conservative, uh, I Conservation restoration. So. Why. Why are we making these up in a lots if you can’t build on the lots because of the restrictions, II, I just

doesn’t make any sense to me so Can. You tell me why. So we actually have a building envelope. It’s a dashed line here, so you’re allowed to build in this area. There’s this second dash building envelope here, they’re allowed to build it. I understand that, But? Why. Why. Do. You have

lots like lot E Lot D lot C, would you get you Can’t Build on. What. Why? Why. Are you dividing it up like that? So. What, ABC and D all have places you can build on them, so this would be the portion of the buildable lot C. That’s a portion of buildable lot E.

All. Right? All, Right. What. What about this lot, E? Um Why that Yes. Almost like leftover land you could say. He could have. It makes no sense. Well, if you gave it all to one person, that’s a lot of extra taxable land they probably wouldn’t want. You can’t build on it.

You want to divide it up. I mean there’s nothing saying you’re not allowed to divide on buildable land. It doesn’t make any sense. If. I might say something. I think he is allowed to build on the conserved land within the building envelope, So there’s every reason for him to want to

subdivide it. It’s just that the houses is only gonna be two new houses, two new houses and their locations are restricted to the circled areas. So. I mean he’s doing anything that’s allowed and and Um, I mean I have a piece of property that’s conserved except for a circled area where I can add, you know

a garage or do other things to my house, but you can’t do anything outside. Of that area and that’s the way it is with these lots. All, right? Um I have another question. Also on what A and B Uh, I see with a line of the envelope is right

here. This is the line of the of the envelope right? You can fill in The approved lots go out beyond and include some of the, uh, restricted land. Correct. So does that mean that you were only gonna be able to build on Behind that envelope and not out towards the street

you can build between the three and that envelope. So it it is. Are. These lots big enough to allow for a house and a septic system and everything knowing that that you can’t go on to the restricted area. Um, our client has gone through to get the variances. So. They’ve been approved once and there will be

enough room for building in the septic, really? All, right? That’s That’s all my questions. You got any Oh, certainly. Hi. John, Raymond 62 Gardner Street. Um, I have some questions concerning again the easement. Um, the easement states. Uh, construct, uh, conservation restriction. Does state that there’s to be no digging.

Outside the envelope. Is to be no utilities outside the envelope. So. My question is first off. Has. The board seen the Conservation restriction easement from the Sears That was put in place to prevent Any development on this property. Has. Anybody looked at that. Has it been brought to your attention. It has not been

brought to our attention. OK? I’m looking at a plan that was on file at the registry of Deeds. For lots. CND. It talks about a Proposed 30 FT. Wide utility and access easement. The conservation restriction Emphatically states. Only maintenance and repair can be done for the utilities that

service The property as it is now. Is that something that The planning board needs to take into account. For the subdivision approval. There are two elements within an A and R approval that planning boards. Are required to act on number one is access number two is frontage, all other approvals. All other elements, even including zoning. Zone in

elements are not part of the A and R approval process at a whatsoever. So who Who has The termination of enforcing this conservation easement. That would more likely be a check and balance that would take place as a building permit came to the building, Inspector. So. The Building inspector has the authority to deny a building

permit the beneficiary of the easement. OK, that would be the Green Belt Association. Yeah. They would have the standing to object to any infringement on their easement. All right. So that’s the, um Uh, Essex County Trail Association is the beneficiary of that easement. Uh, the Green Belt Association Green belt is the beneficiary.

OK? Yes. So if that easement were in France were to be infringed once there was some type of a plan for a building with its associated utilities, then they would have standing to object. All right. Thank you. Any other questions. Turns discussions Then I will entertain a motion to approve.

Um, the a NR request dot Oh, thank you, Uh, No, I don’t. See So. I’ll entertain a motion to approve the A and R request. Um Of general does issue with access if one of the two things is frontage and access and Green Belt Association holds

the easement. I feel like it’s, uh, access is a thing for us to consider, Is it not? They, have they have access to Texas as far as frontage frontage? Yeah? That’s All, we are required to So I mean it may be that there’s no access in terms of utilities when someone proposes

a building and I’m only speculating, I have no idea, II. I would assume that that’s taken care of. And. So. Um, but but that’s outside of our purview. At the moment it’s when the, um In the in the building inspector would be, um Involved with that. You try again. I’ll, try again with the

Martian. Make a motion again. I was just gonna read the I make a motion, then to The a NR 25 Gardner. A and R approval not required request. Second Uh, So. When I. Call your name would you indicate whether you approve of the request? Pat Norton, Pat Norton, I! Jonathan.

Poor, Jonathan. Poor I Bill Wheaton Bill wheat and I am do quest. Am Dost Beth her? I Rick Mitchell and Morning Crouch. I Uh, thank you, Uh, so we will turn to the Hearing. I’m Matt the well. The board deliberations on the, uh Site plan, review application and Storm water management application of the Hamilton Wenham. Regional school

district. Uh, the planning board did receive, um A memorandum from Anne Jarre and we did also receive a response from Tom Houston. I, Miss has asked the planning board to, uh, reopen the public hearing. Uh, but, uh before we even consider that request, uh, I would ask, Um Amel Dost, who is a lights

and star architect? Uh to, um A comment on that. I think he has the capacity to, uh, opine as to what? What is transpiring here and it might obviate the need of reopening the public hearing. Hm? Yes. I understood the request, um, that it was pretty simple. It was reading particular information that was

provided to us by Gail Associates. Uh, the photometric chart of the area. Under consideration. Um, the athletic fields. Um, and it was also in order of condition from the Conservation Commission. Uh, That kind of brings brings that to our attention as well. Uh, And. Tom. Houston’s, uh,

response was sort of, uh, cut short a little bit and what he tried to re, uh, respond to that. The, um The. Specifics were, I guess in the orders of conditions and the conservation commission was that there will be no spillage of light into the wetlands area. As indicated, uh, on the photometric chart

the blue line being the, uh, the border or the delineation of the wetlands line. And if you were to look at the softball field, and, uh, the area around the tennis courts, there are three areas there that are clearly Uh, Where there is light that has spread beyond the the wetlands line.

Uh, There’s the area along the third base side of the softball field that goes up to the property line. There’s the area out in right field at the softball field. And. Then. There’s an area between the tennis courts. And. It Looks like the shot put Um, facility there at the end of the soccer

field. Uh, those readings are shown in black on the Photometric chart, and I just again reading what information you were given by Gaal Associates. Uh and they What they do read is that they’re there are numbers in there. And. These. These are a 20 ft Square grids that are set up in the

photometric charts. That are calculated by the engineers who designed this, Uh, system for lighting system must go, uh, which, incidentally, is a Very good outfit that was chosen to do the lighting in this on this project. Um And. They, they can pinpoint their lighting. But. These three areas are clearly beyond the wetlands line

because the readings vary every anywhere from 0.12 Roughly six But, mostly in, uh the 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 range. Uh, which As. A reference would be typical for a suburban parking lot requirement from the, um The IE. Um Uh, Which is the standard form for designers for lighting

levels in particular areas, and so You can’t deny that. That based on the data. We’ve been that we have received that it does exceed the lines. There’s one other area that was not covered by Mr Houston, and that is the Light trespass over The property line on the South side where the football fields is in

the grandstand. If. You were to look at that drawing and I don’t have it for the, uh To show on the screen. But If you look on that one. There are two areas that are In violation where again the the The light does Across the property line onto private properties. Uh, over the road that exists that

access road off Bay Road to service. Those buildings those houses along that that area And. Then. There are two rows of, uh Data. So the data they roughly a 20 ft Strip. The length of the, um Grandstand any area right behind home plate on the major league. Major League sign

ballfield. So. Those are, uh two other violations so there are in effect five areas on the on the chart that And I. Guess that was Miss Giro’s Objection that, uh, that was being dismissed or overlooked as a condition that ought to be represented somehow, in our orders of Conditions or that really is our our decision.

And. They really two here. One is is the wetlands. Fighting. Uh, again that was under the Conservation commission. The. Other one is like the light trespass onto private property. Behind the grandstands. Uh, And pretty close to that one residence on on that side of the building. So again. I, I think Although these numbers lighting, uh, suburban parking

lot numbers point point. 2.4 0.5 Foot candles is really low. Uh, it’s enough to see it’s enough to shine in those areas, so I think there would be a question. Uh, what would the board like to do with that information? So? We’re talking intense of a foot candle.

Yes. Let’s just condition the project like we would I don’t see a reason to open the hearing for a minor. Yeah all on a design. Those aren’t exact modeling. We, can we need to open it? Because. The information is here. It’s just a matter of, uh, bringing it to the attention of the board

because the board wanna do any anything with the with the information that in terms of when you’re talking 10th of a foot candle It. I think the answer is light from Rick, and I felt light that we’re looking at on our desk is somewhere around 60 to 70 ft candles per square foot. 1/10 of us of 10th

of a foot candle is less than a candle. Ah, so I. I don’t think it’s really substantive. So. That’s the That’s the question. Uh, It it if it is It is it is It’s either. Uh Doesn’t cross the The wetlands or it does cross it. I mean that that’s

the That’s the case and well with respect. I think we’re not being asked. You’re the one who doesn’t like to get into technical issues because we’re not experts on it. But. The. Fact is it does And? So does Does the board want to again support the, uh, orders and conditions from the

Conservation Commission, which I think is what? We’re. There are two issues. One is the spill over to other property, which is insignificant. That’s the next question I had. What are we talking about the, uh, le levels that are impinging on The other properties on the residential property.

Those again start around 0.1 and they go up to, uh, 0.70. God was a suggestion. A suggestion I have is we’ve already talked about a condition that would, um shield the visibility of the point source from a budding neighbors and that same strategy, which is basically an accessory shield over the Lumina would I

would think solve the same problem and is easy to retrofit and actually could be done after the fact If. It’s a problem after the others. These are Engineering calculations that are predicting and what you can do is you can go out afterwards. With a light meter, You can check it. If it’s a problem. It can be retrofitted.

So. I think that’s an easy condition to create in an easy problem to solve. I don’t think it requires reopening the hearing, and I don’t think it requires a lot of discussion. I agree, but I don’t want to tell them how to achieve the condition we can. We can have to go to zero. But I’m just

saying there’s a There are possibilities. They don’t have to re reselect luminar. You don’t have to reopen the hearing. There are solutions. There are solutions. That’s all they they. I dealt with this before they’ve done this hundreds of times. You know when they’re asked to be and their shields that are erected

on their specifically for that luminary to and to prevent light flow in a particular area, So it is a doable thing, and, um Again kind of a common What’s already conditioned by the we can’t Remove a condition that the Conservation Commission has issued. So I think we just agree that it’s conditioned and move forward?

Yeah. Festival things we’re considering here, but there is the one the light trespass on the residential property, you know, is one that is not dealt with yet. And that is Whether that’s a violation. I. Don’t, the Conservation Commission chose The Wetlands line, I guess because it’s I guess.

Good practice, You know not too light up the wetlands area. Again. I think it would be very easy to, um we can reiterate the condition covering the wetlands, and then we can add the condition. Um Regarding, the A budding properties again. It’s not It’s not that complicated. I. Think to just add. Yeah add it in so Yeah.

Typically what happens? You go to zero on all property lines, So. There is no trespass across there, And that’s just The way it done So at the at the last, Um Meeting. We adopted a condition that says, um Obtained certification under the dark, Sky approved outdoor lighting program to minimize overall light pollution impacts on abutters, reducing

trespassing glare, managing high angle glare and glow effects and minimizing aluminum densities, thus reducing energy consumption. DD. Do, You have language Jonathan that you could add to that that what we discussed was an accessory. Um, shield that’s added to the Lumina. That’s what was discussed necessary to if if necessary. So, all of these

things can be done after the fact. If if a if a light source the actual the actual light source in the Lumine air is visible from an abutting property or if there’s light trespass, these shields can be retrofitted to the specified There. That’s the condition we could just then, at the end of

that sentence, as say, and adding Could you give me the language, adding Adding an accessory. Shield. If necessary if necessary, or similar or similar to the similar, Uh Uh, strategy to achieve the same result in others doesn’t have to be that they could if they want to substitute the luminar.

They could do that just do after the performance. You want to put a standard there to achieve a 0 FT candle level at the property line and to achieve, um No. Visible. Um, light sources from a budding properties. Well if we have 0 ft candle after that’s different, it’s different to they have nothing to trespass.

They have nothing to do with each other One is actually seeing the the diode in there, too, but But also you want the And, then no visible light light trespass, You know, but they but the shields are serving two functions. I think I think you all need to give me the language. I mean II? I

don’t have a a do we need to do it now or do we want to do it afterwards? Or, you can do it afterwards. I mean if if we agree to to the What you’re proposing again. There’s there’s two provide the language. There’s two problems. You’re trying to solve one is light trespass, and the other

is, um, the diode or whatever the light source is being visible from an adjacent property in the two separate and independent issues to solve, and they’re both solvable in the same way. We just need need to be very careful with the language, so that or or something else that performs

the same thing, right? And? I’m just, uh so that you know some butter says Well. I can see the light source. Well, their light source might be the glow. You know what I’m saying? Yes, we’ll be careful that it’s the actual Um Lumina. It’s the It’s the the Light Source coming out of the coming out of the

fixture. You’ll have to provide me with the language. I’m not going to try and extrapolate from what you’ve said. I can’t write that fast. So. I think that, um, addresses the issue that, um MJ, Uh J, uh, raised and we also, you know, have, um Uh, Duplicated the condition that the Conservation

Commission Imposed and that is to have no spillover illumination into the wetlands. OK? So. I think at this point we can then move on. And. I think that, um We agree that the, um Madam chair. I just noticed on page one of the, um, package that we received.

There’s very good wording. In the second to last or third to last paragraph on Starting with ensure insurer. Yeah right here. Yes that that we agreed to at the last meeting that’s part of the wording there a condition so right? I kind of takes care of your first question. Yes and then the other one is, you know

Uh, the Light trespass. Yeah, in fact, that next bullet says spill over illumination into wetlands. You can also say, and a budding private properties and then you got it. Oh, OK. Let’s see. Then we’re done. They’ll come up with a solution. So. We don’t have to do anything else. Can. We refer to

a butters. With regards to negotiating. With, the applicant we referring to the immediate abutters or the abutters that would have been Notified within a certain distance. You know how many How many people are we talking? Is it In. This case. It’s only the The. Only one impact is not all

the butters along the Property on I don’t know if that’s what you mean. I don’t know if like they’re gonna have a meeting and then Well, there’s a definition of a basically, you know property owners who have land adjacent to this project. I know that when you put a notification out to the

abutters, it includes people within certain distance from the problem could be Loads of people. I don’t know I don’t I don’t know how many people that applicant is gonna have to negotiate to get they get with my my point. I think we might Thing is they produce the chart?

So. This is this is sort of where all the numbers I’m talking about the timing of, uh he’s on the next bullet item. It was going back to the use of the P a system and like, I just don’t like Pointing to the But is to do with this. Well, would

you know how many butters there were? And you know I, I. Think Well Abutters are a butter. So. I don’t think you have to worry about someone. You know 500 Ft Beyond 2nd 3rd 4th row otherwise The language of the I would have been written to say people within a radius of so

much. I think it’s in a butter or in a butter to in a butter within 300 ft. But, I think you generally who do you send out? Isn’t it within 300. Ft is what within 300 ft. So. I have no idea how many people are. That’s just so it needn’t have a common property line. 300 FT

is a definition of butter. No. Um, you know you notify the They are mutually exclusive. In that Yeah a butters are a butter. They share property lines, whereas property owners may be you know, in smaller lots within that 300 ft radii, but You know they are not obviously an abutter. If they’re What in between right

Well, there are 20 so which group is going to apply to these negotiations? The 300 ft say again, which definition is going to apply to to these negotiations? I would make that direct abutters because the impact distances of lighting. Those kinds of things aren’t going to be more than, say one lot, I would have to believe.

So direct the letters direct abutters. And. So. We did indicate that, um Uh, we recommended that the, um The school district and The Abutters negotiate reasonable light system cut off times and I think that might I don’t know if we should limit it to direct abutters or to the 25 or so Um

The Butters within the 300 ft, I, I’d make a direct about her. And. I’d accept the proposed times of the That. They did a lot of homework with regards to the standards for Hours of operation in comparison to adjacent towns with similar Applications to fields and whatnot. I. Just don’t like

I’ve been an applicant and These negotiations I best and best best. My, You know, I don’t think anyone has Anything bad to do it. But the these things do do not. These aren’t easy. Uh, but I think what’s on What’s on the table here is to let the folks have that conversation and if they get

stuck, then they come to the planning Board and the planning board will decide but have allow that conversation to take place. That’s all that a post is that a Is it A. Is it a Prior to occupancy type of condition or is it a condition before construction? Because that matters too like this

process could go on and I don’t want it to hold up construction. Well, so we make it. We have to tailor it. We have to take it to no one’s saying they can’t use the lights of the sound system so that will go into effect. It’s the It’s A.

It’s in terms of the time, and I would just make two points that I don’t believe that these athletic facilities have had the type of lighting that’s being added, so it isn’t as if people moved into the these adjacent properties, knowing that there was going to be this type of light. That’s number

one, so it isn’t as if you know it was existing and they moved there. And, then you could say, Well. They just assumed that that there there was going to be this type of of, uh, light and noise on the property so that that’s a little bit different scenario, and it might lead to a bit different

conversation and the other aspect of this is that this school district has been, uh, very straightforward and candid that they are intending to make these, uh Available to the public and so to the extent that the school district uh, leases out these fields Then. It’s no longer just an educational use that would be

subject to the Dover amendment. The School district is then operating a bit like a commercial entity. So that does give the direct abutters a little bit of wiggle room. So that on a nice, beautiful weekend in the summer, you know when they wanna have a cocktail

party they might not have, you know, AAA, you know a a raucous pickle ball game. Um, uh, impinging on their, uh, peace of mind. So. The These are the kind of Conversations that could be had and I, You know I, take the school district at its

word that it wants to be a good neighbor. So. I think that that I would expect that they would have, um, uh, good conversations with the direct abutters given. I agree with pat that there should be a time frame attached to it, though each one of these conditions we should align on whether it’s uh

A general condition of pre occupancy condition a condition during construction or something like that. I agree. So. What, would you suggest? Two months? Three months? No? No, I would say this is prior to occupancy. Prior to obtaining occupancy. They would have Been able to come to an agreement on the allowable hours of use, I would agree.

And. If, not then we’ll intervene. Agreed. But, it would not hold up them starting in, right? Same with the lighting it So. What is the soil testing condition that was proposed should be possibly Something different. Yeah. Because the building in back. I mean he’s gonna, obviously they

gotta have the permit, I guess to do the digging. But. What? What. We’ll do is we’ll go through. We’ll go through all these conditions And, Then once we have, um the actual decision in hand with the conditions and intact we can then You know? Pass through them and and pick up any of these inconsistencies.

So so what this is going to read now is the Hamilton when I regional School district and the direct abutters shall negotiate reasonable light. System cut off times prior to occupancy and in and it’ll be similar with respect to the, uh Operation of the public address system. Um Prior to occupancy.

And. It should mention that the planning board will Intervene if no agreement can be reached. Mm. I have made that note, but I will probably rephrase it to to make it, um, direct, as opposed to, um I think I’d I’d say in the event that an agreement cannot be reached at

the request of the parties, the planning board will intervene. And that would be in regard to both the public address system and the lighting, OK? One or both parties. And Pat. Were you suggesting that was preconstruction? Pre occupancy. So. Well I, I guess so they’ll have to go through some testing

before Occupancy. In order for the abbots to understand. What the potential impacts are. Right? It wouldn’t have to necessarily How would they judge whether the light is too much or the noise is too much? Yeah, they would have too much or too. I think it’s just It’s just establishing in our of operations? Yeah. I think the

hours this has nothing to do with, um, illumination testing. It’s strict, strictly ours. Right? OK, moving on. Private wells. Um So I. We did begin our discussion of private wells. And. So. I do have, um Language with respect to that, and it’s um It’s Substantially, uh, the same as what appears in the

Conservation Commission’s order of conditions. But. Um, In addition. Um, I have the the It’s school district, I. I had a, um typo in there, but, um, the testing. I have testing of any private wells within so many yards of the athletic fields. But I obtained information from, uh Tom Houston suggestion from the board of Health. So he

identified um The following Uh, properties that had have wells so I will instead of having, um, within so many yards. I can actually identify the properties. Um Uh, that that may have may have Wells, so there’s number one Long Meadow Way and the Board of Health does not have an official

record of a private well on the property, but it believes there is one Uh, It may or may not be used for drinking water. Um Number three long Meadow Way and number five Long Meadow Way as well as um 823 Bay Road. And, um And. The, Uh, the board of

Health suspects there will be a private well at 821 Bay Road, but the, uh Um The School district. A obviously cannot test a well that doesn’t exist yet. So. You know I will have to be circumspect and and how those that’s delineated so We now have that So question Mark.

It’s not on the Conservation Commission conditions did they require private? Well testing? No, they didn’t. But I think it’s as as Bill pointed out, It’s It’s It’s. It’s really an insurance policy. I get that So. My question is because we talked about this at length at the last meeting, and and I think you were of the opinion

in several others were that it really would be a smart thing to do so they establish a baseline. Um As, a sort of protective against Po potential future. Uh, liability. Um So, um I think everybody said Yeah. It would be probably a good thing to do. My question, but we couldn’t get a straight answer from Gail Associates.

Yes four wells at issue here. I mean we’re not talking 40 Wells, We’re talking. I’m just I. I Just wanna have a so But now we have the superintendent here, so I’d like to ask that question Well. The public hearing is closed. That’s the That’s an issue OK, I mean my opinion is a conservation

commission has already weighed in and they’re gonna They’re gonna test the groundwater nearest to the area impacted. And. Whether or not, we feel it’s a good idea or good insurance. I don’t think it’s upon us to impose a condition related to testing the wells. Well. I’d like. That’s my opinion. I and I understand

that and and and Under. Normal circumstances I. I would probably agree with you but I I make two points here. Um, one is, um that, um The Application itself raises the issue of peoples and and if, if No one wanted us to talk about it. Why. Was it in the application? So.

It is in the application and it’s it’s. It’s a conversation that the town is having as we speak, and it’s a conversation that will take place at town meeting. So. I think that under those circumstances and then just the whole entire purpose of our stormwater management by law is to protect water

resources. We have one well in town that shut down because of, um a level of PFAs contamination. That’s, uh, outside the bounds of what is permissible. So I. I think it’s it’s eminently reasonable. Require this and and if they if there’s never another problem That’s great. But. If there is then it’s It’s something the

problem can be addressed. It is something that the peer reviewers suggested. Absolutely. So I. So III I again raised. The question is this can do we have the authority to require testing of of PRI expenditure of public money on testing of private wells. Um so I I’m not a I’m not opposing this. I just

want to make sure we have the authority to do that, If. That’s something the board wants to do. So. I would ask, Um Patrick Rafet to, um The opinion of Town Council as to whether we can actually require that to be done. I think that because that is technically a trespass, it would have to Be

accommodated through a complete allowance by that property owner in a voluntary basis for that to take place. Yeah, I was gonna raise that same concern. I the Mandatory language of shall give me pause. Personally, I mean, may Uh, I mean, I I would suggest subject to the Um, express consent of the property owner. The Hamilton Wenham

Regional School Juris district shall conduct Testing I. That’s just me personally. I. I am concerned about a potential trespass and I right now we can enter upon that property. You have to understand. You know I took, um, When. I drafted these I. I didn’t have 48 hours to, you know, not being compensated

for this. I took, uh, Mr, Houston’s, uh, language and and put them out on paper for this discussion. So any points that other board members might wish to raise? I’m very much open to them. And. In fact, I urge everyone to think of all these points, because, um, uh They’re good ones. And. And. So.

You know whether technically, you know Well. I Look at stormwater Management. Why. Do. We, have it. You know the purpose is protect water resources if you don’t even bother to do that, then the rest of it is kind of like, what are we here for? But on and understood and and were doing. I think we’ve done a

really good job on the site that is subject to the storm Water special permit right now outside the parameters of the special permit and saying, Well, you also have to do this on private property. It’s. This is the result of these hydro geological conditions. I mean what? What water that sort of

slippery slope. It’s a slippery slope. But. I mean one, for example, one has an absolute right. I would imagine, uh, to pollute their own property. But when that trespasses onto the property of others, which it might have the potential of doing then I think that one would have the um would want to

be responsible and ensure that, um That at the outset. There is no problem with these wells from which people draw their water. And then if, after the fact people that property owners elect to continue to test their wells and find there’s a problem, I get it, But. We’re not as the case may

be. I get it the other thing I, I would question is the last paragraph where you’re acquiring annual inspections. Um And order remediation the event The Chemicals listed are above four parts per trillion. Um, that’s unmeasurable. We do not have the technology to measure four parts per trillion. That’s the EPA test and No.

That’s EPA S suggested Nonregulated non lawful and I read it, I. I went and researched this so they they can’t detect it. We don’t have the technology to N are suggesting that It’s It’s a, um Optional. Um, standard that has not been in law. So if you’re going to put that kind of level

in then it ought to be the current standard set by the state, which is 20 parts per trillion You can’t regulate to future regulations that may or may not come into effect. You have to pick a standard that exists currently. That was my point where none of us we You can define testing acceptable criteria on Internet searches.

I think we have to refer to the Massachusetts state water drinking water quality standard. The most current state of Massachusetts drinking water quality standard set out by the MA DB. I think that’s so if it changes it changes by the time they have to test then it changes, But. Um, you set the condition based on a reference

to a standard not defining that standard. Yeah, but I think there’s number came from Tom Huston. He was the one who Tom Houston is also not a toxicologist. He’s a civil engineer. It’s A and he can’t make up his own standards so we can choose to agree or not agree With Tom Houston’s

recommendation a You can refer to a standard that exists. Best standard. You know for drinking. We can refer to AC MR in the state of Massachusetts. It’s not a standard. It’s a drinking water or something. It’s currently in discussion by the EPA. They have suggested it as a potential, but you read You read the literature, and they

said, This is not a regulation and it’s not enforceable and it’s non detectable. So how the hell do you regulate a nondetectable substance? I mean? Come on, really. Think It’s 310 cm R. Let’s be rational about what we’re doing rather than wishing something for the future. That doesn’t yet we can’t yet detect. It’s It’s 310

CMR 22. So I think that makes the most sense is attaching it to what the state water Let see. Regulation is Ah, until such time it’s changed right And, then it’ll change because it’s we’re not gonna make a change. We. Don’t put the regulation in construction, and that’s fine.

But. You can’t you know we can’t be regulating with a pencil and an eraser? Well, I To. Be candid with you. I think that the the regulations will change. Um well, that may be true, but they haven’t yet, right. Um II. I think the compromise is to make it whatever regulations are in

effect at the time, the test is done state regulations. I don’t suspect they’re going to get any looser. So Correct. And when the town well was shut down. It was shut down because it violated the 20. Limit. I don’t know. We don’t even know what the reading was. Um, some Marines are in the hundreds in

towns. I, don’t I think most people if they sample their well today will find out it doesn’t meet the drinking quality standard. That’s my experience. That doesn’t make it right. No, absolutely does not. But. I mean when, if if it is the if it is the suggestion to test beforehand. I think this is gonna be a surprise.

That’s why it’s valuable. Mm. I mean? I think that The issue here is you’re gonna test you’re gonna test Using the best test possible the way it’s phrased is the only difference between four and 20 is at the what point does the Planning Board order remediation? Right? It’s not that they’re you’re gonna use whatever test you

need, but the point the way this is phrased the difference between four and 20 is really if it’s four, then we’re gonna order remediation. If the test is above four. If it’s 20. It’s Not that what the test is. The test is gonna test for the test. And. If. It’s 20. Then we’ll order remediation when the test

comes back above 20. I’ve That’s What the That’s what This is saying. So. I would say we just Go with them. Whatever the state has at the time. But. This is not about using a weak test or a strong test. This is about use the best test and then at what point do you order

remediation for or 20? We’ll let the state decide that Right? Science is science, So the test is the test. Question is at what point do we take action on the test? Well. We. We’ll have to amend that last paragraph. And I’m wondering just just out of curiosity. Is the Board of

Health, a charged with enforcing, um These regulations. In terms of I’m. I’m just it’s a question I’m asking, you know, somebody might say, well, the planning board Doesn’t have the expertise here to do that. That really is under the guise of the Board of health and that and that’s just a question here.

I’m not Pushing back. I. Can’t. I can’t answer that question. I mean, I think I think the DPW certainly with respect to the drinking water? Yeah? Yeah, you know has has responsibility. But. The problem Here. I’ve I’ve been thinking about this is that you know there. There are all sorts of boards and

commissions who circle around the drain no pun intended. And and, uh You know if everybody you know goes into their little cave and looks at things myopically. Bad things happen. And. So. If everybody stays exactly in their lane. It opens up avenues for serious problems in the future. No, no, I’m not

trying to avoid it. I was it was just a tour of jurisdiction. Question whether you know I I in the memo that I prepared I, I included the statement of the Board of Health and the Board of Health, of course, does recognize that Is forever chemicals are a source of great concern and and information is

coming out, uh, on a regular basis about, um, their impacts on human health. And and, uh and no, that’s that’s well known and we’re bathing it we bathe in in these things. We drink. We. Drink them. We. Wear them. We eat them. This is this is a problem that I have is that everyone says that, but

what they fail to recognize Is that these forever chemicals act synergistically so by They exist already. So a few more people as chemicals in our system won’t hurt is a very, very We have a lot of agenda tonight. Can. We go through the through, So. I mean we could talk for everyone? Yeah? Yeah.

That’s so I’m. I’m I Let me just clarify one other thing. Um I’m trying to think of what remediation We or whoever succeeds us on the planning board is going to order should This Act come into, and it’s nonsense and the remediation that would seem obvious is the town is gonna be required to

hook them up to town water, right, So. It’s not an exorbitant amount of money, but it so that would be the most obvious remediation. So. I’m. I’m thinking if we’re gonna do that, then maybe we should state that just add it because at the homeowner has the option

to have the town at install at their expense down water. Endless litigation. Well. I want a treatment plant on my property to fix this problem? I agree you’re right or remove the source specific about that. Remove the source of how are we going to remove the source of the contamination? 400 ft under the ground that CPN from

somewhere else. You’re never gonna do that. You can’t do that. Close the school down Wouldn’t that wouldn’t get rid of the PF would it? No. The. Only remediation is town water, Assuming at that point, the town water is still pass. Have anyone? Well close, so All. Right? So. We’re good on that, Uh, you know, obviously, you

know, the edits to this will have to be made and then everyone will have to, you know, really sign off on the final product. So. Uh, let’s keep going. The operation and maintenance budget is next. Is there a reason why we’re focusing on the budget because it is a cons Cal condition in a

state requirement in the in the handbook to do the long term operation and maintenance plan, and it outlines the requirements for the people doing that. Executing that work. So. We’re I feel like this is very redundant with existing requirements as a Condi, and it’s actually also kind of weird that the conservation if the planning board is a

stormwater authority It’s weird that the Conservation Commission is putting conditions in for storm water management. But. The. Fact is they already exist? So? I’m wondering Are we duplicate them? Um If the requirements to do it. Why. Do. We make a requirement that there’s a budget to do it and why we outline the requirements for the person

doing it when there’s already a requirement in a state handbook and in the operation and maintenance plan that says it’s got to be done by a certified person. Well, actually, it’s the It’s The maintenance of this synthetic turf because my recollection is and you correct me if I’m wrong that Kathleen

Harve said that there really isn’t not much maintenance at all with respect to Synthetic turf that reliance on UV light is sufficient, but my research indicated That’s not entirely correct. And So going to a synthetic turf manufacturer. Um I found that there are recommended Maintenance requirements. Should we just can We just focus that on the

operation and maintenance of the center field. And just Establish that there should be one and It’s in the budget. Well says the budget shall include an itemization of the labor and material cost of maintaining synthetic turf that will be exposed to leaf litter, animal waste and other sources of bacteria and contaminants that may not be resolved by

mere exposure to UV. So, the pro green, which is synthetic turf manufacturer. I pulled this right off, their website says to ensure a long lasting turf life. There are some best practices to follow. Regular clean up timely removal of leaves, debris and pet feces is crucial to maintain the integrity and purity appearance of the term. Periodic rinsing.

Um Um so wetting it down and cleaning it that way. Fiber grooming. Uh, power Bing the fibers once a year to maintain an upright position. Giving your artificial grass, a natural and appealing. Look, I. Don’t think we’re gonna write the maintenance SOP for the right there in film? Maybe they have they should establish a

budget. I have a feeling the school district is not going to allow players on the field to have animal waste and leaves and other deater floating around. I’m not worried about that. I think the the the second bullet actually takes care of it, and they should be required to demonstrate in its operation and maintenance budget. It’s allocated

sufficient funds to perform regular maintenance and inspection. We should put maintenance and inspection. Um, inspection and maintenance. Um, necessary for the rehabilitation of the propo stormwater systems. Um Period. Yeah, it’s good. If they want if the kids want to be running around on, you know, crap infested fields. Let them.

Go at it. Um, I’m Sure. The parents will be really happy about that. Was that the second full of item that you read. Yeah. That’s the second bullet. And. If we’re categorizing it be a post occupancy. I put in their regular inspection and maintenance necessary. For, um I don’t know. So rehabilitation.

I think we need maintaining you’re assuming that it’s deteriorated. Well. It does deteriorated. Well. Remember. It dropped 600 to £1000 worth of fine particle PFS particles every year get stripped just from use. And lay there within The little flaky leaves. And when you wash the fields that 600 to £1000 worth of microscopic particles.

Gets washed away. Into the drainage system right, so maintenance and inspection That’s one of the reasons they wear out. No because they wear out literally a little, the little the little Leaves lose their resiliency and half of their mass and according to the peer reviewer, somewhere between 80 90% of the little microscopic Uh, Particles will reside and fall

back into the sub substrate of the field. Right and so that when you roll the field up after 10 years, it weighs £600 more than when you put it down, And the difference is all of the particles that you I certainly wouldn’t want to roll those up. Without wearing a hazmat suit. But That’s just

Main maintenance budget, and that’s a post occupancy requirement. O. Yeah. OK any other comments on that on that that operations and maintenance budget And we should try and move on. My. Apologies. OK. So the the The. Next Point shall identify independent testing laboratory and so on. Does. The Conservation Commission have a baseline at this point. I don’t

believe so. I mean that I don’t is it? Is it within our purview, just like the wells. To ask them to create a baseline so that over the future when they conduct a systematic, yearly or whatever. Set of water monitoring out in along the edges of the river and so on.

That. They have a baseline to compare it to They. They will have a baseline because they will They They’re going to start sometime this year before construction begins. OK, that’s great, OK? And. So on Page four I. I. Guess. We have concluded that Well, at least the the state is, uh, 20 parts per

million. Um, the Per million is the proposed drinking water standard from the EPA and then, um, there are other tests that are available, um, for, uh, total chlorine. I think we should just refer again to The, Massachusetts drinking water requirements between I would prefer to use again since this is not in Foresee any regulatory action for 20.

Whatever. I would prefer to acquire the Most accurate, comprehensive test at the time available. What you do with the test is another question. But I would just as a matter of science want to use? The it is established by a regulatory authority. Not because if you use a loosey goosey language

like that, somebody’s gonna say well, four parts per trillion is the best, but I think you keep in mind Bill when you get the results from these tests, it’s not pass fail. Pass fail Pass. It’s I know it’s a number. It’s a number so but I would like to have a test that’s

capable of getting a smaller number rather than a bigger number. Less than we don’t know less than 80. Well That tells me nothing less than 20 That tells me something less than four That tells me some else. So if you if you pay a few more dollars, and you get a test

that has a sensitivity level down to four. I would just assume that we do that. Doesn’t require that we remediate or do anything you don’t have the authority. We can’t arbitrarily establish standards that we think we should. It’s not a standard. It’s a test. It’s a standard that a test has to

meet. No. OK, it has to be capable of detecting. Down to a certain level. This is a standard the state establishes a regulatory standard. Uh, existing regulatory standard, using the most accurate tests available because there are different tests. Well, fine. That would be fine with me. What’s the most accurate test.

That would be fine if they Well, you choose. A ramp up. Just! Meet the standard you don’t you don’t need to overwork this. Just meet the standard. So. We’re gonna eliminate all this. All these words in here are just referenced for us. Reference information that we had information. You know this?

And. The. Next bullet is going in the wrong direction on this. The This is Can’t establish You’re gonna start talking about the latest standard. Well. What standard are you talking about? I mean, You know you really have to establish what the one the state provide. You can’t The labs to create these tests have to be accredited.

They have to be a assay developed that gets approved by some regulatory authority and you can’t For it to be a which is why I’m Houston came up with the Tom. Houston isn’t he didn’t come up with this. He’s not a regulatory authority. He’s not a water quality standard expert. He picked us

out of latest, uh, you know, this was an advisory by the EPA If. You read the EPA language. It’s specifically says This is an advisory. It is not a regulatory legal requirement. Why. Are. We having this argument, we have this argument every time we have a discussion about storm water. Or zoning

people wanna like move the move the line I get it. We are not empowered to establish our own standards. The State and the federal government has the standards. That’s how we regulate. We don’t go like well in Hamilton. We’re going to create a whole new standard. Because if we do, we’re gonna get sued. Yeah, it’s not a

whole new standard. This is information. It’s not a standard, damn it information. It’s information If you pay for a four This came from the peer review. Oh, my God. Well. Let’s bow down, OK. You can take that position. We’re not gonna listen to anything that man says You can take that position if you want. All right.

So, What is your point? The point is that we were advised to use these and we either agree with it or we don’t and, uh, well, obviously, two of us don’t Well, the challenge is you’re gonna have a an accredited lab that doesn’t have a certified test to meet the standard that that’s the problem. So.

This the credited LA you you can go to MIT and you can get the best, but it’s not a credited test. It’s not on instrumentation that gets calibrated to a standard to achieve these results. Um, they gonna be something you can’t You know it’s not an accredited test. There’s There’s No. There’s no system, Probably I, You know

there may be I. I’m. I’m assuming here that the the the the Testing Lab we use, for instance, is only accredited to do the standards that are allowed by the state. So they get certified by that third party to, you know to to get the results that we pay for, but it’s It can’t you can’t to

me. It’s the same thing. A third party testing to an expert on say, structures and he comes up and he says you have to you design strength is this for this particular type of material? This is the maximum span. This is whatever the loads that you you you have to you can put on it. Those are

numbers. Those are standards based on You know that the What. You’re trying to achieve the level you’re trying to achieve. You’re talking about design and modeling here. This is This is so so. So. What you’re saying is Let’s rub out all the you know, maybe the design load is £300 a square foot. Let’s wipe

out all the numbers because all we’re gonna do is because you can test it says we’re going to go with this because the design requirements you’re talking about there are accredited tests certified tests you can do. We don’t have a task Qual. You. Don’t have a test here.

That’s the difference. I think there are tests to do this, but You know, that’s The EPA says there are not tests. It’s I don’t know why we’re stuck on this. This is like, you know, this is really quite simple. I will put in language and we

will see if we can agree to it and we can vote up or down. And. In the meantime. Um uh, You know if someone is is interested in doing their own research as to what testing is available, Uh, that can happen, But. We did get information about, um Total fluorine analysis and, uh, also top

essays, so and there are laboratories that can do those types of tests so we can do our own research, but I will put in language, um, that that basically requires the use of the most current a applicable state or federal regulation test numbers here from the EPA well and and the other thing is

the, uh, is the paragraph where it says, uh, that the install Has to be certified as FIFA free. So and they’re gonna use current measurement standards. So. Uh, you know, we’re kind of like going around in circles here, establishing an arbitrary standard. Well, we know that there are three manufacturers of of turf fields that can

certify using current technology and standards that FIFA free. Yeah, we can’t be writing a specification for the field. I think we can condition that they use the best available technology to minimize the greatest extent possible. Language, but we can’t write a spec. System. We don’t know how it’s designed Manufactured. Well. I think

that that going to Page five? Um You know, I think that’s reasonable. And and essentially what? What. The language is consistent with that of the conservation Commission. Which I, I, you know consistency. Um Is certainly something that that should be. Um, a goal here. We don’t want to be at odds with the conservation

commission so well, I think we run the risk of being at odds if we rewrite it, I think if we are happy with the conservation commission or conditions, there’s no reason to restate them. Because there are already in order of condition. So. Um it’s It’s. It’s called belt and suspenders, Never a bad idea.

But. It is a bad idea if there’s language unless if we’re copying verbatim the language in the conservation commission orders and condition There is a reason why not to for the exact purpose that you mentioned, I did duplicate their Their information and you didn’t add anything. No.

Like cut and taste it. So their language was and I think this is what you’re getting at Rick Testing will be for the most up to date list of Peoples and Gen X chemicals from both agencies, um, will form the basis for compliance with all conditions and I will double check that That language is identical to

the Conservation Commission. Um So let’s um Move forward. Are. We on Page six. 86 I don’t know what to think about the amounts of money here and I was also trying to think we’re skipping over some things, so we talked about a wetlands scientist and posting the report of the independent Testing Labs.

Uh, what do we think about those? I think it’s not our purview to put requirements that verify the orders of conditions on the conservation Commission have been met. I think that’s there. That’s their requirement, not ours. Conservation require has requirements. Conservation Commission has requirements. We shouldn’t impose conditions. I require the applicant to Meet

those conditions. We. You know, this is this is us outlining how we How to verify to the conservation Commission that the applicant has met there or is and conditions. Well. We’re duplicating those conditions so we want well. This is different from what they’ve Right the I’m talking about the en engage a

wetland scientists to do all this testing cultivation Commission, uh, didn’t have this in in there, but I don’t know why we can’t because we’re requiring similar testing. I. Guess what I was saying was? I don’t think it’s our purview to tell the applicant how to meet the conservation commissions

conditions. Well, let me just give you a hypothetical What, if what if they’re not meeting the conditions, then it’s the it’s the Conservation Commission’s inform, You know enforcement. It’s not ours. We can’t we can’t because then, of course now, now we tell them how to do it. And. What, if it

happens that, you know we can’t tell them how to run their business. Yeah, I’m not sure. Mhm. And the Testing that they get is is gonna be You know communicated to the Conservation Commission and its conservation commissions. You know it’s their responsibility to post it or make it available or tell the board of Health or,

you know, like like they’re doing on Bridge Street now with the state and everything else, So I, Don’t II. I think we’re imposing on their authority here? Well. Maybe, Um maybe they will adopt this. Uh, it’s my understanding. There’s a an AAA Conservation Commission. Meeting. Oh that’s going to take place tomorrow. That would

be good. They may actually be interested in that language, then Um, and as far as escrow funds, the storm water, uh, bylaw. And the Recently. Updated rules and regs. Require performance guarantee. On the stormwater system, and I think we should rely on that. Language in that Existing Standard criteria rather than

trying to create, um one specific for this project in the girl funds. Section of these conditions. I think we just referred to the stormwater bylaw and the performance guarantee is it outlined? Uh, that’s actually one part that wasn’t amended during the rules and regs. So even if it’s approved with this condition.

Um, the rules and regs. Don’t change that language. It’s essentially put putting a performance guarantee on the system for the cost of the system. OK so that takes care of, uh of, um The First desk score account now the second one, and this is the This is what concerns me a lot because

the life expectancy of the synthetic term is 8 to 10 years and so to me, It’s just like a roof on your house. It may last 25 or 30 years and part of your routine maintenance is replacing your roof. So when this synthetic turf It’s when

it’s useful life. Is over. What happens to it? And who pays for it and my view. It’s part of the maintenance Of these athletic fields to take care of what it what is proposed to be put there and replace it with something else. Well. It’s like, um, it’s kind of redundant language because you’re asking

to establish UM, and escrow fund. For the unexpected costs of materials and labor for maintaining the synthetic that we address that’s the performance guarantee that that Pat just Um in the second bullet it again. It’s a little bit strange to outline how they may. This is under the operation and maintenance of the system. It’s the

requirement of the Well, the reason that’s in here applicant is because this is a very expensive proposition. Because when the synthetic turf Has to be removed. It’s The. There were problems with with where to take it. I mean right now there are no entities that recycle synthetic turf, and it

would have to be taken. Friends dug up and transported to a landfill and landfills charge money to take synthetic to go to a mass burn facility. You can’t go to a landfill. I. There’s. There’s a state requirement You can’t any anyway, you can’t burn. But in In any case, we So. It did for

number four and five are Jews. It has to happen. There’s an operation and maintenance plan of a system. Conditioning it Is Is is something I’m having. I’m struggling with well, the thing of it is the part of the operation and maintenance that required already a budget to

set aside But, But. We’ve been given a a budget for a year and a half and so in eight years if disposal costs north of half a million dollars, Where’s this money going to come from we already conditioned a 10 year requirement for outlining a budget for the operation and maintenance of the system.

And I think that is sufficient. Right, uh and plus you, it says, perform as represented under warranties from the manufacturer well of the representing the warranties under the manufacturer than the manufacturer is a responsible for For it under a warranty. I think you I. Don’t think this is necessary and it? No.

There’s a difference between warranting the product for your lifetime of 10 years and disposing of it. I agree that four and I agree that four and five are sort of very vague about You know. Removal of soils contaminated by PFAs. We don’t know what standards they’re I mean. That’s a.

That’s a real thing, but requiring That each time the Synthetic turf is installed that the installer You know, basically pay to remove it. At the end of its lifetime. And that shifts the risk. That removing and disposing of the stuff is going to become increasingly hard. And.

It shapes that risk off on the installer and Off of the back of the town. He’s going to build it into the price that he charges for the contract. If now you want me to go ahead and get rid of this stuff that I’m gonna have to charge you an

extra million dollars or half a million dollars for that insurance? You know there’s a problem with that one is the installer isn’t going to undertake that responsibility. It would have to be the manufacturer and the problem with with this is the egg your window because the manufacturer in existence today manufacturer doesn’t even have the equipment

to that’s different. That that that could be out of business. So. This isn’t a failure problem. It’s not part of a warranty. It’s just you know, this stuff wears out after 1010 years, and you have to replace it, but most likely the manufacturer nor the installer will be doing the maintenance.

So it’s no, it’s I think he is. He isn’t going to preserve it that much longer. I think I think we hit the requirement by outlining a condition To develop an operation and maintenance budget. That’s outlined per the recommendations by the manufacturer and the installer for the period of 10 years, an

address it doesn’t address the disposal expense associated with disposal, but neither, but we can. We can’t address it either, because we don’t know what it’s going to be like, and neither does the installer and neither does the town. So we have a 10 year operation and maintenance window and then it

gets readdressed in 10 years from now, Here’s what I’m getting at Pat? Yeah. You know an 8 to 10 years when this is Obviously a problem. That. The school district comes to the taxpayers in Hamilton and says We need a million bucks to get rid of this stuff. So. You wanna make sure That this

routine maintenance You know they’ll providing for the end of life in their operations and maintenance budget. And you know to actually take care of the synthetic turf on an annual basis. It’s probably not going to be that much money. Mhm. I’m. I’m happy. I’m. I’m. I’m happy that I will pale and

significant to what it costs to actually, Uh, remove this and dispose of it in a in a safe, I’m happy to see 1 to 3 rolled up into the maintenance budget or the main the the the, You Know. The first account, All right, which is Operation maintenance and replacement. Operation maintenance and removal, but it’s like anything

it’s you know, Um Based on how well is maintained and operated over 10 years. How much use it gets and everything else it could be disposed of an eight years and 20 years. It’s Who knows And who knows what the cost will be at that point in time and what kind of technologies will be available

to treat? It’s A. It’s A. It’s a hard thing to condition even if even if the Town, even if the state were to ban it, so we couldn’t replace it. We’d still have the problem of removing it roughly and the town will have to bear that cost. And they’ll

have to bear the cost of whatever the replacement is. I mean, I think this would have been a great conversation in the town when they were talking about approving the budget to get but I think for a condition Right on a site plan review.

It’s a bit ST. It’s a bit of a stretch. I think we captured it in the Operation Maintenance 10 year plan. I think it’s a concern, and I’m hoping that the school committee will consider it, But. I can’t I agree? I feel like we’re like

out of the site Plan REVIEW Storm. You know it is a Our I mean the way this will work is it won’t become a problem until it becomes a problem. And, then they’re going to go. Oh, damn. We’re gonna have to replace this and it’s gonna cost us whatever that number is, And.

Then they’ll bring that to the voters of the town and say, just like they did for a new turf field. We have to replace it, And. It’s gonna cost X And if you want good turf fields, That’s what it’s gonna cost so they won’t II. I think that

that the likelihood that they will get a new turf field virtually. I mean we don’t have these conversation. And people want to build their homes with new materials that contain PF that are you know these plastic siding systems and everything. This is a This is a unique where we’re imposing. I.

Think unique requirements. Um, well, it’s just that the scale of this is so huge in an ideal world, the school system like any business would say We’re gonna start, um, putting into our capital plan a 0 10/10 years. The estimated cost of replacing the system. You wouldn’t budget into it.

But. The school system probably is not going to do that because they have other priorities and a limited budget. So what happens typically in the public sector is when it becomes a problem, then it becomes a problem and We were asked as voters to deal with it like I like the idea because this is

what I would do in my own house planning that I don’t think we have the Authority. I think we captured it in the in the other requirement. For establishing a 10. What’s the number that you put in there. Right? You don’t know because you’re what’s inflation gonna be 10 years from now? I don’t know II.

I mean I are you happy with your taxes now? Yeah? I would pay more. Actually. I would pay more to have better schools. Enrollment at the at the at the elementary schools is decreasing and enrollment at the high school is stagnant. So? Yes. I would be happy to pay more for my taxes for these

kids. Stand up at town meeting. I Wanna hear that? I just said it. I mean either way, if we have a E, even if you did condition this, it’s gonna increase your time taxes, So. It’s right. We’re gonna pay for it One way or another. You want

to pay for it now or do you want to pay for it later? The decision has been made. Town. Said they would like to pay more property tax to have these fields already. Both towns. What. I’m, saying, Though it was, it would cost more. If. We have if we condition this, but we’re gonna have to pay it

either way, either way. But. I think we captured it again in the 10 year operating and maintenance budget. Cause. That’s all we can control right now. Or. He was what’s gonna be the procedure on this gets Drafted. Uh, Um, I’ll have to make a stab at reducing what we’ve discussed. Um, you’re

gonna vote on each one of these independently. I don’t know that. That’s necessarily. I mean I. Don’t think we got consensus on these, uh, escrow accounts, although I think it would be wise if, uh, if one were created, I think that Well the capital budget, whatever way. Um the school district

wants to anticipate, Um The removal of this turf after its useful life, II. I really don’t think that there will be able to replace the synthetic turf with synthetic turf, given the bills before the Legislature. So. Uh, I would hope that the Um At the school committee and the school district. Um uh, Land on addressing this

significant cost in eight years, as opposed to just throwing up their hands and and going to the taxpayer and say saying, What was us. You know we have to. We have to get rid of this stuff now, because, um, it we can’t and we can’t replace it.

Um And I. Just think that that’s uh A bit of a A Um, Madam Chairman might I suggest since we’ve Have three meetings in a row. And. Three weeks that we Change. The meeting scheduled for the second to the ninth that even spreads things out more also, maybe we’ll learn something from the town.

Uh, town meeting that Would inform us in writing the regulations. Well. I think I think that’s a good idea, because, uh, I ever we’ve discussed all these. I think we’ve come to some type of consensus? I do. Think that they have to be reduced to a writing so that everyone can

review these and and make whatever further, uh, comments or revisions, And. I think that my, uh, moving the April 2nd meeting to April 9th, Um, this will enable, um, a decision to be drafted with these conditions affixed to it, and we will have a full document to consider on April 9th. I also

spaces the meetings that we have three meetings in a row, and then we have three or four weeks until the end of April. April, it it I mean it’s so. So what we have here, you know, we we have our conditions. I will, uh I will draft them. They will

not be as long as what I have in my hand, obviously, and I will transmit them. To, Patrick and and I’m. Assuming that Patrick will, uh, take the laboring or in in in drafting a document. Um For The site Plan Review and also the stormwater management. And if that could be transmitted to the planning

board, um Well in advance of the April 9th meeting that that Theoretically. We should be able to vote and voted April 9th April subject to minor, um, minor revisions. So if we if, if the if the decision and the conditions of transmitted, um At least several days in advance of the April 9th

meeting. We should be able to finalize it on that day. And and and we will be informed with what happens at town meeting Does that sound like me to make a motion to that effect. When one comment, Uh, As an applicant. We would often get a copy of the draft conditions to have an opportunity to Provide

any if there’s any kind of clarifying it, it’s as soon as possible. That’s just what I said. Oh, I missed that by moving the meeting to April 9th. If I. I can get these conditions to Patrick in in a couple of days, and then Patrick had sufficient time to

put a decision together on the actual findings needed for the site Plan Review and the stormwater management. So if he gets if he gets a final document to us, you know by what April 3rd or fourth I don’t have a cat calendar in front of me, but within at least three or four days prior

to April 9th, then we can go through it and, uh, if they’re minor edits or anything like that, we we can, um actually vote subject to whatever changes we agree on. I. Guess. My suggestion was to also Communicate the draft to the applicant to get any input or clarifying elements from get as

an African. You’re often given that opportunity, um prior to a final decision to, um to either, you know, add, or, you know, uh, clarify some of the points that are in there to make it easier to apply the requirements to the project. I think That might be a consideration to have.

Well. I don’t know that that’s ever happened in Hamilton. It might happen in Ipswich, but that would essentially be reopening the public hearing, and I don’t quite understand that procedure. Uh, I’m not sure. Technically. I’ve never encountered that Yeah. Patrick. Can you weigh in on that. Sent them to him. I’ve seen it

before the closing of the hearing, but not after Mm. OK? And, um, I know Miss. Herve had her hand up at various points during the discussion. I I didn’t know if you wanted to address it in Communicating. It was a closed hearing or I don’t know why she had her hand out. The public hearing is closed.

So if she has any anything or shattering, she should communicate it with Patrick and again. If it’s something we need to address. Um, we we can, uh on April 9th Consider reopening. Um The public hearing, but I mean it’s a slippery slope, because if we reopen it for one person, then

obviously you know, there’s there’s a need for the public to be able to weigh in. So Any other comments. All right and I make my motion to move the meeting from the second to the ninth of April. Well. Well. There are two. They’re two different, um, actually The. First motion is whether we will reschedule the April 2nd

meeting to April 9th motion one and Motion two is to continue the hearing on these athletic field projects to April 9th. So So the I’ll entertain the first motion to continue the can We make a commitment on the the next meeting that we’re done with the conditions. Oh Greg.

The conditions are going to go to Patrick. You know next meeting, we will have had three weeks to review them. We can make our own comments. So when we get together on the ninth, we agree on the final conditions. Absolutely. That’s what I think we have a consensus on these, So I’m

going to attempt to draft language that captures what everyone has said, and I’ve heard every one of you and I have the benefit of YouTube in the event. I am Unclear on anything so, I, I will attempt to incorporate all those comments so that that whatever suggestions anyone might have,

I hope they’re minor. And. Then Patrick will have the actual decision and so barring any unforeseen circumstances, it should be, um Any amendments and what I’m hoping are are are very minor good so we can close the book on it, and he’s going to Patrick is going to get the whole package to us in advance

so that if everyone reads it, they will have all their comments itemized any typos all that so we can finalize the document. Uh, in short order. Excellent, so first motion to continue the April 2nd hearing to April 9th. Making the motion or asking for a second. So. Were you asking for a motion?

Yes? I was asking a motion. I make the motion that we move the April 2nd meeting to April 9th second OK, Pat Norton. Jonathan. Poor, Jonathan Poor I, Bill Wheaton Bill, wait and I am Dost Amil Dost Beth her a Rick Mitchell I Marie Crouch. I And. The Next motion is to continue the hearing on the

liberation. The deliberations to, uh, April 9th. I make a motion to Continuing the deliberations to April 9th second. Uh, Pat Norton, I. Jonathan. Poor, Jonathan Poor I bill Bill wheat and I am Beth her Rick Mitchell. I And Marie Crouch. I So. We have a plan

and, uh Um, I think that, uh, it it should be workable. So. Uh, the next, um I. Don’t on our agenda is, um A discussion of the Master plan and the RFQ for, um Uh, The downtown comprehensive plan. So the status of the Master plan. Uh, The Master Plan Steering committee has Leave. One more

meeting to go over to master plan and at that point it should be in its final form with all Um Appendices and, uh Hoping. It will have, uh Final formatting and pictures as well. I hope I hope Have you talked to Sarah at all? Is she on

She’s working. She’s working on it, so we haven’t Um, I’m sorry. My My recollection is unclear. Did we We scheduled a hearing for the the next hearing for the Master Plan steering committee that meetings to be on the 20th of April of April. That was my recollection, boy, but I thought that can’t be.

It’s so late in the day. So April 20th. So. Um it’s such a blessing. Me is that to bless it? Well. I think we need more than one hearing to bless it. I mean it’s a long document. But, yes, The planning board has to bless it and so coming with

incense and candles and I wouldn’t think that that would be the, uh Can’t say that that would be what what’s going to happen? It’s probably gonna be a big sigh of relief from the committee, but, um Yeah. We’ll get a hold of it and take a

look at it and And, uh, The real need of the The master plan is in the implementation, Uh, section, and that’s Couple of pages so Um That’s where we are there, and you thought you were having fun now just wait till you get that implementation. Well. I have to say. That doesn’t cause me

stress. No. Other things that cause stress that doesn’t So, um I think in our We have a nice packet. I What I did with it. Something. You. Consider relocating the train station. No, we can’t. Here we go. So, uh, Who wants to talk about the, uh Not sure it’s downtown.

Plan. Just a brief update. Do that since he attended the bidders meeting. Yeah, thank you. I’ll do that. Um There was an introduction meeting that was offered, uh On the 18th. March. Here and, uh to Really? Requested that all all respondents to RFQ Uh, come here and attendance show up in person. It was not a zoom

meeting. And, um There were four here and I think there were a total of, uh 17 Patrick firms or people who have picked up the packet of information right? Which is the RF 17. Yeah, that’s great. See How. Many respond. Yeah, but the, uh This. This was the the document that went out the RFQ. And, uh, The

next event. I. Just give you a brief rundown. What. The Sequencing is the next Event is to discontinue the 21st to discontinue Questions from the applicants as far as I know, there were no questions. Right there. We’re not I say applicants. I mean, they respondents To that. And, then

the next, um Timeline is the submittal are due on the fourth of April. And, uh, Um, I That’s the day and that come in after that will not be qualified. That’s correct. And then the The review of the RFQ. Will be, Uh, April 89. Two days, which may include interviews with

maybe the top, uh, top couple depending on how many we get, and as far as I know, it’s a Rick will be there. I believe right, Rick on the Reviewing the Yes. I haven’t heard, but, um, I, I’m planning to attend and then Joe and Brian Tim. Awesome, I guess. Well. Maybe even Patrick Patrick will be

there. So, uh, 17 applicants. Well you think about it is is that we have a, uh, a broad applicant pool or interested party pool. But. What’s typical with the breadth of the scope that we have here. Like say. For Instance in Littleton. They had util. They had bro wits,

and they had another company that did the graphics in the mapping, So I know that you know one of the firms that was here represented from a a person. I think she’s from Pittsfield or somewhere out in the western part of the state. They do landscape, architectural design kinds of

things. So, although there were 17 It’s going to take some team work to make for a solid proposal out of a lot of companies. Yeah, and also a lot of these teams will use the same. Um Other disciplines as part of the team. That’s not uncommon that a couple of Landscape architects might be

part of the team. And. They are actually contributing to several Candidates who have their names to To win the project. Um But, I. My guess is there’ll be a A winnowing down of a large if we do get 17 I grade. No God, I. Don’t think

you will? I Don’t think we will if we get two or three on you Pleased? Yeah. It’s. It’s a complicated thing so I would not be surprised if it came down to that, and then then it’ll be interviews but probably not interview more than three. I would imagine whatever the number is, Um It.

It depends on the strength of the po proposals and the qualifications. In the prior work that they’ve, you know, provided communities that are comparable to what you’re seeking, which were small burg. Yeah. Um On those lines. The The Board, you know, except for me. Has not had any kind of input in terms of what kind of

candidates we’re looking for, and I don’t know at some point Whether. It’s the next meeting. You. Wanna spend any time doing that well meeting on the ninth. Talk about what is it that Might be to the type of qualifications that The, um Um That suited, you know for, um I

We. We have qualifications that are part of the RFQ. But they’re there for what’s your experience? Have You done six of these before you know to to rate them in a particular format as very advantageous down to Very advantageous. So it’s a rating system that’s been set up, which I guess is

standard format in Massachusetts, to, uh And, So. You have a criteria, evaluation criteria sentence, and then you have to rate. Uh, use a rating system on that. I would support that discussion with the board. Yeah I. I thought it would be, uh, Because I I mentioned to the committee that, um That.

Maybe if we prepared some kind of document that we could use going into before the discussions into To. See If we can develop some Census about what are the Best qualifications. I mean that It’s um Could be something as simple as five bullet items. It could be very simple Document.

Yes, that would be good for me because I’m, a spokesperson for the For the Planning board at that point And, uh, You know, Knowing what? Um What. This board would support or what the preferences are here would be useful anyway is the Presumption. This is an approved project then to go.

There’s no like milestone budget approval. Process for the For, the for the project. It looks like here. It’s going to town meeting there’s a warned article to appropriate $150,000. OK. That’s a deadline conclusion. But you saying during the course of the in the town meeting is the Six. Sixth 2025 Six. Of April April 25.

That’s the approval of it. That’s the approval of the form based code. Isn’t that what you No? No? No. I’m talking about approval for the project. April 6th. It’s the funding. It’s the funding. I just think that the money’s been authorized for for the project right to to do the No. It’s going to town meeting.

Yeah. A warn article I identified on here. Maybe so. I don’t know if the applicants know it. Or I can find that as a milestone to if they know they’re bidding on something that’s not improved in town for I didn’t realize actually. Um, so and Also, um, we need to determine who’s going to speak.

Um In support of the Or base code form based code. Or an article Mm. And If you said the bids are doing the fourth. So. You’d have some indication on the fourth whether or not 100 50. This is a year long project with a lot of consultants.

That’s not gonna be enough. In a way What $150,000. No way. For, this duration and this amount of work. Yeah. Well. Yeah. That’ll be enough to cover the landscape Architect in my experience those guys cast but Well. I think that’ll be interesting to see during the RFQ process, they may come

back and say well, based on the scope, you know, 700, XY and Z or you’re going to have to reduce the scope. You know the budget meets the scope or the scope meets the budgets, you know, so so they have it not to exceed and what we’re asking

them also is. What. Will their approach. Be with your anybody bring up the size of Yes. We. We did mention that. You know we don’t know that the budget for the project 100 and 50 K. It’s also in the The RQ proposal. Anybody say anything. No, no, no, no. Nobody said anything about the timeline,

either which I thought they would As is the case in the consultant world you get plain in the game, and you illustrate good faith and people understand that. And. I’ll. I’ll be perfectly candid here. The element that takes the most amount of time and hand holding is public input. Public comment.

And managing it. So. You know when you get in that process, you understand that? You know sometimes you have to go back to the well. Yeah. The topic that raised the most questions of the three a project. You. Wanting to, uh Know what? Uh, what the town has committed to

how How, are we going to make a, uh Plan for our downtown. If, in fact, when him to meet its three A is gonna have to create a downtown right next to it. In theory in theory, right? Co ordination Cooper operation Ah, you sound like you work for the

state. My. Biggest concern is with the, um December 31st 2024 deadline for full compliance with the, um Uh, with Section three a And I’ve, uh Looked at the, um Attorney general’s complaint against the town of Melton and, uh, Although Martha Hayer Healy has made some noise about being Co-operative with

towns. Uh, I’m not entirely convinced that that, um That Will be the case so I’m really concerned about that deadline and whether it’s advisable for the town to officially seek a waiver. Um, the full compliance deadline. Uh, I And the nervous about Assuming that Um The Executive Office of housing and

livable communities will pat us on the head. Um, because we’ve Engaged. Um A consultant to do a form based code in the context of three a So. That is my biggest concern and I. I know that you attach some information from Bowler. We haven’t seen its full report. I don’t know if it’s been

transmitted to the, uh Well HOLCN. The. The good thing is that the, uh, the judge, Supreme Court judge. I think that’s what’s gonna hear it SJC in October. On October. Mm. And then right here in the case in October, so they won’t decide it for a couple of months, so Um, we’ll be well into it, but

I think you’re You’re right. We should if this gets approved at town meeting is then Uh, figure out a plan using our, uh, state senator and representative to get a meeting with, uh The Executive Office of housing and livable communities. Um, and demonstrate that we have, you know, and we can He was

thinking about consultant and say, Listen. We’re doing this. Uh, we are not resisting it. But. If we’re gonna do it. We’re gonna do it so that it succeeds when we take it to town meeting in April. And 2025 I. I think that’s absolutely necessary because it’s This strategy is is one that I know

the town manager is is Promulgating I. I know the planning board fully supports the form based code, but I think compliance with Section three. A is a separate Um Problem and others would say opportunity. Uh, And, but I, you know The consultants are being asked to I. I’m not sure

precisely what they’re being asked obviously to do the form based code, but the drafting of an actual three a Overlay district or district as the case may be does require, um Uh, Somewhat now. I don’t know that. So Has a template for Um, a three a district. It’s It’s I

don’t think it would be Hugely difficult. But, then I. I might be being naive. And so you know the questions I have with respect to all of this art. Dimensional. I mean are all of a sudden are we going to see four story buildings in our downtown? Um and and it’s

interesting. So how you in Gloucester? I think most of us are familiar with that? Development. That’s only 200 units. We’re talking 731. So. You wanna do you know what I’m talking about a market basket. Oh, so that’s only a 200 unit. Facility. No, I. Don’t think that that as a practical matter

there’s room in hand Hamilton for 731 units in less the entire residential area. Can. We withdraw from the MBTA. Can. You tear up the railroad tracks and killing. No. We we we just say, Don’t, don’t Don’t stop here! Don’t stop here! Right now we stop. We’ll Stop paying our assessment. The 25 people

that take Train. We have to find other other other ways of getting think. Think of what? What that’s gonna cost us per train ride. Um, I look at it this way. This whole process is a runway. We. We build momentum. We, start the discussion. We Engage, a professional consultant to help guide the discussion, hopefully in a

constructive fashion and engage the public so that they’re aware of what’s coming. The ramification of what’s coming in the defensive mechanism. That we’re taking. To prevent, uh Sort of the overrun of that downtown and in an unseemly fashion. And you’re right. It might be we get to April and there’s no consensus on free a

But. It started a process and maybe it moves to fallow. Meaning? I don’t know, but I know that we need to start somewhere and we need to have a a guided, thoughtful careful. Public discussion and participation process to make sure the people are aware. Educated and share their opinions and guide the process

to the best way we can and if it turns to, um Of, you know crap, then it does. But you know Otherwise. We sit here when they head in the sand and wait until the We get rolled over by the attorney general. Of course. Well, I, I.

I’ll. Just make two points. One. Is that I. I really do think that we need to address this issue head on by reaching out to the Executive Office of housing and livable communities And then, um, I think we need to recognize that the planning board is not entirely in the driver’s seat here while we

support the form based code? We have not, you know received, um, any Orders well, any formal information about what bowler has done and will, um Uh, information as to whether the select board has is on board with this approach or anything like that. So, you know, worst case. You know. Worst case

scenario, um You know I, don’t II. I. Wanna protect the planning board from any potential fallout. Good luck and this Well? Yeah just real quick. The, uh Uh, Senator and representative are meeting with the town manager. And myself. I. Think, Uh, select board member, possibly on April the first To.

Begin that dialogue, uh, to make sure they understand that we need them to represent our interest to make them understand that there’s some time and implications. We, uh, fully understand that we could race out and try to get a Overlay district before the public that More than likely

would not be approved. We have chosen to do it with the benefit of form based zoning, which that’s gonna be as you understand, And you basically say it’s a complicated factor, but it is the factor that we’re convinced is coined to allow people to understand what Downtown can look like

absolutely. And. That’s exactly the the approach that we will advise the state. Uh, that we’re undertaking through. Are. You meeting with Kristen Karch and Who else. Brewster on the £800 gorilla Heroes that Winthrop school site. Right. I mean even with that? We can’t do 731 units, but without it No

but I, I think that we need to pull back from the notion that we’re gonna have to accommodate 730 units because we don’t have land area or land infrastructural ability to accommodate that. It’s going to be a a very rare project that has the ability to meet that level of density. And prior to

that. Lock up enough land area to make it worthwhile. And to make it scalable to Create the kind of development that even comes close to three a density. Which is a guideline too right, which is a guideline and and you know, with the operative part here that I keep saying to

people is that the developers have to spend the money on creating the infrastructure. It’s not the towns And. Part of that is getting enough Land area which are parcels over here are minuscule except for the school. They’re going to have a very I’d say an impossible time to get enough land area to make a development

reasonable. In which Its size of sight that they can A choir. There may be two on Willow Street on the northerly end. If. Someone has the the ability to get both. Of those, but I think it’s really doubtful that we’d ever see any of it occur other than upon the Winthrop School site, which If. We’ve got our

form base on and in place. We know exactly what’s gonna happen. Well. Uh, so anyway, um, we do need to decide from, uh, my, I’m envisioning that Um Member of the Planning Board and a member of the Hamilton Development Corporation will get up on the floor and Take some sort of Oh right. No Short

presentation of what? What is this entail? What does it mean why are we doing this? Right and and so pick that person from the planning board. I think that that person’s obvious, But, um uh Where Patrick disappeared to He ran I. I really think it would be, Uh Useful. In fact, Town meeting

on the sixth. That. Not only could there be a report that the town has met with our state representatives, but they have also the town is also scheduled a meeting with the executive office. Well, I think he’s, you know, just tell told us That’s in process. Well. He’s meeting with Kristen, Kesner and Bruce

to but I I was at a meeting with Kristen. Casner and you, you She basically said, there’s a 2 to 3 month window to get in that at appointment with the executive office of Housing and Communities. And, I thought, Wow. Those people think they’re important. I would just I would change that. But I’d take that

with a grain of sandwich. Well. Whatever. I mean it’s I’m sure that that that that are a lot of communities knocking at their door saying, you know, please. Uh, you know I it help us or, conversely, works to our benefit. I mean if everybody’s going to them and they’re going, we’re swamped with Request II.

I understand? I understand the logic. I just, um uh, you know, there’s always a cautionary tale because it even the best laid plans sometimes, uh, go awry, so blow up on you. Yeah that goes without saying you shouldn’t be in this. You know you can’t be in this, uh, arena without expecting to get kicked

in the Shes or other locations. OK. Let’s move on to, uh I. Think. We’ve covered that, um well, actually, Amo would would you be able to make a few remarks? I mean it it? I don’t think anyone at town meeting is is going to be, um, uh, overly concerned with the downtown plan. I think there are other

matters that are likely to engender significantly more controversy. I know the the people with the citizens. Petitions have a 13 minute video presentation. Um So. So that’s gonna be the big topic here, so I’m. I don’t know where we come in the discussion. Well. Well. Maybe I could talk with you on the phone needs to

be short, succinct to the point and out and out. Oh Patrick what I was saying, Um, was that? Um, if if you could also, uh let Uh, Rick and am will know whether or not, uh, Our representatives have been able to schedule a meeting with the executive office. I think that

might be helpful, Um, to know you know, or what their efforts are. I mean. I remember the last meeting with Kristen Kasner? I don’t know if at that time she did reach out to them, she might have gotten a meeting. Uh, with him. Had? She asked What because of their 2 to 3

month window. But II. I actually think that that would be advisable and and they may be being more flexible because obviously it’s unclear which way um the SS JC might roll it strictly, uh, one of statutory interpretation and I have to say that My review of the statute versus the guidelines.

Um There. They are they’re definitely legal issues that can be raised because the statutory language is really quite Honey ambiguous, but the guidelines by providing for districts all over the place, um are are entirely different. So what if one read the statute? You would never imagine that you could have a district that,

for example, in the East side of Milton and also on the west side of Milton, so there there are pro potential problems there, and, uh, but, uh, we we won’t, uh Oh, Discuss it anymore, But if anybody is interested in the complaint, um I have it. The article for the Comprehensive plan for town

vote is for 100 and $25,000. Right budgets are working. H DC is kicking in 25, is it I think under the circumstances, Pat, we’re going to defer talking about storm water management regulations. I don’t believe Alex is here anyway, I. I hoped he would have excused himself

by now. I think we’re going to have to devote virtually an entire meeting to the regulations and pore through them? Uh, really, um You know. Look at them very closely, and we can’t do that. In 20 minutes. It just it’s too ambitious. So. Uh um other than that, I I know, Patrick, you attach some

minutes. Um, I. Probably. No one has a had a chance to read them. I know I sent you the April 4th minutes today. On a vote on I’m not thinking that, uh It would be the best idea. I know I reviewed the April 4th. 2023 minutes. Um I. Don’t believe I have reviewed the

November 20. 1st 2023 minutes. Are the December 5th. A minute. I. I have reviewed the October 17th. And the December 5th minutes. No Sorry the April 4th 2023 in October 17th 2023 minutes. But. I have not reviewed November, 21st. So. I make a motion that we Accept the October 7th 2023 meeting.

Minutes and the April 4th 2023 minutes. 17. It’s not April April 4th 2023 and October 17th 2023 minutes. Second Um When. I, Call Your name. Uh please indicate whether you Uh, ascent. Pat Norton. Jonathan. Poor Jonathan. Poor. I Uh, Bill Wheaton. Bill Wheaton I Alquist Beth Hur. I Rick Mitchell,

Marty Crouch. Hi. Um I’m. I’m working on minutes. Just so you know. Um And so we’ll see. You about these others? What’s the at Some Myron Myron Walters. I don’t really care about I Just, 500 or 1000. Yes. OK? So. Um, we’ll We’ll, uh, add the, uh minutes from 1121 23 12 5 23.

1219 23 to our next Meeting on April 9th. Along with any other. Minutes. It, like, come our way. I got a raft of them. Hosted with the clerk today. I sent you, I. Think 15 or more. Several, Yeah. Yeah. And. Corinne loves you for that. We have some plans. Uh Once.

We conclude. We. I. Wanna Make Sure people don’t forget we need some signatures. Mhm. Are. These the new R A and RS. Yes, sir. Um If Another question if we are, uh, not meeting on the second But meeting on the ninth. When, would we do the following meeting? Of the same 30th.

I’m the 30th. So, yeah, the ninth and the 30th. And. That makes more sense. I it It was just an oversight on everyone’s part to schedule the second. Um Rather than the ninth. I don’t know what the logic was because I don’t see any holidays or anything on the ninth, so Um, Anyhow. We corrected that and I

think that’ll give us a lot more time to to get our ducks in order on the, uh Athletic fields, Um, with respect to that latest bowler iteration, Patrick. I noticed that, um That, um He. Well. He is the firm is proposing 49.8 acres and 756 unit capacity. In the materials you sent Is that now

cast in concrete. It is not It is not in and in fact as our Consultant gets hired. I fully anticipate they’re going to re evaluate. The placement. That bowler has I directed them to do And. That’s part of the reason why we’re higher in this new set of consultants to do the forum based slash three a

work is to make sure that we’re all Coptic with, uh what the three A district should be, um the reason why I chose. This is it keeps the density where our density now is. And, Uh, I felt like that was gonna be more attainable. Rather than Placing it elsewhere. Like a Gordon Conwell. Uh, so Yeah.

That’s why I I Had them consolidate the district of what they had done earlier is push it out. All the way to Union Street and, uh, this only goes about half that distance. Right? But. The. Uh, the three a district and the town center. Area. Where, the form based code would be proposed are not identical.

That’s correct. Hm? OK? Well. I think we’ve exhausted one another. I know. I Ready to Call. Call it a day. Uh, so, um Absent any further board, business or discussion. There’s only one thing left to do. Motion to adjourn. Pat Morton. Uh, Jonathan for Jonathan. Poor I waiting Bill waiting. I am O

Dost Beth her a Rick Mitchell.