Bethel Planning Board finds Mechanic Street application complete

[0:00] Chair (presiding officer): 23rd at 6 p.m. We do have a quorum for tonight and I guess let's start with the approval of minutes from the regular meeting on September 9th. [Speaker B (unidentified): I had] one comment for the action on application, I think, sorry, there was a note here, we tabled the site plan amendment until the next planning board meeting, yeah, that's fine. I wondered if it should say something related to why, like we typically do, but no, you're Yeah. Okay. I'll leave it to you. Any no discussion? [1:20] Speaker C (unidentified): So you want to... Where is it? [1:23] Chair (presiding officer): Where are you looking? So we usually have like a reason. So it says... If you look at the... [1:29] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay. Do you want to say like per the previously... [1:32] Speaker D (unidentified): If you look at the rest of the answer... [1:34] Chair (presiding officer): Because I'm a... Look at the rest of the answer one. It doesn't have this reason in it. Okay. And I think it should state that for the record. Oh, great. Just in case it does. I think that makes sense. Okay. I think that makes sense. [1:44] Speaker C (unidentified): think I had just thought yeah I think when I read it through I was like okay we did the discussion [1:50] Chair (presiding officer): does that make sense yep are you guys okay with that yeah just so that it's consistent any other discussion in favor oh [2:06] Speaker E (unidentified): no I refuse to need it do [2:16] Chair (presiding officer): we have any additional communications to read into the record we have one [2:25] Wade Bethel (public commenter): IT IS A LETTER FROM BETH REGARDING THE OPPOSITION. I [2:46] Public commenter (Wakanda Street resident): WILL COPY THAT, PLEASE. HERE YOU ARE. [2:55] Speaker H (unidentified): I HAVE ONE EXECUTIVE. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? [7:45] Speaker E (unidentified): PROCEDURALLY TO THE BOARD, WHETHER IT'S AN AMENDMENT OR WHETHER IT'S A SAFE PLAN REVIEW, We're going over the same findings and facts and we're looking at the same performance standards, so there is no lesser analysis from the board either way we look at this application. And I just want to put that up there right now. [8:30] Chair (presiding officer): Okay, fantastic. Just a couple of notes for the board based on, before we start with that a bit, based ON THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED, I WANTED TO MAKE A NOTE ON RECORD. SINCE SEPTEMBER 9TH, THE BOARD HAS RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT DATED SEPTEMBER 10TH, A REPLY FROM THE ABUTTER DATED SEPTEMBER 10TH, AN EMAIL FROM THE ABUTTER'S REPRESENTATIVE, ALSO FROM THE SAME DATE, AN EMAIL FROM A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD DATED SEPTEMBER 11TH, A WRITTEN OPINION FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY DATED SEPTEMBER 16TH, AND ALL OF THAT IS AVAILABLE tonight's packet. One of these emails raises a question about ex parte communication. The rule as I understand it, there's a concern behind the rule that basically a decision-maker hearing one side would only have that communication, or it would be held in privacy or privately, where either side wouldn't necessarily know what was in that. That's the intention for ex parte, the rule for ex parte communication, all the bits on the record, so there is no concern about ex parte communication as written in the letter. I just wanted to address that to the board, didn't have to address that again. So I guess with that said, if we [9:58] Speaker C (unidentified): jump into the session, we are, yes. [10:21] Chair (presiding officer): No, do we have to vote on that? It's not a vote. You just recuse yourself and sit in the audience. Okay. Per our standard last week, just to go over, I know we've received some new communications. Is there anything additional that you would like to share related to that communication? [10:51] Beth Weisberger (public commenter): No, but I guess I don't know what the abutter is here to say, so I'm going to, like, I have a lot to say. Yeah, I know, but when I like do I yeah, I feel weird, like it seems strange. We start with you [11:03] Chair (presiding officer): We would love to hear from you first. Yeah, I'm making assumptions [11:15] Beth Weisberger (public commenter): Good evening, my name is Beth Weisberger. I'm the owner of nice place and co-owner of the jam and place to see a folding company. Over the last five years, We've helped local businesses open or expand in Bethel, including Gemini Cafe and now community sports. I'm also a member of the SAV 44 school board, so I understand what it means to show up for this community in a volunteer board capacity, and I genuinely appreciate that you all choose to do so too. So we've submitted two documents tonight that you've already read into the record. So one is the formal grievance date of September 10th regarding the board's decision to table consideration of our project last meeting, which I believe was as a deferment to the objection of a single abutter rather than the proper use of the board's independent discretion. The board disregarded the advice of legal counsel, staff, and its own routine practices. The second is a statement dated today explaining why a site plan amendment is the only correct process under Chapter 140, and I don't need to repeat the specific arguments that are in the documents, but I want them to be on the record in case this appeal becomes necessary. I'd like to make public comment more about my experience and observations. So we came here a month ago to ask to be exempt from applicability so that community sports could quickly relocate with no disruption to their business and revenue. This isn't a theoretical issue. Real business has real inventory, customers, and an owner who takes a risk to do business here in this town. Even though time mechanic Street has an approved site plan and we were making no changes that affect performance standards. We were denied. So the next meeting that shows not to make a public comment trusting that the clear support of the legal counsel and in this board to follow its own regular procedures and the law. As a reminder the application was placed on the agenda by your staff, experienced professionals who review our materials and determined that we were prepared to move forward. When the board deferred to the abutters objection it sent an unintentional message that a neighbor's request outweighs the judgment. Of the professionals who work here. Emma and Courtney are welcoming, knowledgeable, experienced and they would be hard to replace. We are lucky to have them. Finding new scale municipal employees in a rural region is not easy and it takes years to build the institutional knowledge of the planning process and this matters especially now when there's recent board turnover. Undermining this trust by signaling that a neighbor can veto a staff determination has real cost to this community. So tonight we're back proposing no changes to an already approved site plan. We are merely indicating with ample parking for the demands of the space even argue there's a less of an impact because we use sporting goods or unlike Napa does not sell petroleum products. So considering there's no changes and therefore no effects on performance standards what exactly is there to review tonight. This begs a bigger question of what's the purpose of planning board according to MMA to support orderly. Development. Since ordinances can't anticipate every situation this planning board exists, you apply judgment when the rules don't give a clear answer. It does not mean deferring to the loudest voice in the room or defaulting to delays out of caution. Discretion is not optional. It's why you're sitting here instead of using a checklist or just allowing a single arbiter to handle this process. So I understand our butter and or his representative are objecting again, and this time claiming we need a full site plan review rather than an amendment, which does cost money to businesses. So if there is a difference regardless of the process that it does for you, I have friends and fellow business owners who told me, and they've had their own problems with planning boards. They said just do the full review so it removes any objection, and I want to be really clear, I fundamentally object to any encouragement that a business should do more or pay more than the law requires. That was time, money, and staff capacity. It punishes the people who are working hard to create year-round economic fatality here, it rewards obstruction, and it discourages new development. So further, furthermore, I shouldn't have to spend weeks reading municipal ordinances to help open a used sporting goods store in a building that's already been approved for commercial retail. I should not have to draft legal arguments to counter a neighbor's procedural objections. I'm a business owner in a community number, not a municipal attorney. The fact that I had to temporarily become one is a problem. This is exactly what it means when people joke that Bethel is not open for business. So lastly, I understand the board must remain neutral and objective in evaluating applications, but there's a difference between procedural neutrality and being professionally unwelcoming to applicants. The board can be fair without being cold. The board can be rigorous without being discouraging. Folks that come before you are trying to add housing, jobs, and services to Bethel. This is hard work. The current planning process treats applicants as obstacles and nuisances to be managed, rather than neighbors trying to build year-round economic opportunity for this community, and I'd like to see a board as a partner to this work and not a barrier to it. So tonight, according to chapter 140, an amended site plan review should happen. We ask that you follow the advice legal counsel, your own staff, and finally review this project. I end by asking the board to do four more things and to meet the objective of supporting orderly development and remove the artificial barriers to business owners. First, have the town attorney explain to the board the distinction between bylaws and ordinances and when the board has and should use discretion to proceed. Clarify when waivers are required. Second, have a workshop to determine the purpose and goals of this planning board. It looks like MMA can have free training to help with this. Third, the one I feel strongest, request an update to chapter 143D to explicitly exempt, quote, a resumption of use that does not affect the performance standards. And fourth, publish a current version of your rules of procedure. The only copy available was from 2010. Maya Butter, or his representative, apparently was savvy enough to know to privately request these updated rules. And then he used these rules to achieve his desired agenda [Speaker H (unidentified): to obstruct us.] I believe that rule was a failure of due process. And if such rules are going to govern how applications are handled, then the public deserves to know what they actually say. Thank you. Thank you. [17:34] Sarah Southam (public commenter): As you know, Mike came in front of this board to speak multiple times. I think it was eight times on behalf of this project of Emma Jo's. Dear town of Bethel planning board members, I respect the planning board's responsibility to protect public safety, to enforce ordinances, support responsible development, and preserve Bethel's character. Projects should not receive automatic approval, but every applicant deserves a fair, objective, predictable, and timely process. The Board's role is to determine whether a project complies with the ordinance and creates legitimate impacts on public safety, neighboring properties, infrastructure, or the community. Its role is not to second-guess an owner's business decisions, operational choices, or financial risk when those matters do not affect the town and are not governed by the ordinance. Those risks belong to the owner, not the planning board. Our experience bringing Aroma Joes to Bethel did not reflect that balance. The project required eight planning board meetings before approval, while similar projects in other communities commonly required only one or two. We obtained state approvals, completed professional traffic studies, hired engineers and other experts, and repeatedly supplied their request of information. Yet many of the same concerns continued to be raised. At times, it appeared that certain numbers had formed opinions about Aroma Joes or the project before the process was complete. Whether intentional or not, this created the perception that the application was not being judged solely on its merits. Safety became a broad, catch-all objection even after qualified professionals address the specific traffic and safety concerns. If the board rejects professional findings, they should identify the contrary evidence and the specific ordinance standards supporting that decision. Continuing to revisit settled concerns without a clear ordinance-based reason creates moving targets and makes approval feel dependent on personal preference rather than objective standards. The financial impact was substantial. We spent nearly $100,000 on engineering, permitting, professional fees, studies, and other approval-related expenses. That does not include the damage caused by delayed construction, hiring, opening, and revenue generation. Bethel also pays professional staff to guide applicants and help administer its ordinances. Their expertise should carry meaningful weight. Applicants should not receive one direction from town staff only to encounter a different or expanding set of expectations from the board. I feel the board should value the opinions of these higher professionals that work in this field every day more than their peers they do at times. I raise these concerns because I care about Bethel and support business owners who are willing to invest here. New businesses create jobs, expand the tax base, provide services, and strengthen our community. Entrepreneurs should not feel like the children standing before principal or taxpayers facing an audit. They should feel that the town is protecting the public while working constructively toward a decision. The goal should be partnership without favoritism, accountability without hostility, and thoroughness without unnecessary delay. Clear written requirements, consistent standards, respect for qualified professional evidence and firm decision timelines would benefit the board, town staff, applicants, and the entire community. Bethel is a wonderful place to live, work, and build a business. Its planning process should reflect the same welcoming spirit. Best, Michael Pelletier. [21:55] Wade Bethel (public commenter): Thank you. Do you mind reading your name in for the record too, please? My name is Wade Bethel. [22:03] Chair (presiding officer): Anything else that you guys would like to share? No, thank you. I'm listening, thank you very much. Anyone from the audience have anything they would like to share before we start? To state your name for the record, please. My name is Scott Cole. I'm [22:17] Public commenter (Wakanda Street resident): representing the butter mark Agenberg who lives at 6 Wakanda Street. I happen to live down the street at 32 Wakanda Street. I have nothing in writing, but I'll simply read my remarks and leave it at that. I don't think it'll be too long, but thank you for the time. Let's start now. I'll reiterate position of the abutter that he is not trying to pray expects town officials to follow the town law which are called ordinances. He's not necessarily opposed anything contemplated for 10 Mechanic because he's actually seen anything, nothing's been submitted. As you know, he, his position is that the applicability section of the ordinance 143 kicks in here. It's because the all the whatever uses were approved in the 1994 Napa site plan approval three two years ago, whatever was approved, they are called retail. It was actually auto parts and auto supplies, all those things that ended up 24 years ago. Now they moved up to Bayville Road route to four years ago, so that one-year clause kicks in. It's just making believe it doesn't exist. It just doesn't pass a straight face test. Again, that's the town ordinance, that's what the townspeople adopted, this is what they were wanted. Actually, the one-year thing, that's not the end of that. The town attorneys legal opinions to date have been indefinite and equivocal. They are several board members said that last week, they were vague and moved around. Town attorney has issued a more recent opinion that seems to differ a little bit from the earlier stuff, but that's fine Ms. Costigan is citing parts of section 140-6 that specifically talked about two-year rule for substantial start she 's misinterpreting that section because that purpose of that is if approval is granted by the planning board and then the applicant fails to achieve substantive start then the approval expires that's actually a good example that right now is in Bethel station where the condominium project 38 unit whatever it's called I forget it's it had to come back to the planning board because They had the two-year approval that was granted expired. That's that's what she was talking about. She leapfrog her opinion leapfrogs into this idea that Napa was approved. Yes, it was approved, it was built out and operated for several decades, then it shut down, it moved and moved to Mabel Road. Giving the attorney the benefit of the doubt that if her opinion is accurate, you know, the next question that follows is Ford is contemplating amending that site plan approved. Why aren't, why haven't you talked about it, why haven't it been included in your materials? You're effectively, if you follow the line of reasoning that the applicant is on, you're amending something that you're not even looking at. The reason you at least look at what [25:30] Speaker E (unidentified): is being, I object to this. I think this is to say that we haven't looked at a [25:39] Speaker K (unidentified): review all the materials again. I'm just asking he's allowed to finish. But he's making defamatory remarks about this agreement characterization, but fair [25:56] Public commenter (Wakanda Street resident): enough, noted. The attorney isn't determining, right, we'll move on. The just say to the best of my knowledge I've looked at all the materials that have been provided to the planning board, they're all public record. I have not seen the Napa approval, the 1994, I have not seen that in the materials that you have been considering as testimony. Quote what you want so also, if I heard it right, actually, Eggeberg, if you heard it right on the tape, that the applicant mentioned something about a second business in the current building, that is all the more reason to have such a review, because there were not two businesses in the Napa during the days of the Napa. So the last thing I'll say then, and move on to comment all, is that if the one-year use ending clause in 140 that's three if it doesn't apply here I'd ask you where does it apply. Okay, that's just one question for thought, and then the final comment is the planning board actually went to the select persons in 94 or open where I'm at 24 20 and if we're 24 a year and a half, a year and a half ago or more, and asked the select persons to put the one-year amendment on the war and it was voted in by the voters in 2025. So why they do that, why did the board do that, the members of Chinese, but why did the board do that if it's not being applied here? So thank you all for your consideration. I represent miss Regenberg. I know he retained an attorney today, he'll take it to appeal if need be, he feels that his, he feels strongly about the laws being [27:38] Chair (presiding officer): Followed, thank you. Madam Chair, thank you. Any other comments from the audience? Comments from the board? Here, I'm just here because I'm a friend of Haley's and [27:57] Speaker H (unidentified): I just want to put things in perspective, that this is a real human being who is lively, but is being put at stake by the whims and personality quirks of someone who's not even here, who doesn't even live here as far as I understand, who's function is apparently to, whose purpose is to put to test the board and your ability to follow the law, which is not the question here. If he wants to litigate that or to challenge you to follow the law or to put better procedures in place and make things less fake that is a different forum, and the fact that he's putting someone's livelihood at stake for his own pleasure, entertainment, or whatever cork it is, so completely unfair to this person, to the owners of the property, but particularly to this individual who has been a valuable member of this community and who, like I said, whose livelihood depends on being able to continue to operate her business, and so that's all I have to say. [29:00] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you for your statement. Are there any other statements from anyone in the audience? [29:05] Sarah Southam (public commenter): I'm Sarah Southam, and I'm a, and I was here [29:09] Speaker H (unidentified): last time, too. I just want to express my support of the project. Great, thank you. [29:13] Chair (presiding officer): Anyone else before we close from audience comments? OK, fantastic. We'll close audience comments, and we can move into the review and discussion for this project. [29:30] Speaker E (unidentified): All right. Can I start? [29:35] Chair (presiding officer): We should start with whether or not the application is complete as per our typical.. [29:43] Speaker E (unidentified): So we are reviewing it today? [29:47] Chair (presiding officer): Yes, that's on the agenda. That's the intention, yes. I was not at the, again, I'll remind everybody, but it was not at the meeting where we decided to require a site plan view, so it's on the agenda [30:06] Speaker E (unidentified): yep and i want to add a point of clarification on that i went back i looked at the meeting we were asked by staff whether or not we wanted legal counsel legal guidance as to amendment or full review we've gotten that legal guidance thank you very much the legal guidance says Because once a project is completed in a timely manner, the site plan remains in effect. I'm trusting our staff has reviewed that 1990-whatever site plan review. They're professionals. They've done this plenty of times. And then it goes on to say that the, oh, the change in use after not being used for a year, which I voted against, but that triggers this process, that triggers the amendment. It doesn't trigger a full site plan review, it triggers an actual review, which in this case I'm trying to find the specific spot, because the property already has an existing site plan. Any proposal to make changes to the property would be considered an amendment or modification to the existing plan. I'm pretty sure that's how it went to the Union House up on Mayville. I'm pretty sure that's how it went with tons of other projects that we've reviewed. So that's going to be what we do here today, and I'm really excited to hear this on the merits and actually review the performance standards, because we've been sitting on this for a while now. So can't wait to get started. Wonderful. I would just like to call out as the [31:45] Chair (presiding officer): chair a couple of points of clarification. Any one of the board members is able to go and look at previous records, they're available to us, right? Yeah, so anybody at any time can review any of the public records, just as a point for your statement, so not just the town office, but we [32:06] Speaker E (unidentified): all have that ability as well, right? And I'm going to trust our staff who says they've seen it. [32:12] Speaker C (unidentified): So sorry, yes, good question. Well, I would just add to what Travis said and say in the absence of every one of us going, that is the job of our staff, and that's what they do, and that's what their professionals at, and so I think it's important to be thinking about that. I would also add to Travis's point that we do the same thing for the site plan review with Alden and [32:35] Chair (presiding officer): info in the local market. Okay, jumping into the finding a fact or, yes, I [32:52] Speaker D (unidentified): was doing the MA manual and there is a section here that I think it's probably apt for us now in the future. The title is prior mistakes by the board, and the section says that the fact that a board or its predecessor made mistakes in the issuance of a permit or the interpretation of an ordinance does not have legally binding precedent setting value. I read that, it was of interest to me, so I think it might be of interest to you. What does it say about rules and [33:35] Chair (presiding officer): Procedure I could not find. The rules of procedure is governs how we manage our own agenda and how we conduct the meeting, but it is not part of chapter 140. It is not jurisdictional limit, and it is not basically about a protection about our rights come specifically from the ordinance. Notice was given as per the ordinance based on the record that we had before, and the town attorney's September 16th letter confirms that the board could have proceeded and that the board would ordinarily waive the Deadline as stated by our town office staff. What an application is straightforward and the staff is prepared to support it, so that's just a note there based on additional research, and I think it coincides with what the attorney said. Statement, yeah. [34:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Question? I have worked on this, but can you... Oh, go ahead, I'm done. No,, no, I think this is only relevant to the next agenda item. Not to this application. Oh, got it, yeah. [34:48] Chair (presiding officer): Okay, so I would entertain a motion to consider the application complete. [34:56] Speaker D (unidentified): Motion to find standing. Second? [35:31] Chair (presiding officer): Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? None. Fantastic. The application has been found complete. [35:46] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't know if you want to make it two separate, but I think I'll make the motion. I move that we issue a waiver for financial capacity. Largely on the grounds that it's a de-impact to say, kind of, disseminate that information. I don't even suspect it would take that much financial capacity for the project, but regardless of whether it's completed or not, you know, again, it will impact the site planning process and the implications of it. [36:20] Chair (presiding officer): So, just to clarify, you're making a motion that we waive, add a waiver for financial capacity. That's correct. Do you agree with that, Emma? Do we have a second before we discuss? [36:32] Speaker E (unidentified): Point of clarification for the requirement of plans through the chair to staff is this just using the 1994 plan in essence because there's not it's [36:45] Speaker B (unidentified): A change of use right because I haven't like the only thing we ruled I believe [37:07] Chair (presiding officer): To so does [37:15] Speaker E (unidentified): That answer question so we're basically just reviewing the performance standards every other part of the amendment okay so those requirements would thereby be accepted through that earlier site plan. [37:36] Speaker D (unidentified): Anything that's not changing for the presented project description? [37:42] Chair (presiding officer): Would remain, yeah. That's how we handled previous applications. Okay. [37:46] Speaker E (unidentified): Make sense? Just being as thorough as I can be. Yeah, no, good. I'm glad you are. [37:51] Chair (presiding officer): So we have one waiver. Did we vote on that? We did? Not? Any further discussion about the waiver? All those in favor? Okay. Great. It's unanimous. Do we find the application complete? [38:07] Wade Bethel (public commenter): Do we want to go through the findings? [38:09] Speaker C (unidentified): I haven't been going through the findings at that time. No. [38:11] Chair (presiding officer): We've been doing the application. [38:13] Speaker E (unidentified): Oh, you made the waiver first? Yeah. [38:15] Speaker C (unidentified): We did, yeah. Okay. And did we add anything else? We can add more. [38:19] Chair (presiding officer): I think there's one other waiver I was going to recommend. [38:21] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay. Most of them find the application complete. Yeah. [38:32] Speaker B (unidentified): Second, there's not very many changes going on, so I think it's a performance [38:45] Speaker E (unidentified): standards. Once we start reviewing them, we'll see that a lot of them are met because they're not changing or they're not applicable because they're actually [38:52] Chair (presiding officer): We can waive if we get to one when we get there, and we've done that in the past. Any further discussion about the application being found complete? Okay. All those in favor? Great. We're going to do this the way we typically do this, folks. So we start on the first page, and we will review each of the performance standards through that page if you guys want to follow along. So I'll call out the page and the performance standards that we're reviewing on that page, and if we have a point of discussion, we can ask for clarification as we typically do. Is that good? Yes. Okay. Starting on page 1A, 1 through 1E, any discussion or changes? No. All right. Starting on page 1, number 2, sufficient water going through 7, municipal solid waste disposal on page two, any changes or questions? [39:55] Wade Bethel (public commenter): I'd [40:00] Speaker C (unidentified): like to concur with the [40:13] Speaker E (unidentified): reasoning on point five, the traffic will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion. That's not to mean that it won't be a change from what's there now. There will [40:26] Speaker K (unidentified): definitely be more traffic, but it won't be unreasonable, and I guess with that I just want to [40:32] Speaker C (unidentified): with that one in particular, we don't expect it to, per the project description, we don't expect that it will be different relative to what it was approved for before, and so does that need to be [40:48] Speaker E (unidentified): like more clear in the? No, my understanding is that community sports didn't break Main Street, so it's not going to break Mechanic Street. That's just like my understanding of traffic flows. No changes being proposed, no changes that I'm just thinking of. The Mark Pelletier starting [41:14] Chair (presiding officer): Starting on page 2-8, aesthetics, cultural, and natural values going through page 3-14, freshwater wetlands. Hold on. [41:27] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, so for 10, we would say met due to waiver. [41:35] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, and they have the same results in terms of, but we would change the reason. [41:43] Chair (presiding officer): To be okay. [Speaker C (unidentified): So any other] changes starting on page four fourteen one? [42:30] Speaker L (unidentified): So, have we granted a waiver? Wait, what? [42:34] Chair (presiding officer): I don't see that on the stormwater. [42:41] Speaker E (unidentified): That's one that I've issued a waiver for in the past. I'll make a motion to issue a waiver in the present. Okay. Perfect. Second? [42:54] Wade Bethel (public commenter): What is on your? Second. Second. Okay. Okay, thank you. [43:04] Chair (presiding officer): I do. It doesn't matter because I know what I'm just reading the ordinances. Any discussion about the waiver? All those in favor? Aye. That was unanimous. Anything else on page 4? Starting with page 420, land subject to liquidation harvesting going through 12A for vehicular access. Any changes to the moving on to page 6 12b? So we're still on for vehicular access on 12 feet going through 17 landscaping and screening. Any changes? We can discuss whether we add an a or not requiring additional improvements to 13 or [Speaker C (unidentified): yeah] are you guys good with the reason or not recommending additional improvements? Any other changes on this page? Did you get that starting on page 16, I'm sorry, six for 18, relationship of proposed buildings to the environment, going through 19, parking and circulation C. [45:12] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes, so on parking, it says required off-street parking, the reason is no off-street parking, but that is not accurate, because there is off-street parking. [45:31] Speaker D (unidentified): I think it's like when [45:38] Speaker E (unidentified): they don't have enough on-site and then they use off-street parking [45:43] Speaker K (unidentified): at another parcel. Okay, no off-site off-street parking, no off-site parking would probably [45:54] Speaker E (unidentified): cover the bill if we could, if that could be what we use going forward, maybe. No off-site. [46:07] Speaker D (unidentified): You want to change the reason. Yeah. [46:09] Chair (presiding officer): Got it. Yes. To say no off-site. [46:12] Speaker K (unidentified): No off-site parking. [46:14] Speaker D (unidentified): I would just, yeah, I would just say sufficient parking provided by. [46:19] Chair (presiding officer): I would refer that. Great. [46:21] Speaker E (unidentified): Sufficient on-site parking provided by the law. [46:25] Chair (presiding officer): Proficient parking provided. Because it does say, yeah, it does refer to off-street parking for lots and. Yeah. [46:34] Speaker E (unidentified): to that I've gotten confused by that in the past too works [46:42] Chair (presiding officer): great for me any of [46:53] Speaker E (unidentified): those work for me because it then it doesn't run up against the fact that [46:57] Speaker K (unidentified): somebody looks at it and they're like wait there's all street that's exactly [47:00] Chair (presiding officer): It I have a quick question actually that I missed I took a note can we I know this is an experiment but can we jump back to 17 just so I can clarify something you can say no we can move on in 17 no new buildings being proposed got it there will be no soil disturbance or tree removal however in the description it does say that they're going to regrade and fill the parking lot and then reopen which would indicate some soil So I think we should just update the reason to show that was considered Because that was considered in my opinion. Does that make sense? I [47:50] Speaker D (unidentified): don't know what that would be. I think the reason is the existing asphalt that's there is not going to be enlarged or enlarged is the key here. Can we say as far as I understand there's no tree removal. There's no vegetation changes [48:51] Chair (presiding officer): That's what I want to work. So no new buildings being proposed and then scratch therefore no soil disturbance Say no new no vegetation or tree. No vegetation disturbance or tree removal something like that. Does that make sense? [49:04] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm even thinking that we just issue a waiver because [49:09] Speaker B (unidentified): It's an amendment. I [49:13] Speaker D (unidentified): think we should You're free to make the motion [49:32] Wade Bethel (public commenter): I would just [49:36] Chair (presiding officer): suggest that we say no new buildings being proposed and no disturbance to existing vegetation or tree removal, no off-street parking to be screened. And we're basically just scratching, therefore there will be no soil disturbance because there could be and that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the vegetation is disturbed. Does that make sense? [50:08] Speaker E (unidentified): Are you guys going to put flowers and stuff around there? [50:10] Sarah Southam (public commenter): Do any of you know the history of that parking lot? I do not, no. Has anybody ever driven through that parking lot? [50:17] Chair (presiding officer): I have, yes. It's awful. [50:19] Sarah Southam (public commenter): There are two-foot-deep puddles in the back where, if you look at it, there's a line of trees on the right-hand side of the property, and the entire parking lot is a bridge line. So it's just kind of scooped out. So we added some fill already last year to make it passable, you know, we'd like to make it actually usable. [50:44] Chair (presiding officer): Right. I think the spirit of the intent is just so that we're saying we understand you will be disturbing the soil, but you're not impacting anything around it or any, that's all. [50:54] Sarah Southam (public commenter): If the intent is to mitigate stormwater runoff, Sarah and Peter would be the only people to see that, and I feel like I'm happy to work with them to remediate any stormwater runoff that happens over the course of our work. [51:15] Chair (presiding officer): Okay, back to the board. Sorry, are you guys okay? Yes, so I proposed scratching therefore there will be no soil disturbance, so it'll say no new buildings being proposed, no minimization of, oh let's see, I just lost it, do you [51:42] Wade Bethel (public commenter): Can [51:45] Speaker E (unidentified): we strike no off-street parking to be screened for similar reasons to prior performance [51:54] Chair (presiding officer): standards? Yeah, that's probably a good point, too, so we're going to stop it, too, and we'll have [52:00] Speaker E (unidentified): a look at it. Because I think that covers it. Are you good about it? Yeah. And then, however, you guys want to soften the landscape. I'm sure it is all sorts of flowers to throw down. [52:12] Chair (presiding officer): All right. Thank you guys for letting me jump back. Back to page seven. [52:15] Speaker C (unidentified): That was on my note as well. [52:21] Chair (presiding officer): We talked about sufficient parking provided by a lot for 19. Anything else on page seven? BEFORE WE MOVE TO PAGE EIGHT. [52:32] Speaker C (unidentified): OKAY, I WANT TO CHANGE C. YEP, THANK YOU. FOR THE SAME REASON THAT WE JUST CHANGED THE OTHER ONE. [52:38] Chair (presiding officer): PLEASE RECOMMEND NEW LANGUAGE. CAN WE JUST SAY THE USE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION? YES. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? DID YOU PENCIL THAT, EMMA? OKAY. PAGE EIGHT, STARTING WITH 20 SPECIAL FEATURES of the development going through 24 noise 24b any changes to this page [53:20] Speaker E (unidentified): for 22 if i recall from listening in the meeting there's no permitting or what was the fire we got a letter from the [53:31] Speaker L (unidentified): fire chief on yeah there was an email from the fire marshal welcome that's different from the fire chief right correct there is a letter from the fire chief you're referencing the fire marshal requirements yes yeah there's an email from fire marshal saying that we don't need permitting [53:48] Speaker E (unidentified): through them okay and that's still fine reasoning whatever comes down they will appear too anything [53:55] Chair (presiding officer): else on this page moving into page nine starting with 25 odors going through 26 fire chief page [54:12] Speaker C (unidentified): Sorry, I'm just like, so for 25 odors, I do not expect any odors. So based on what we have in front of us, the MET will not produce an MET for the mental odors. For 24A, can we move it to MET? I just, again, feel like our... [54:36] Chair (presiding officer): Instead of NA, just change it to MET? Yeah. I don't know. That's fine. Sure. All right, starting with, sorry, did anyone else have any changes to 25 or 26 before we start with special regulations? 147, special regulations on page 9, starting with number 1, going through 1, all the way through 2, trash. Any changes? Nope. Okay. Okay, starting on page 9 with setback requirements for number 3, going through 7 for utilities. Any changes? We're going to keep going. Page 10, 8, groundwater protection through 8B. Any changes? [56:01] Speaker D (unidentified): Maybe minor, but I think we want to move B to MET, given that this represents a change in the existing site plan. With NAPA? Yeah. Sure. Or, I don't know, or say that. To that extent. I just want to note that it's a change. What are you saying? Sorry. [56:34] Chair (presiding officer): So. Oh, B changing. Yeah. [56:36] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, we could change the reason and say petroleum products no longer handled on site or something like that, because then that way there we're still keeping somewhat consistent with if the standard isn't there, we're just marking it. [57:03] Speaker B (unidentified): Just because it's not even there. [57:34] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I just want to be clear that the findings of the packet is not really the same as the recycling review. [57:45] Chair (presiding officer): Correct. It is the same. Chapter 148, pleasure. [57:49] Speaker D (unidentified): The review is the same. Yes. [57:50] Speaker E (unidentified): I reviewed all of the material in the packet. Yes. Okay. [57:57] Speaker D (unidentified): I'll move to the findings of the packet complete. [58:02] Chair (presiding officer): Second. Any further discussion? I don't think it matters. Should I date it, too? [58:56] Speaker D (unidentified): Yes, please. Oh yeah, sorry. [59:11] Chair (presiding officer): There's no pause when if someone appeals. [59:14] Beth Weisberger (public commenter): If the abutter appeals it, doesn't actually pause. [59:16] Speaker D (unidentified): This is not my. [59:18] Speaker C (unidentified): I get it. [59:22] Beth Weisberger (public commenter): My understanding of the code. [59:24] Speaker B (unidentified): Should be a lawyer usually. [59:29] Speaker H (unidentified): They have to file a bond. [59:31] Speaker D (unidentified): It's for the Appeals Board. [59:32] Chair (presiding officer): It's for the Appeals Board. And then the enforcement officer would provide a follow up. But I think more like based on whatever You have guidance in the town hall to help you with that. [59:48] Speaker C (unidentified): They're really good over there. They are. [59:50] Beth Weisberger (public commenter): I was clear earlier. [59:57] Speaker C (unidentified): I wholeheartedly agree. Okay. [1:00:00] Chair (presiding officer): Okay, I asked Courtney to add to the agenda to just discuss the presentation of the report. [1:00:50] Speaker E (unidentified): I think one thing that if I may one thing that they should also review is the snow storage in the wetland buffer type of area? [1:01:07] Speaker L (unidentified): I think the AP will be able to talk about that. I figured. [1:01:10] Wade Bethel (public commenter): Yeah. OK. I don't think we can talk about that. [1:01:12] Chair (presiding officer): I don't know if we're allowed to talk about it. [1:01:15] Speaker E (unidentified): That's why I was treading. [1:01:21] Chair (presiding officer): OK, coming down to other business, I did talk to, I asked, thank you for putting on the agenda, Courtney, if we could just review Article 7, Section 3, and the planning board rules and procedure to add polarity for the planning board office or staff and maybe we don't need to based on concurrence from the meeting we just had that rules and procedure don't supersede ordinance. [1:01:56] Speaker D (unidentified): Are you opening it up? [1:01:58] Chair (presiding officer): I am, I'm opening it up. [1:02:01] Speaker D (unidentified): I think we should I think we should change this to something I don't know what but I think we should make it clear that as far as procedure go intent is to hear applicants as they come before the board. So I think we should change the language. [1:02:23] Chair (presiding officer): No, the intent of the rules of procedure is to tell us how to run our agenda. Yeah. [1:02:28] Speaker D (unidentified): The intent of that section of the rules of procedure is for the planning board to hear applicants as they come before the board. And so I think that, at the least, we should change this for ourselves because we have a time limit to review applications, and putting in extra barriers to meet that timeline doesn't seem beneficial to us, regardless of how it impacts any of the applicants. [1:02:58] Chair (presiding officer): I agree. Not that I need to agree. [1:03:01] Speaker E (unidentified): On the point, I'm offering language. Staff may expedite applications deemed complete. [1:03:12] Chair (presiding officer): No, because we vote whether the application is complete, so I don't think that's fair. [1:03:20] Speaker D (unidentified): So I'm kind of in favor of either putting it down to something like seven days or removing the day limit altogether. I just, again, don't have the language drafted yet to provide a suggestion. [1:03:35] Speaker L (unidentified): Oh, I want staff. Could we potentially put something like, at the discretion of the staff? Yes. [1:03:44] Speaker D (unidentified): Would that be appropriate? Yes. So, that sounds good to me. It does. You don't have to agree with me. No,, no. So I agree with you. The only thing I want to bring attention to is the Rules and Procedure also say that we need to give due notice per the State Statute. The state statute has no actual date limit in it however our ordinances do have a date limit specifically for appeals and in there it's seven days I think for the general public but ten days for interested parties so it wonders on the application so in my opinion I think we probably need to take that into consideration at least when we make this decision I don't think we do but that would be on the back side no yeah so the reason to take that number into consideration is not to copy it verbatim Because we should, I don't understand what that number has to do with the number we're trying to come up with. They both, they both facilitate the exact same thing, which [1:04:54] Chair (presiding officer): is giving due notice. Can I make a recommendation that we strike it completely and say at the [1:05:00] Speaker M (unidentified): discretion of the town office staff and following the ordinances and [1:05:41] Speaker D (unidentified): I think we need some other language, like I want to empower the staff. At the same time, they can't make the decisions they are if you say at the discretion of the [1:05:58] Chair (presiding officer): the staff. Technically, let me rephrase that, at the discretion of the staff and following the town ordinances. [1:06:28] Speaker E (unidentified): Direction, it's the 21 day for new. [1:06:42] Chair (presiding officer): Section 3, article 7, section 3. [1:06:45] Speaker L (unidentified): The two numbers, 21 for new and 14, I believe it previously was 10 and 14 or 7 and 14 or [1:06:57] Speaker D (unidentified): I actually thought our website would take it out, but there aren't any numbers in the ordinances or in the state statute. [1:07:10] Speaker E (unidentified): And I think that's what I was going to bring up. It basically, my understanding is that as long as you're not like, you know, denying due process and just like burying the application, like as long as you're hearing it in a legitimate fashion, then like it could take a month to get all [1:07:39] Speaker L (unidentified): of the material right, like there's some of them. Could you leave the 21 days and just say or sooner at the discretion of the staff so that you're not holding applications? That's fine, but [1:07:49] Speaker M (unidentified): it gives us the ability to go sooner. Would you still like to know any of the history on the reason for that? No, I know part of the history. So part of it was due for back when we only had the part, one person part, was it was we looked at in the reason for the for that length of time in addition was falling, you know, there's [1:08:28] Speaker D (unidentified): also five, yeah, five [1:08:34] Speaker L (unidentified): five-week, that was the reason. So I have the, it was, it was shorter and it might [1:08:56] Speaker M (unidentified): even further back than, I don't, I don't care. Yeah, doesn't that cover it? Just [1:09:08] Speaker K (unidentified): just fully covers to cover, so that when you have motion that we append or sooner [1:09:19] Chair (presiding officer): at the discretion of town staff to the end of article 7 section 3 in the [1:09:24] Speaker D (unidentified): planning board rules of procedure to the chair. Yeah, we make motions for rules of procedure given [1:09:36] Chair (presiding officer): that we need to, I think we're supposed to, we did before at the end. You should send it to, yeah, [1:09:42] Speaker D (unidentified): because what, so in the past it was we would do it in a workshop and then at the end we would [1:09:47] Speaker B (unidentified): motion to send it to the plane or something. Is it supposed to go to the start? Oh, we did both, we [1:09:54] Chair (presiding officer): had we motioned that we were happy with it and then we motioned to send it. I think, if I recall, [1:10:11] Speaker E (unidentified): Do you want to hold this until the workshop that is the next agenda item [1:10:15] Speaker L (unidentified): for October? Yeah, we know I [1:10:25] Chair (presiding officer): think we all agree to what it should be though, do we? [1:10:29] Speaker E (unidentified): No, I think I think we just didn't know if that was procedurally the proper venue. Was there a motion made? Yeah. To [1:10:50] Chair (presiding officer): basically leave article 7 section 3 as is but amend the end of the sentence to say, or sooner at the discretion of the town office staff. [1:11:03] Wade Bethel (public commenter): Or sooner at the- [1:11:05] Speaker M (unidentified): I don't know if saying town office staff is right. I think it should be the planning for- Planning assistant. [1:11:13] Speaker D (unidentified): Planning for. Let's get the language from the- [1:11:16] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, what we say throughout the rest of the- It's planning assistant. [1:11:19] Speaker D (unidentified): One that there's a- [1:11:21] Speaker M (unidentified): Well, the reason I'm going is because by saying that and procedures is it's just this is a guideline for us it's not written in stone but it just prevents Joe Schmoe use planning department in the [1:11:40] Speaker K (unidentified): office I would use planning department yeah I was trying to find the administrative name we can vote as a board to supersede our rules of procedure during a meeting if we want right yes oh yeah what's that called [1:11:54] Speaker D (unidentified): under suspension of the rules so is that by the way is that in our rules of procedure so the [1:12:01] Speaker L (unidentified): board removed falling back on robert's rules of procedure and this is why i was heavily against it so i get it robert's rules is a lot yeah but you can't fall back on what robert's rules says now so pretty much what this is like there's no fallback or something comes up and you don't know [1:12:18] Speaker D (unidentified): No, I could not provide any comment. [1:12:20] Speaker M (unidentified): That came from the lawyer. [1:12:22] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you for reminding me of that. [1:12:23] Speaker M (unidentified): The lawyer was the one that said to take property. [1:12:28] Speaker D (unidentified): Because if you don't follow it, then [1:12:35] Speaker E (unidentified): where you add the language to the best extent practical, or something along those lines. [1:12:42] Chair (presiding officer): To the best extent. [1:12:44] Speaker D (unidentified): I'd want to, it's annoying I guess, [1:12:46] Chair (presiding officer): i want to run that by the attorney so we can work on that later right now that's a conversation for [1:12:52] Speaker M (unidentified): the workshop the notes the emails are in there from her saying take it out oh no circling back [1:12:59] Chair (presiding officer): around sorry to article 7 section 3 we could for the agenda are we good then with that i think the [1:13:08] Wade Bethel (public commenter): board is good with that language article 7 section 3 as is by ad or sooner at the discretion of the [1:13:15] Speaker B (unidentified): staff is that what you said planning department planning department staff thank you yeah ceo and [1:13:30] Chair (presiding officer): pa moving into that was emotional sorry i thought you said you didn't have to vote all those in favor we're not in the workshop okay i don't think anybody even seconded that Okay, moving into B, discuss meeting for October workshop. [1:14:00] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm hiking the long trail, so leave me out. [1:14:03] Wade Bethel (public commenter): Okay. So, I... [1:14:05] Speaker M (unidentified): Can we go back one question? Yeah. On Section 3, are we leaving B with the 21 days and 14 days? [1:14:15] Chair (presiding officer): Yeah, that's what we just agreed to with the amendment. [1:14:18] Speaker M (unidentified): I thought you were... I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I thought that was going to the end of Section 3 through the... What? I thought it was going into Section 3, not Section 3 A, B, or C. So [1:14:39] Wade Bethel (public commenter): the motion was to leave Article 7, Section 3 as is, but add or sooner, at the discretion of the Planning Department staff. So [1:14:49] Speaker M (unidentified): to so it would say section three the last sentence says the applicant shall be duly notified then it goes into section a B and C [1:15:06] Speaker E (unidentified): amend yeah it just moves to go in the right place I was on the prevailing side so the motion of reconsider the motion and [1:15:23] Speaker D (unidentified): I was I guess I can yeah if you want [1:15:30] Speaker E (unidentified): I want to issue and just add the subsection. [1:15:35] Speaker D (unidentified): I move to amend the motion to read. [1:15:45] Chair (presiding officer): My policy is acting up. Sorry. My face is twitching. I thought you were staring at me because I heard you were missing it. [1:15:52] Speaker D (unidentified): I move to amend the motion to read. Under section 3b append both sentences. Sorry, append to both sentences the following or sooner at the discretion of the planning and development department. I mean I have a suggestion [1:16:20] Speaker C (unidentified): why don't we leave it as is and know how these things fall so that when someone brings it up again we say okay thanks I like that idea