They'll be on the screen too. I tell you to like, you know, bring it down a few pages. Are you all set with Zoom? >> Getting it up and running. >> Okay. Give you a couple more minutes. Let me know when you're ready.
Is um Sera on Zoom at all? >> I look at that all the time. >> And Joel hasn't joined yet either. Is that where is that where you know you just know it? >> I just know it by now. >> Just let me know when he joins. >> Used to use this.
>> All right. With it being after 7, it is 7:09. Um I am calling this meeting of the Chsford Planning Board to order. >> Uh it is July Wednesday July 8th and um
my name is Chris Lavali and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight we will be following the posted agenda. The meeting tonight is in person and on Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point in the meeting, we will continue in person. The meeting is being televised live and recorded by
Chedford Teledia and will be available on their website and on YouTube. First item on our public agenda is public input. Uh public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to any issues within our
jurisdiction, but are not the subject of a public hearing uh tonight or uh in the future before the board. Public comment on any of those public hearings will be heard during uh those time slots. Is there any member of the public
wishing to speak? Good evening. I'm Brian Latina, precinct 9, town meeting rep 15 Jesse Road is my address. Um, this one is kind of related to um I believe some of the meeting tonight. There was a letter sent out to um some of Butters in my um precinct and
one of my um business owners um called very upset. Um one it was addressed to North Chelmsford. he's in South Shamsford and it said you you may be in a butter or a um actual zoning change. In the second part of it um inside the
document um it said that um there was a um a item tonight for a a coffee shop. >> Oh yes. >> The reality was it's it's not a coffee
shop. It's a zoning of a huge area that I've lived at for many years and I was concerned that accuracy is really important when you're identifying this stuff and somebody needs to start checking this and if we're doing zoning changes in the middle of summer um upsetting businesses like that. He
thought he was going to lose his business um by the changes that he was seeing. There was no explanation and I read through it and I said I can't I can't believe this is how we put this together. So, um, please check spelling
and address it and also mark the streets when you're doing these maps. Couldn't tell where the heck the place was unless you were really tight on it. >> Okay. Very concerned accuracy because the public was not properly notified in my view. >> Thank you for your input.
>> Any other members of the public wishing to speak? Okay. Anyone on Zoom? >> Not yet. All right. Um, so for the record, we have um Marcy, Deardra, Anita,
John, Mike, and myself uh in the room. Uh, Sera is not here tonight, and Joel should be joining us soon on Zoom. All right, next item on the agenda is 91
Kingsboro Road. You don't really need an easel. >> So, I'm going to bring up all your plans. >> Go ahead. >> Good evening. Attorney Katherine Flood here on behalf of Gerald Daly and Tina Daly, trustees of the Maddie Kai Realy
Trust for site plan approval in Seoid Special permit approval for property located at 91 Tingsboro Road. Here with me tonight is Matt Hammer from Lamplex. The applicant has owned the property for approximately 12 years and operates a
family business, Jerry Daly and Sons Plumbing and Heating, which business has been operating in Chsford since 1972. Over the years, um, the business has grown and they need more space. The construction of a new two-story
commercial building in the rear of their property will allow them additional space to park vehicles, office space for staff, and a conference room to conduct training for their employees. The property is in the roadside commercial district in the Seoid overlay. On
September 24th, 2025, we appeared before this board for a finding of applicability pursuant to section 19519B that the project meets criteria for COID project under section 19510. The board made a positive finding and
classified the project as a COID project. As you can see from the site PR plan, the property consists of approximately 24,271 square feet of land with an existing 1.5tory commercial building.
As stated previously, the proposed project will consist of the construction of a two-story commercial structure with three bays in the rear of the lot. The first floor consists of three bays for parking vehicles and storage for the plumbing business. The second floor consists of offices and a
conference/training room for his employees. The building consists of 4,283 square ft. The building would be used for the operation of Jerry Daly and Sun's Plumbing and Heating. The business currently employs 22 professionals and
operates Monday through Friday 7 to 4:00 p.m. The pro proposed project complies with the parking rep requirements. As shown on the plan, there are 17 parking spaces. The proposed building is in located in the rear of the property,
therefore minimizing the visual intrus intrusion from public ways. There is adequate access to the site provided by an existing curb cut over Tingsboro off of Tingsboro Road. There were no there will be no new curb cuts proposed. There
will no be no new increased traffic due to the construction of the proposed building. As you can see from the plan submitted, there is lighting over the garage bays and the exterior door on the proposed project. There is also existing lights on the existing structure. The
existing landscape in front of the current structure will remain. The applicant intends to plant four arborites on the westerly side of the property. There is also a fence on the westerly side of the property. The combination of planting of the arborites
and the fence will minim minimize the glare from headlights as well as minimize the visual intrusion of parking by the neighbor on the westerly side of the project. The proposed project does not involve the removal of any trees. The site will be serviced by town water
and sewer. Um I'll let Matt go into the sewer pump and the water line. Um the proposed dumpster is shown on the easterly side of the site plan. The estimated time to complete the proposed project is 12 months.
The applicant is requesting a special permit in the COID for dimensional requirements. With the special permit, if issued, the proposed project complies with all the dimensional requirements in the COID. There is a chart attached to my narrative that was submitted with the
application as well as shown on the site plan. I will let Matt take over and go over the plan as well as any storm water. >> Sure. >> For the record, my name is Matt Hammer with Lamplex Engineering 60 Fletcher
Street in L Massachusetts. So, uh, Evan, if you could put up the existing conditions. And while Evan's doing that, I just wanted to uh note for the record that Joel has joined us or he's in the waiting room. >> So existing is a one and a half story uh
commercial building. There's a curb cut here which is going to remain and there's currently parking spaces here of which there are nine in here which there are nine and then there's two parallel spaces in a handicap space
to service the building. The grading um pitches towards the rear of the property. There's uh soil testing uh that we've done u prior to doing the plan. There's
a shed in the rear and there's an existing storm water system detention basin in the rear and there's a shed here. Uh with this existing conditions plan, we wanted to show the items that would be removed for the project and
that would be a an area here um of the existing pavement that will be removed and replaced with the building as well as the two sheds that are on the property. Go to the layout. This is a basic layout of improvements.
The uh two spaces will remain here, the parallel spaces. Um there'll be six spaces here and five spaces here in order to reconfigure this area here to
access um three um bays within the the building itself. The building is here is 32x 68 ft. Um, there's a proposed dumpster area
here that will be uh fenced in by white vinyl fencing. Shown here is u for our provided trees that we're proposing along the buffer which is a goal of uh redeveloping a property which will actually start at the end of the
fencing and continue here. That came out of some preliminary we had with the town prior to doing the plans. There's also a snow storage area along here and there's a snow storage area along here.
And then if you could uh go to the So the grading plan is uh fairly basic. We're providing an infiltration system here to take the roof run off from the proposed building and we're also providing um drainage that gets around
to the existing storm water system that's located in the rear. Um, this plan also shows a proposed 100 watt downward facing light um, in front of the building here
as well as an erosion control line and water and sewer. Um, we have elevations for the building that I can show you. This is >> you want want to go through the floor plan?
>> Yeah, this is just a floor plan here of the the main level at the lower level. Um and then there's an entrance. There's a walk there's a stairwell to get up to the second floor. Second floor has um training areas for
the um employees, offices, break rooms, bathrooms. These are the elevations of the building itself. This is what you'll see when you're driving along road. You'll see this front of the building. These are
the two sides of the building. And then this is the rear of the building. Uh that's a very good perspective right here as to what the finished product >> and that's my presentation.
>> Okay. >> Oh uh additionally I went through the comments that were received today from all the municipal departments. Uh we have no problem addressing all of those comments. We don't see anything that's um you know coming out in terms of anything that's going to materally
change what we're seeing here this evening. A lot of it was crossing tees and dotting eyes by the town engineer. >> Thank you >> Mercy. We have some letters. >> We have a lot of letters. All right.
Starting with the um public health department. Um, it says, "This letter concerns the proposed project at 91 Chainsboro Road consisting of the construction of a new two-story 4,238 uh 83 foot commercial building with three loading bays. If the proposed development is unable to connect to the
town's sanitary sewer system, on-site septic disposal will be required, and any such system must be designed, constructed, and installed in full compliance with Title 5 of Massachusetts State's Environmental Code and must successfully complete the Chumsford Health Department's permitting, review, and inspection projects. Should the
project in include floor drains within the loading bays, all floor drains must be installed and maintained in compliance with the town of Chsford's general provisions. Chapter 20 uh 2011 Board of Health Article 10 model floor drains. In addition, if dumpsters are proposed as part of the project, they must comply with the requirements of the
town of Chsford general provision. Chapter 2011, Board of Health Article 5, Commercial Refuge, Dumpster Collection, Licensing, and Operation. Respectfully, Donna Greenwood. All right. Public works department. The engineering department has performed a review of the site plan and special
permits proposal applications submitted uh for applicants. The following contains the submissions were reviewed um for appropriateness meth method and accuracy as well as compliance with the town of Chumps storm water bylaws town of Chumps storm water management regulation division 3 sewer capacity and
connection restriction. site plan and special permit proposal application entitled 91 Tingsboro Road applicant package. Uh engineering plans entitled 91 Tingsboro Road commercial and site redevelopment plan set engineering report entitled supplemental stormwater report 91 Tingsboro Road Chsford Mass
and the architectural design entitled architectural design documents Yerry Daly and Sons of 91 Tingsboro Road. So the site plan review outstanding with the DPW engineering issues that were not addressed during construction should be taken to maintain separation of at least
10 ft horizontally from the edge of the sewer services to the edge of the water services where horizontal separation of 10 ft is not practical. Both services can be installed closer to each other but the water service must be 18 in higher than the sewer service per D standards. Confirm at least 10 ft
separation between sewer and water from subsurface infiltration system. All existing or proposed utilities should be clearly and accurately labeled. Size materials existing proposed rims, inverts, etc. on the drawing reflecting the most up-to-date utility connections and sizing. Include cut and fill
calculations include gutter grades and spot grades on site plans. plan should be resubmitted so that all call outs can be clearly uh can clearly be read on page four and five. Several callouts are overlaid. Uh sewer comments. No increase to the town of
Chford sewer infrastructure should be more than 500 gallons per day. The applicant should analyze sewer flow using title five and proposed conditions to determine required sewer al sewer allocations. This should be submitted to DPW for approval for existing sewer connections. If there is a change in use
or expansion, the applicant should submit necessary floor plans and seating plans to supplement the sewer allocation uh calculations. Clarification required confirm that there will be uh floor drains from the garage and their proposed connection MDC separators for
commercial overhead garage doors. Clarification required for connections from force main to existing sewer connections. Check valves should be included. Information on grinder pumps and manufacturing can be found on the chumps sewer department's website as grinder pumps and force mains will
privately be owned. Confirm location for backup power and pump systems. Sewer manhole should be located at the property line for commercial sewer services. Uh sewer pumps for elevators is not permitted to connect to the sewer system and must discharge into storm system. Coordinate with the DPW prior to
construction to ensure this requirement can be met is required. uh recommendation for storm water management condition ownership as well as OMM of all storm water systems and BMPs should be clearly stated on the plans to avoid confusion in future uh
future regarding responsibilities of the storm water management facilities. The deed or the comment should be clearly specified the homeowners or association of property owners whom shall be responsible for owning the systems as well as inspections and maintenance schedules. It is the owner's responsibility to provide complete
annual compliance records for the engineering department at 9 alpha road. Update narrative to further discuss low impact development techniques and why they are not pursued for this project. The project storm water management system shall comply with the department of environmental protection storm water
management policy. Storm water standard one untreated discharge. The standards have been met. Storm water standard 2 peak rate control and flood prevention utilize 24-hour rainfall data taken from the most recent version of the Noah 14
storms um storm water standard 3 recharge to groundwater for each of the NRC uh CS hydraulic groups on the site the required recharge and volume equals the recharge volume set forth by multiplied by the total area within the
NRCS hydraulic group that is impervious test pits must be in recharge areas and witnessed by DPW representatives. Confirm groundwater separation from bottom of subsurface infiltration systems. Part of the notes regarding the subsurface infiltration systems are not
covered on sheets four or five. Standard uh storm water stand 4 80% TSS removal per town of Chster storm water management regulations. Storm water management systems on new developments shall be designed to meet an average annual pollutant removal equivalent to
90% of the average annual load of total suspended soils related to the total post construction impervious area and the site and 60% of the average annual load of total uh pvious sorry phosphorus related to the total post construction and pvious surface area on the site. Uh
storm water standard five higher potential pollutant loads standards have been met. Storm water standard six critical areas standards have been met. Storm water standard seven redevelopment projects project is not considered a redevelopment project as there is no net increase in impervious area. Storm water
standard 8 the erosion and sediment control. Erosion control devices must retain the sediment on site. All downgra downgraded areas impacted by the project must be protected. These must be installed prior to any work or de uh demolition. Storm water standard 9
operation and maintenance. Confirm responsible parties for grass channel postdevelopment. Deep sump catch basins shall be inspected and cleaned four times per year. Uh storm water standard 10 elicit discharge standards have been met. Recommended general conditions for
approval. All materials within the >> Marcy just to interrupt you. You can say for this one that they're all their standard conditions. >> All right. All standard conditions. >> We're done with them. the fire department. Um, dear members of
the board, regarding the special permit request for 901 Tingsboro Road, this office offers the following comments. Site access track turning plans have to be submitted to this office for review to determine access for the new proposed structure. Building numbering applicant is to submit to the town E911 committee
for the numbering purpose. Building constructions. All construction is to be reviewed as part of the building permitted process. All applicable codes including but not limited to pertinent NFPA standards. MA building code and town of Trump's bylaws to be followed. We ask that this letter be incorporated into the public records and made part of
your decision-making product. Um Josh Abbott, captain of the fire. Let's see. Next one we have is from the town engineer. The following plans for the above reference public hearing are being submitted for your review. Nan Tingsboro Road. Um
Cherald J. Daly and Tina Daly, trustees of Mattie K. Realy trust requiring special permit site plan review per the community enhancement investment overlay district. >> Yep. >> That's the letter to the department. >> That's what's >> Oh, it's just signed
>> conser conservation. Just read the highlight. >> All right. The project is located in the 100year flood plane. So required notice of intent filing with the conservation commission. All right. This one is from dear attorney Fledge.
Should the planning board approve the new construction proposal by your client at the above subjected address under article uh 21 COD community enhancement investment overlay district? The new construction shall comply with the current building code specifically flood hazard area flood resistance construction in its entirety energy code
and for any other applicable amendments and adoptions per the site of Massachusetts code. Also any other zoning bylaws not noted in this letter can be discovered and further determinations. Any questions or comments? Any other concerns, do not hesitate to call me. Uh, Jose Nggerro. Um, this one is from the town engineer
and it's just signed. Nothing in yellow. >> That's police. That's police. >> No concern. >> Oh, police. No concerns. Sorry, I read the wrong thing. Uh, no concerns from the tax collector. Uh, no concerns from uh Sherford Water.
>> And that's it. >> Okay. Evan, do you have any other things to add? Uh just quickly um as conservation indicated um and as the applicant um has indicated in their submission, this project is within the
uh the flood plane as a seoid project. Uh the planning board would um uh take over as a special permit granting a authority for the uh flood plane special permit which is normally uh granted by
the zoning board. Um, as part of that, um, as you may have noticed, the DPW did not appear to do a specific review for the, uh, for the flood plane. Um,
and I am as the town's uh flood plane administrator, I'm bound to ensure that the applica that the applicant submits a certification from the registered professional that shows that there will be no rise in the flood base flood
elevation when development takes Oh. Um, have you submitted >> what do you mean by a hydraulic and a H&H analysis? So the it's a hydraulic hydraologic and a hydraulic analysis referred to as H&H analysis. I can work
with you offline but this is based upon the uh 2020 uh mass um uh state model. >> Okay, >> which was adopted by the town in 2024. Um, so I'll work with you offline on that.
Once that information is submitted, we'll ask DPW to do a uh a flood plane review. They'll do that on behalf of the planning board and and the commission. Um, if you recall, we had once uh recently I think at Fort Plet went
through a similar process. I I don't know if Fort Plet was held to the the new standard or not. Um but it is a a fairly new standard. Um so again just as the town's flood plan administrator uh it's my my responsibility to ensure
that we we have the um >> the at a minimum the certification and then the backup material uh to support that certification. >> Okay. >> From you >> and that doesn't take the place of the NOI from con. >> It does not. >> Okay. >> So that's in addition to
>> correct. Okay. So, that's all I have. Okay. All right. Um, anything else to add related to those letters? I know you you mentioned that they'd be earlier that there'd be no major issues with them. >> Well, we received the comments today.
Okay. Um Um, you know, I'll meet with the town engineer. I'll meet with uh Mr. Bansky in the uh fire department to address uh those specific concerns. um pertaining to those comments to make sure that those are addressed
>> and then we'll also be filing a notice of intent with the conservation commission. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. I will take it around the board for questions. >> Other than the uh getting the paperwork right on the on the storm water and the
flood plane looks pretty straightforward. >> Any questions? >> No. Oh, no questions at this time. >> Anita, >> um my only question is they indicated that we're not cutting down any trees
and I just did a quick Google Zoom, right? And I know these are old pictures, but there are a couple of trees to the left, like full grown trees. Are they still there? >> And I just wanted to confirm that we're not really not cutting those down. >> We're not cutting those down. And those
trees are on the town of Chelmsford's property. >> Okay. Thank you. You're >> welcome. Um, >> am I correct? You have not been before concom correct. >> That's correct. >> I have nothing else. >> Marcy, >> no. Nothing.
>> Uh, Evan, is Joel on Zoom? >> Joel is on. >> Joel, do you have any questions? Joel, can you hear us? might have his mute. >> I don't think you can hear us. >> We can't hear him.
>> Then I can say >> put up a sign. >> Joel, if you can hear us, link three times. >> All right. Um, we'll come back to Joel. Uh, I've got a couple questions and comments. I noticed that the
architectural drawings um and the site plan are reversed from each other. Um I mentioned this at the overlay meeting. Um if you could correct that. >> Um when we were here at the last meeting, you did ask us to correct that
or asked us to address it. We reached out to the architect several times. We could not get a hold of the architect, but we will if you make that a condition of approval, we will actively get revised plans. We do realize that we couldn't he never answered our phone
calls. >> Yeah, this is very unusual. Um the architect um is not to be found right now. So, what I would recommend, um, presuming that this project
ultimately gets approved in the end, we're going to hire a new architect to do construction drawings for the building. And then we can uh submit those newly um prepared drawings to the planning board for review if the planning board deems that that's a
significant change from what we have before you which is just a reversal of the area that extends from the end of the building which is a small architectural element. Well, typically I like to see those ahead of any um approval because it will
help to visualize what it is we're approving. Um while the the plans do provide some indication, um without those elevations and positioning of the dumpster, um it's
really hard to visualize what we're approving. So I would like to see them sooner than after the approval. >> We will do that then. >> Thank you. >> Um
the other thing I I wanted to mention is the snow storage. So the fence on that side is that already there? >> Uh yes it is. >> Okay. Um, and what's the width of the landscaping between the fence and the
edge of the pavement? Roughly, >> I believe it's um 5T. >> 5T. If there's any way to move the snow storage to the opposite side because there's a lot of land over there. um and not put snow storage there because if
you pile up snow, especially if that's a vinyl fence, it will likely collapse in the cold. Um so if if you're able to uh move the snow storage from that side to the opposite
side of the >> So we have it on both sides uh on the plan. Mhm. >> Um, so but we can inform the uh we can change it on the plan. >> I would like Yeah, I would like there to be no sto snow storage next to that fence
>> because there's plenty of room on the other side to put it. Um, and then the other thing is it'd be nice if there was a little bit more landscaping um in that front part between the
neighboring house and the uh that area. Maybe a couple more arborites if you can fit them. Sure. We can add uh two more arrivites. >> Sure.
>> Okay. >> Just to make it a little bit more of a screening. >> And then I just wanted to confirm that that turn towards the dumpster is a is going to be accessible by a I'm assuming
a dump truck or a trash truck that collects dumpsters. Um, if there was if there were cars parked on that side, I'm assuming that you guys have done some measurements on whether a trash
truck could actually get in there if there if there are vans parked there. >> It' just be good to have some confirmation of that. Yeah, >> we can show you how that maneuverability um is performed. >> Thank you. That'd be good.
Joel, are you able to hear us now? >> I am. Thank you. >> All right. Do you have any questions >> or comments? >> No, I think you covered it pretty well. >> Okay. All right. Um, anything else to add
before we go to the public comment? >> No. >> Okay. So, at this point, if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak um related to this uh public hearing,
please come forward. No one in person, anyone on Zoom. Okay. So, I think there are a few things that still have to be addressed. So, I will entertain a motion to continue >> which I will make.
Uh what date do we want to continue to? Do you think things will be far enough along in two weeks or should we >> When's the con come? >> Push it out. >> We should push it out a month. >> A month. Okay.
>> All right. So, a what's our first meeting in August? August 12th. >> 12th. >> All right. Move to continue to August 12th. >> Motion by Mike, second by Marcy. And we do need to do roll calls tonight because
Joel is on Zoom. Mike, >> hi. >> John, >> I >> Anita, >> I >> uh Dedra, >> hi. >> Marcy, >> I uh Joel, >> hi. >> And I am an I. So, uh, continue to August 12th. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next item on the agenda is 210 Boston Road. Um so Evan, if you could bring up version two of the presentation.
So to give some background on this um this is a CBLT reszoning um proposal. Uh we like all of the other CBLT zoning uh that we're proposing, we're following
the same process where we do an informal meeting with uh inviting uh residents um and business owners who were impacted. Um we discuss it propose give our proposal um get input and feedback from
the residents uh which is the stage we're at for the res the riverneck um proposal as well. Once we have some meetings uh in formal discussions then the next step would be uh the public
hearings um the official public hearings which will have uh a butter notifications going out again uh and those will likely be in August uh and then the next stage is prep preparation
for town meeting um in the fall and because of timing and when our our uh our articles and drafts need to be into the select board for the warrant. Um unfortunately we have to do this timing.
Um, unfortunately for zoning there's for either the fall or the spring town meeting uh the timing is very difficult because for the spring town meeting we have uh holidays um to contend with and for uh the fall town meeting we have the
summer to contend with. Um so it's unfortunate um but uh that's why we're adding this additional step in for uh for the residential um or for the the discussions.
Um so our CBLT zoning um has been uh typically used for zoning conflicts in town. Um we also are looking to use it for uh level setting some of the the zoning that we have um on the ground uh
and taking this opportunity to adjust some of the zoning that we have in town in areas that need adjustment. This specific area came to us because the strip mall that is located um at 210 Boston Road um the owner of that strip
mall approached us because they want to have a coffee shop added to that strip mall. Um there's also a pizza uh place in that strip mall. Now, what we realized in looking at the zoning is that the current CA zone does not allow
restaurants. Um, and so the planning board looked at uh possible options to look at. Uh, one option was to add restaurants as a use under CA. Another option is to look at, uh, reszoning it.
um and looking at what uses are allowed in CBLT um and what uses are on the ground in that area, the planning board felt that the best option to move forward with for this area was to um look at reszoning it
to CBLT. Uh if we were to take the opposite approach, it would likely be a more lengthy and more impactful change that um we would have to look at other CA uh commercial areas in other parts of town
and see how this change would impact those areas as well. Uh so this is the step that the planning board chose to uh look at advancing. So that's where we're at. Um, I do want to
talk a little bit in summary about the CBLT. Um, we do have the CBLT zoning handout attached to this agenda item. Uh, and that shows the differences in uh, uses
that are allowed in in the CBLT compared to other uh, CB and uh, IIA zones that we're using this for. Um it's a solution that we're looking at using for uh some of the zoning conflicts in town as well as some of the
transition areas as well. And like I said, this is an area that we felt um would solve a lot of the problems with uh current uses that are um non-conforming uh in that area as well as new uses that
are not allowed um in that area. Could you go to the next slide? So, this is a slide that we used uh at the town meeting to summarize what the CBLT uh zone changes. Um it is a new
zoning district. Uh the use table um it had been updated. Um it does have its own set of dimensional requirements uh for both the sead overlay and the new zone itself. It updates the property
lines, the the street frontage um and does allow ultralight manufacturing um as well. So this is the map of the current parcels or and how they're zoned. Uh we
have a mix of CA um and public surrounded by um residential. And so what we looked at is that entire CA area. Um one of the things we want to
try not to do as a zoning board is to reszone one parcel. Uh that's not good zoning practice. it's typically considered spot zoning. So, we really want to look at an larger area uh to to reszone.
And so, what we're also noticing is that the uh CA zone also bleeds into some residential properties as well. Uh so, there are some properties surrounding the core CA zone that are um mixed zone
and that's typically not a good zoning practice as well. Um, if you notice the uh core CA properties also have uh tails on it that have residential portions as well. So, what we're looking to do is clean up
this zone um to change the properties that I've I've noted here uh to CBLT uh to allow the current uses by right as well as allow some additional uses that
people may want to see in that space uh like restaurants and um ultralight uh manufacturing um and things of that nature. Uh it also opens up um additional retail
opportunities as well. We also are looking to clean up those uh mixed zoning mixed zone uh properties. Uh so the CBLT properties would be completely reszoned uh CBLT and then the
uh residential properties surrounding it would be only residential. And then the next slide uh is a summary of the properties, what they are now and what they are being proposed to be changed to.
There any other members of the board that have anything else to add before we open it up? Okay. So, at this point, um, I would like to invite any members of the
public, um, who would like to ask us any questions about this area, uh, have any comments about it, um, provide input, feedback, uh, that we can, uh, look at incorporating into this proposal.
Hi, my name is Anbiani and I'm a director butter of this property at 35 Mil Road. Um, new to finding out about this so I'm really not sure what it's all about. I just wanted to find out a little more. My concern is more like the pollution,
running cars. Um definitely an influx of more cars. We already have major cutthroughs through there all the time. Um concerned if it's going to have a drive-thru and if so where that would be and hopefully not my backyard. So um
yeah. So if I could just get a little more clarification if you know at this point what they're thinking about. >> Sure. Um the the zoning that we're proposing um does not uh have any specific projects in mind. Um the mall
uh the strip mall owner that approached us does have a proposed coffee shop in mind. Don't know what what uh specific company it is. Um but the current zoning does not allow restaurants. So the pizza place that is in there now is uh
essentially non-conforming. And then the coffee shop would not be allowed as well. >> Right. >> Um in our CBLT zone, drive-throughs are not allowed. Um, it would only be a small restaurant that would be able to be going in there. >> Um,
>> and they're looking to put this actually in the mall, not on the grass area. >> Correct. It would be a tenant within that mall that they they have in mind. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Mhm. Good evening. My name is Robert Harvey
>> and uh what I have in question is I have a piece of land that uh >> You can go up. >> You can go up to the microphone, please. >> No, the podium. >> No, he wants to go. >> Oh, you want Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Now, I was a little um mixed up about the way this is. I didn't even know what
my own piece of land was. And then, of course, my father Boston Road. But um I have a piece of I have a piece of land which is called Boston Road property
1.45 acres and a piece of it is CA and the CA part of it but the rest of my I have a total of eight acres parcel but they're side by side. >> Are you the parcel down there on the bottom? I think it's here
>> with the sponsier. >> I'm not sure. I'm really not sure. Let me just uh that's the road. >> They're not showing Hazen Street. >> Well, Hazen Street's um
right where Evans Arrow was. No, >> right on the line with the brown. >> Yeah, right here. >> Yeah, that's Haz Street. >> Yeah, this would be I think this would all be mine right here. I'm not positive of this whole thing here is, but
we we were in a construction company. >> My grandfather bought this property in 1923. So, I'm still there on the property and I run my business out here and I run my business on the CA part. I just want to know. It doesn't sound to me like any of
this is going to affect what I do. >> That's all I really care about, you know. And as far as the not being a budd kind of I am boss being annoying. Um
the plaza the plaza is uh there's not really enough over there. You know I see the guy I never met the man that just bought it but I can see where you're kind of coming from. Um that plaza the biggest problem if I
own that property it's cut through big time from Boston road to road you know everybody's cutting through there all the time >> but um there's no such thing wasting a lot of your time I just want to verify that >> I don't want to suddenly turn around say
hey we zoned the CBLT but what you're doing there right now doesn't work. Want to make sure that don't happen. >> So your property right now is zoned RB.
>> Yeah, but there's a >> but CA sliver >> CA. >> You look at the zoning. >> Yep. So it's like kind of half. >> You you own 40 Hazen and um
>> this other property that abuts it. Oh, they're both 40 acres. >> 3.45 acres. >> And then the Boston Road property is 4.45. There's a sliver in there >> that's commercial. >> I don't want to see that.
>> Your your uh >> So the property where that um that abuts your single family home is own CA. >> Yeah. But but not all of it though. Just a part of it.
>> Most of it. It's right right over here. >> Most of it. >> Well, it kind of um >> It's highlighted right there. Right >> in blue. It's highlighted. >> Oh, this is it. >> That's it. So, that's all CA, right? >> Current CA. We're going to change the CB light. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> And this is where you live right down here.
>> This is where I live. Okay. I got Now I got you. So, >> you're telling me that this whole thing, >> everything in orange, that orange is CA. is commercial >> except that little corner that's white. What's that? RB for some reason.
>> You're saying you're talking orange. >> So everything that's orange is zone CA. >> Okay. >> And we're changing it to CB light. >> Okay. But again, that is not going to involve that's not going to
>> impact what I'm doing. No. >> So actually If anything, >> it may make it better because right now contractor yards are not allowed in CA. >> Yeah. >> And >> see, that's why I wanted I wanted you to know the family history.
>> Yeah. >> So, you're currently in a non-conforming use >> in CA. In CBLT, we allow indoor >> indoor contractor
>> but not outdoor contractor yards. >> We are also looking at adjusting the contractor yard definition. Um, as part of the other work that we're doing, um, so that may actually help you even further.
>> Yeah. In other words, I listened to your speech there. So, you're kind of cleaning up these areas that >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, these changes will likely help you. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. It's the same reason why this person who is on who has this bought
this property, the little strip mall, they have a pizza shop in there. And technically under CA, they're not supposed to have a pizza shop like that's been there. >> I know. So, it's not like we're trying to get anybody not to have their business. We just want to like make sure that things are zoned
>> correctly. So, >> has anybody were approached would have been maybe a long time ago Leo Kai from Purity Supreme he bought that plaza that land was all fine. So then it would have been res
but all these years and pizza place has been there 40 years >> and they technically shouldn't right >> be there. >> Yeah. Yeah. So again we're just trying to >> fine because you know there's no seats in there. Well, I think that goes under maybe a different jurisdiction, but
>> the people that own him, I know them well. I know when they came, I know the guy. >> Yeah. >> Before. But >> I hope everything is good and then people are able to stay there because that's that's their livelihood. >> Yeah. No, no. our our goal is not to like kick out any businesses or like it it's our goal is to
>> just make sure it's zoned >> appropriately. So there's no >> problem in the future should something happen. >> And any business that's already in place, >> um even if we do reszone it and they're they're not allowed in that zone, it
will be a pre-existing non-conforming business. >> Um so they'll still be allowed to stay there. They'll still be allowed to do business. Um, >> the grandfather did. >> Yeah, the grandfather did. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Thanks. >> You too.
>> Any other members of the public wish to speak? >> Again, Brian Latina, 15 Jesse Road, town meeting rep precinct 9. when you change the zoning from um conform in where there's non-conforming today, does the
business that's there, can they sell it to someone else? Can they add to it or is that it would that be a challenge? >> So, correct me if I'm wrong, Evan, but the if the use does not change and they sell it, um that will continue
to be allowed. Um expanding the current use is not allowed for non-conforming um without a a uh a um >> variance. >> Variance. Thank you. >> A var. So they could still get a
variance. My my concern there was a gas station there in the 1960s and now it's a it's a um a shop. >> Pretty pretty active one. Probably the best truck shop you could stop at if you if you ever need um work done. Um but um
if he wanted to expand his building and put in a couple more bays in there or um he's an expert in electric vehicles, too. If he wanted to put in a charging station there, technically it says you can't put in a fueling station, but um
given all the electric motorbikes and stuff, I guess they're not called motorcycles because they have electric motor on them and the kids drive them on the sidewalk and everything else. Is that a fueling station if you put electric charging stations at what used to be a gas station?
>> I don't think so. No, >> don't think so. >> That's a charging station. >> So, you could do something like that. >> Okay. >> And I just looked it up to confirm, but that um that
general auto body repair shop is not allowed. >> Not conforming now. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So it would still remain non-conforming. >> Non-conforming. >> Okay. So he doesn't lose he doesn't lose uh access to it or and again additional
building on it. He'd have to come to planning board anyway. >> But you're not going to say sorry it's not zoned for that. You can't add add to your >> Well, it would go before the ZBA >> would be a special permit. >> Special permit to the ZBA. Uh >> commercial goes to planning board. >> Okay. So it would come to us.
>> Okay. Thank you. Yep. Any other members of the public wish to speak? >> All right. Um, so in that case, I think I would like to continue this one more meeting um just to make sure that we've got everything ironed out and then we
will add it to the list of uh public hearings um that we're doing in August. Right. We can do Can I make one comment? >> Sure. >> I noticed that there are a couple of little triangles of land. For example, there's a a small
>> Yeah. Go back there. There's there's a small RB chunk on this gentleman's uh land and there is a CA chunk in the RB. >> Uh >> this is the proposed >> we changed it. It's those chunks have
been moved to CBLT. Okay. So those are the reason I want to make sure that we we achieve consistency there. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> No no point in splitting all >> they're all going back until like it's going to match the rest of it. >> Okay. Sounds good. >> Yep. >> So you need a motion to continue.
>> Yeah. >> But uh when are we going to continue this too? >> Next meeting. >> Okay. I move that we continue uh this uh discussion to the next meeting. >> Second. >> Motion by Mike. Second by Marcy. And roll call. Mike >> I
>> John >> I >> Anita >> I >> Deerra >> I >> Marcy >> I >> Joel >> I >> and I am an I >> good all right we'll continue the neighborhood discussion till next meeting um when we will probably close
it and then move to a public hearing in August. Thank you everyone. All right, next item on the agenda is the Riverneck neighborhood meeting. Did you want to review these or >> Okay.
>> Okay. All right. So, made some minor updates to the slides that we can go through. I can find my notes. Give me one second. Okay. Um before we get to that, I just
wanted to actually um outline how I think I want to do this meeting tonight. Um so I will outline the decisions we need to make um tonight. I will point them out on the slides
and then I will allow public comment for about two minutes each person uh to give any final thoughts. At that point um we will bring it back to the board for discussion and a vote on each of the
things that we have to discuss tonight. Um we spent a ton of time on this. We've gathered a ton of input. So, I do want to wrap up this one tonight um so that we can uh make any necessary changes and bring it to to public hearing in August.
So, the decisions we have to review tonight, um there are six of them. There's the 128 Riverneck property, the 101 Riverneck property, 127 Riverneck property, the 5 acre property on
Riverneck, the Monmouth parcel, and then RC versus RB for Monmouth and McFarland. So, those are the six decisions we need to make. All right.
So given that um let me go through the slides and we will point them out. Um so on the third slide Evan
that is the first area that we need to consider. >> We should number these slides just an FYI. >> Yeah I notic that too. Um, so this is the current zoning
and if you go to the next one, I've put question marks on the areas that we need to discuss. So towards the top, we have that 5 acre parcel and the small parcel next to it. On Monmouth, we've got the public versus
RB parcel. If you keep scrolling, Evan, two more. This is the uh top of riverneck. Um the CBLT
versus IIA versus residential discussion. Um and looking at all of those parcels as one to avoid spot zoning. And then down towards the bottom, um there's the 128
river. Uh those two parcels we had initially marked that as RB and CBLT, but I want to make sure that we are probably zoning them together in concert to avoid the island.
Then scroll down two more. One more. The utility um parcel down at the bottom we did discuss last time as public. And then in general the RB versus RC for
uh Monmouth and McFarland. >> Okay. I I don't know when you want me to I did want to talk about I did um me and Evan talked about this yesterday, but I went and met with Jose. >> Oh yeah. You want to talk about that now? >> Talk about the FAR calculation. So I
kind of went through how they do the FAR calculation, what they use gross versus not gross. Um so what the building um inspector commissioner um uses is the certified plans from the engineer. So,
we went back and we looked at some of the FAR calculations that are done by the engineers on their certified plans which are stamped. >> Um, and you want to just tell the audience what FAR is. >> Um, >> Florida area ratio.
>> Thank you. Florida area. Thank you. Um so we looked at a couple properties that had come in and what they engineer and we kind of backed into what they use for calculation which was something very different. Um, so when it came to they
don't use deck, so you can't use that gross calculation when you go onto a GIS site, which is what we which is what Sean was originally using was the total number um gross because that includes decks, um, porches,
um, garages, um, basement, what have you. the basement per our zoning law uh zoning bylaws should be you should only include them if they're higher than seven feet high right so like a lot of older houses
that may not beh >> allowed now from our GIS map you can't really don't really know that but you have to make an assumption even so what the way the engineers are calculating it is whether it's
finished or not finished. >> Oh, >> so they will cut they would include a finished basement in the FAR calculation but not the unfinished part of it >> irrespective of the dimensional above. >> Exactly. Yes. >> Interesting. >> So they assume that if it's finished it
has the ceiling height essentially. >> Yes. But like one of them we we looked at was like a split level, right? in, you know, split levels, like why would you include half of it, not the other half, the unfinished part of
it? >> Um, >> yeah, >> so um I'm just Yeah, so it didn't include decks. Um, so I haven't gone back and relooked at
all of that, but this also answers the question as to why because I think one of the someone had mentioned to me, well, when I went and add my addition, my FAR wasn't nearly as close to what this is being calculated at. And now now we know why. Um, not saying it's right or wrong.
Either we have to fix our definition of far, right? Because if all the engineers and again these weren't like one engineer and this engineer was doing it all this way, it was random plans by different firms. So either we have to like So it kind of brings us back to
fixing this FAR thing which I think is a big issue for the for Sean and the RB versus RC. >> So but when the building inspector reviews a property, what is he using? He's using the number
calculated by the >> engineer by the engineer and the engineers are using all different >> they're not it seems that they're being consistent in when it comes to basements doing finished versus not finished >> like if someone converts their garage and it's a finished garage right like
it's now a room versus it used to be a garage that's included but if it's a garage it's not included. >> Oh okay. Um, >> and they're they're using information that's not readily available on the GIS, >> right, >> cards, >> right? They're going in and actually measuring it,
>> which is why >> there's discrepancies. >> Like Jose is actually relying on that because they've had access to it, right? Like what's on the GIS, you know, maps are >> are estimates, they're dimensional, but no one's gone in to actually measure, you know, the ceiling height, right?
>> Um, so that's why he's relying on the engineer. Yeah. >> All right, >> that makes sense. That's helpful. Thank you. >> It doesn't really solve the problem, but I >> Well, clarify. >> I think it I think we need to look at FAR. >> Yeah. >> And add that. >> Yeah, we need to we need to have a clear definition.
>> Clear definition whether or not we, you know, use it for single families at all. Like look at what other towns are doing. A lot of towns don't really have single family residential this far concept. >> Okay. >> May want to look at that. May want to.
So, if we can put that on for maybe the next town meeting. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Now, um I am going to uh allow any public comment um input that folks want to provide us. Um if you want
to come up and provide more input and feedback, uh anything additional that you want to add, um feel free to to come up. Hi, Craig Walsh 140 128 Road. Um, could you just go back to the map there uh of
my property? Well, you have my 140 listed as RB and you have you're proposing CB light for my 128 property. Why is that? because that's the original discussion that we were having. Um, but tonight I want to make sure that we're considering it as a
whole so that we don't create small islands of residential versus uh CBLT. Uh, it's the discussion we were having last meeting um with the uh 5 acre parcel and that small property next to it that's residential.
>> Correct. Um, part of the reason why we can consider it um, as a whole in CBLT is because we can also look at residential uh, as part of the overlay. >> The overlay you were talking about having removed. >> Nope. This the sead overlay.
>> The sead is not doesn't cover his property. >> It it cover if it's CBLT sead covers it. >> So if we change it to CBLT then it will be covered over SEAD would cover it. Yes. >> Got it. >> Yes. I just want to make sure. All right. Because
>> Yep. By law, the the bylaw says that anything commercial >> commercial is covered by >> covered by the sale. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Okay. And you you mentioned to the the last people that were here that their property would stay CB light
non-conforming. >> Yep. >> For as long as it was continuing the same business. >> Correct. >> Now, if he sells the property, does it stay with it? >> Yes. So, as long as the use continues, it remains non-conform pre-existing non-conforming.
>> Okay. But I thought there was a two-year window there that after two years now, it reverts back to only CV light. >> If the use is, and Evan can help with the nuances. If the use is abandoned for two years, it does revert.
>> And Evan, do you want to give the nuances of the abandonment? >> Yeah. An abandonment means that um you voluntarily cease the operations in totality >> and you're not and you're not marketing
it as the the the same use. You're not trying to sell the property as the same use. Um >> I can't sell the property as the same use. >> Oh, you can you can your existing commercial businesses run with the land.
So you can sell them. Um the new owner can operate them in the same manner and nature. >> Okay. >> You as the current owner or a future owner as a pre-existing non-conforming use is not allowed to expand
um or extend the use. So right now I don't know the legal status of the of the uh commercial business. It may it may be uh they may have a use variance. It may just be um allowed under IIA.
Um if it goes to CB light, uh the legal status remains unchanged, but it likely becomes pre-existing non-conforming. >> Okay. Okay. So again, I just seems like a lot of >> Yeah, I just don't know those. >> I don't knows at this point uh in the
game >> until until until the town does a full kind of uh legal review as to what your business is and what it isn't. I don't know if it's retail sales. I don't know if it's um
repair. I don't know if it has a limitation on number of of vehicles associated with the business. All of those criteria are used to make a a use classification. Um so in in the most simplistic form,
you're currently IIA, >> correct? >> Um retail sales are not permitted in the IIA. Uh but your business dates back decades and decades. So it may have received a use variance
30, 40, 50 years ago. Um, if it hasn't received the use variance, it's likely just pre-existing non-conforming like like many businesses in town are. >> Okay. And and what about just leaving our area
on that side of the highway? IA, you had talked about before that you wanted to slow the traffic down, everything. We have basically four lanes in front of my house. That's part of the state highway that runs underneath the whole connector and over Route Three. We're not a a
residential road per uh statute of what they call a residential street uh by the number of houses. It's not limited to truck traffic by all weights or anything like that. So I think it would be in our best interest if we just left
uh IIA alone where it is. And you know I understand what you're trying to do with the neighborhoods. You don't want certain things going in the neighborhoods. But the people up on Mama Street and Mcfallen Road, I mean none of them are here. And I don't think they understand what you're trying to take away from them. Like even if you gave them RC, they would have a little more
they'd have a little bit more of their by right to to stay with RC right now. You just make them RB and there's nothing else they can do with their property. >> That's not true at all. Um so couple clarifications. You have two lanes on that road. It's not four. Those are
breakdown lanes. >> I'm just talking about the width of it. It's not like Lynwood Street where you you know it's a 30 foot >> width. The other point I want to make is that keeping it IIIA is not on the table for this board. We have run into too
many problems with that street at both ends being completely residential and very narrow and winding. While your section is pretty wide under the highways, it is winding narrow on both sides and
there is no access in and out other than those two directions. And we've had multiple projects come before us with issues related to uses for IIA and that's what we're trying to fix.
>> Well, I think the one instance you're talking about is the like the Amazon warehouse. >> In all fairness, no one's ever complained about your business. I live in East Chumps. I drive by your house. >> I've never had I've never had any complaints about my business and I'm not looking for complaints about my business. I we wouldn't and that's not
our intent here is to change your businesses that you're that you have there. That's why we're proposing CB light because it allows you to continue with your business and go on. >> It allows me to continue with my business. But once I no longer want to continue with my business,
>> then now I'm limited to CB light instead of IIA where where I've been my whole life. >> No, that's that's not true. We just explained that if you want to sell your business, you can sell that business. They can continue operating that same
type of business and they're they continue the pre-existing non-conforming. The the use and the designation follow the land, not the ownership. >> Okay. So, it sounds like the board's already made up their mind that they're getting rid of IIA altogether. Is that
>> is that where I'm >> That is Well, that's what we've decided to propose. Yes. Okay. It's town meeting that needs to make the alteration. >> I understand that. I understand. >> Yes, that is what we're proposing. >> Yep. And I'd like to have my 140 property not spot zoned. I'd like to
have that in the same zone as my 127 property. >> Okay. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Hi, Lori. Kenny 127 Riverneck. Uh, last meeting you guys said you were going to talk to the town about the building. Were you able to do that? Town committee.
>> There was some questions that you had. So, I wanted to see if you would clear them up. >> What I think the question was what they were their use because of the correct me if I'm wrong, I'm had office versus >> or warehouse >> warehouse versus
>> you also had some offices. There is minimal offices, but yes, it's majority warehouse. >> Yeah. So, I mean, it it's the similar thing that Evan talked about with the other property until the town goes and does a a more deep dive
analysis of the business. We have to make assumptions. >> My business is renting the property. So, what's in there today might not be in there tomorrow. It hasn't been in there for the past couple years. So what you guys are proposing is if I sell the property that they can continue to use
if I sell the business they can continue to use it but I'm not selling the business. I would be selling the building. If I go to sell the b building that's non-conforming which they're not going to be able to get a loan. They're not going to be able to get insurance. So it completely destroys everything that my family that's not how it works.
>> I looked into it. That is how it works. >> And the uses the uses in those units is what's considered. So, as long as those uses remain constant and continue, then it it regardless if you own it, if
you sell it to someone else, as long as those uses continue, it's fine. >> And you're using the building. So, when someone wants to buy the building to rent it out, just how insurance works. What they're insuring is the structure. >> Okay. So, so if it gets like a fire
comes in, destroys it to you to the ground, they will ensure it to rebuild it as it is, which is what it is now, which is conforming now because it's >> right. So, you're going to change it in day one, it's going to be non-conforming, which doesn't make sense because the whole point of planning land
is to on based on the land in the building. So, day one, you guys change it to CBLT, it's already non-conforming. >> I don't understand why. We have had no issues. There's no traffic issues. You want me to put a CBLT business in there? I will. It's going to create hundreds of
more cars coming down the road than what is there right now. You're trying to change something that has been there for 40 years. We're not trying to rebuild. We're not trying to add. We're not trying to do anything. It's been there. It's been working and you're trying to change based on what it's been. It doesn't make any sense to me. >> Can I ask you the business that um has
the buses and limousines there? >> Yes. >> What is that business? It's part of the party rental, but we haven't had party rental in there previously. It's always been warehousing. It just so happens that the building was empty for a while. They came in as a tenant and we're going
to accept them. We're not going to not accept him. But what if next year when they or the end of this year when they decide their lease is up and we put warehousing back in there? >> The party rental and based on Evans opinion, my opinion, and I believe Jose
also weighed in on this as well. Um, the party rental use is a retail type use. It is not a warehouse use. >> All of their supplies in tents, it's I if you go in there, it's used as a
warehouse. No one's going in there personally. It's not a retail business as they're going in there personally to rent. No one there's no retail front there. It's warehousing all of their equipment. How is that not warehousing? >> Our definition of warehousing, it does not fit that business. Correct. So
that's my you just said my issue then because if I put another tenant in there at the end of this year and you it's not it goes from IIA to CBLT then I'm a non-conforming. That's my point. It's my point since >> if you put another business in there
that is warehouse. >> Correct. >> That in CBLT would be non-conforming. >> That's what I've been saying. But your current business under IIA is non-conforming. >> Okay.
>> So you're non-conforming >> currently >> in both cases. >> You're not conforming to either. >> My concern is is when I go to sell the property, it is going to be an issue. >> I don't believe it will be. >> I don't think it will be because the
building itself is so big. Like there's only so much you can do with it. >> You've been inside the building? >> I drive by it. I've been driving by it for 40 years. >> Okay. You've been inside it? >> No, but I >> So, you know what it looks like inside? You know how people would use it inside? That's what I'm talking about. It
doesn't matter what it looks like on the outside. >> My professional experience, I can make that assessment. Thank you. Um, that being said, even I just don't see this being an issue from from a future and I
understand it's something different and people don't like things that change and you always automatically it's just you always go down that path. I get that. I totally understand that. >> It's not changed. We There used to be a house on that property. We tore it down. The town wanted us to put this building
in. My family put this building and we spend taxes on the building. They wanted this building. >> So now you guys are saying that all of a sudden we can't have it the way it was zoned. Like that's the way what people are. >> We actually have no issue with how the building is being used. The issue that
we have with keeping IIA in this area is all of the other possible uses that can be put in when you do sell it, if you ever do sell it. And that is the issue that we've been facing time and time
again in this area is the current uses are fine for that area. It's what's happening is when those properties are being sold, the IIA district allows so many more uses that are detrimental to
that area and that's what we're trying to address. >> You've already said yourself that we can't expand or do any much more with the property based on the size it is. So, I couldn't see possibly what we could put in there that would be detrimental. It's not like we're adding. >> So, if someone would to buy your property, then buy the property next
door to it, then something else could come in and that's where it begins to get detrimental. That's what's happened with the old Mercury buildings. And that's why this we we're looking at all the zoning across all the town. >> It's in this case, it's more about
intensity. Mhm. >> You're you're you're using the building um low intensity, >> correct? >> But there's nothing legally preventing under IIA zoning for you to uh bring in a business that uses the same exact
square footage, but has much more highintensity trucking or convert the building to a uh contractor condo. same exact square footage, but the some of those IIA uses are much more truck intensive
um and um impactful to the neighborhood in in the roadways. So, I think that's I that's to my to my understanding that's really what the planning board is is trying to articulate. There's so many there's so many unknown
opportunities within IIA that the community and the board has has determined to be detrimental. Converting this from IIA to CB light is a legal mechanism via zoning to uh
eliminate those those unknowns that no one wants. And it also opens up new opportunities for other businesses and types of uses for your buildings that aren't >> things that create more traffic though. I thought the whole point was not to
create more traffic on the road. >> No, the the issue that we're facing is the heavy truck traffic. The volume of cars is is concerning across all of town. But if those Mercury office buildings, for example, were
fully uh occupied, there would be heavy car traffic on that road. That road can handle increased car traffic. And that's what we're trying to to balance here is uses that may increase
car traffic. Yes. And we understand that. But it also will limit the heavy truck traffic that we're seeing to be incredibly detrimental to the residential areas on both sides of Riverneck >> and across town. >> Yeah.
>> I mean, you just need to look at what jumps with. >> Yeah. >> Then just just back to your comment on um financing or insurance. There's there's dozens and dozens of properties in town that are in your same
exact situation. current zoning. Um they're pre-existing non-conforming. The planning board's gone through uh major resonings in the last couple years similar to this. Um we have not received
any feedback uh directly from property owners um saying that they due to a zoning change they were not able to get um financing or insurance. It may change. Um, but we haven't heard anything about
not being able to uh make a make a transaction of that nature. >> But it's against the law. Like it's against Massachusetts state law because it's the it's the whole grandfathering, right? Like because otherwise I would say 75% of the town is not conforming. I'm not conforming on my property. So
you're what you would be saying is I couldn't get a mortgage for my house. Of course you can. It's notforming commercial property of this. I understand that they they will require because we routinely are requested uh for a zoning determination letter >> and uh as I mentioned the town routinely
issues those on a weekly basis for these um these business transactions um and so your letter would say yep the the properties pre-existing non-conforming um and then you know the attorneys
involved at least in Massachusetts fully understand what that means the existing businesses are allowed to continue and when they cease for a period of of two or more years then they lose their protection their protected grandfathering.
>> Okay. I'd still oppose the CBLT. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other members of the public? Anyone on Zoom? >> I don't see anybody who's interested in speaking.
All right. Um, so at this point we will go over each of the topics that we have to decide on. >> Yeah. >> Oh, is that somebody? >> Yep. >> AJ. Yep. Is that you? >> Yeah. Yeah. This is AJ 195.
>> Yes. Um, I also am opposed to the whole CV changing the zoning from the CV light and um I just kind of wanted to know if the board um ever thought of taking a different approach as far as any of the IIA zones that are budding actual
residential homes and changing those to CBite as opposed to all of Riverneck. as well as if there was any studies that kind of showed what kind of impact this is going to have on these owners who've had IIA for as long as they've had.
So, the CB light zone did start out as a way to buffer um the IIA uh zone from residential. Um we've also seen that this is a another use case where
essentially we have the same thing where we are buffering the IIA uses um away from the residential. Now in this case in Riverneck we have a slightly unique
situation because there is no other access to these central properties other than through the residential properties, the residential areas. And so >> and you had mentioned Oh, go ahead.
>> And so we are proposing that this is one of the solutions. Um and really the main solution uh that we have come up with another thing to keep in mind
is that the um when we started looking at the uh the zoning conflicts in town, we did work with the um the area uh consultant the NEMCOG and
asked them for recommendation. as to what the solution would be. Their recommendation is to change the entire stretch of riverneck to residential. Now, we felt that that is a little bit extreme uh for these properties that are
currently um IIA and are commercial use. So, we didn't go in that direction. And this is the the solution that we're using to kind of buffer and not impact
the uh property owners um as much as we would have had we gone residential. >> And and I want to take one step further on that. When we first looked at this, we were looking at Kate's Corner and this came up with um and through at
Kate's Corner, one of the prop, you know, those properties there, you have Loheed Martin, which is IIA, right smack in the middle. Um we work with them to ensure that those types of businesses like Loheed Martin stay in town, that they employ, you know, citizens of our
town. Um they're good they're good um commercial neighbors. Um they worked very closely with the board um their attorneys reviewed our zoning >> and the neighbors >> and the neighbors um to come up with
this um CV light. In fact, then we got approached in North Chsford by a business owner who actually was zoned IIIA and came to us and asked us if we would zone their area CBite.
So, a lot of these larger corporations are frankly are the ones that would pay a premium for this land are actually have reached out to us um and asked us to change it from IIA to CB because they
found it more beneficial. >> AJ, can I ask you 195 Riverneck, that's the residential home property, correct? Correct. >> That's the 5 acre wooded lot. >> 191 is the house.
>> 191. >> Okay. And as far as the the heavy traffics goes, um, with what you guys are concerned of, is that not the purpose of like site plans and peer reviews and traffic studies that have to be performed prior to getting any
additional if you wanted to add on to something or build something? >> It's not the traffic, it's the type of traffic that's going through the neighborhoods. >> I I said heavy trucks. >> Yeah. Um, but it's also the use and the impact of that use. And what we found is
that the uses that the industrial zone allows in this area time and time again are showing negative impacts to the residential areas of Riverneck.
And so that's the issue that we're trying to address. Now, if if there was an on-ramp right into this area from uh the highway or a different access road, it'd be a completely different story, >> different conversation. And and again,
like some of those high industrial uses, for example, on 129 where it's all indust like there is no residential in 129 works like that makes sense for there. So we can't keep like the whole
reason why we came up with additional zone was so we can say okay this area which is all industrial there's on-ramps to route three we can have a little bit more industrial type of
businesses but stuff that's in that has to go through neighborhoods go through um these neighborhoods like we want something that's less impactful. So you have to kind of split those zones out. We have to say, okay, these are, you
know, what's impacting the neighborhood and this other area is really not impacting and it's we can maybe go, you know, a little bit more heavy use and allow for things there. So that's how this all started and that's why we took,
you know, IA and we did this CB light. We said, okay, this stuff works. I mean, we've also have a really bad situation in North Chsford with the asphalt. I mean, that's a perfect example of those trucks destroying that, you know, neighborhoods that's just been going on
and on. And that's not even because of chumps. That's because of Westford. >> And we're trying to avoid similar situations in this area. And that's that's the that's the whole point of of why we're looking at this area. >> And we don't frankly we don't need a
traffic study to decide that we don't want big heavy trucks going through there. We know that. So, we're trying to zone it so that doesn't happen. Not that we have to re-evaluate and re-evaluate and re-evaluate and say, "Nope, too many heavy trucks. Nope, too many heavy trucks." We're just trying to zone it so
there's not too many heavy trucks. >> And we've seen a number of projects come before us with a number of traffic studies for these areas that do show significant impact to the residential areas. Um, so that's another data point
that we're using uh to help us with this. >> Okay. Because it is a state road at the end of the day, right? Like trucks can drive up and down that like if there was uh like a construction job going down, you know, towards one side of Riverneck, trucks would be up and down that road.
They can travel that road regardless. >> Sure. There there's no truck restriction. >> Um. >> Right. >> Yeah. But we don't want to make it worse by putting heavy trucking right in the
middle there. >> And as far as the impact that it has on these homeowners, any kind of thought went into that? >> Yes. Um, we're trying to minimize the we're trying to maximize the benefits
and minimize the uh negative impacts. and we're trying >> I'd like to see as far as like a property value thing what what it's worth with IIA as far as when you change these to CB light. >> So it it depends on when you're looking
at the market. Um, >> if you were looking at the market probably a couple years ago, uh, warehouses, uh, flex spaces probably would have been a hot commodity and they actually were >> and it depends on the planning board that you have elected. How you know like
it depends on a lot of things, >> but right now the housing market is the hot commodity and the housing the house values are are skyrocketing. So, if you do a market study now, you're probably going to see that the residential and
commercial spaces are in higher demand uh than industrial and warehousing. >> Correct. >> Correct. But to think that 195 would be an ideal place for residential surrounded by what it would be surrounded by, I I don't think is ideal
at all. So, another another use that the um CBLT and overlay allow is multif family. >> Correct. >> You could put a multif family in there. Uh multifamilies do typically um abut commercial
um in many areas. And so that is another another opportunity uh for that space that would be perfectly um aligned with the direction that we're heading.
>> No, I I understand that. I'm saying who would want to live there surrounded by all the IIA? >> That's actually the point that we're trying to make. Um no one wants to live there surrounded by IIA. >> Correct. But all the people who have lived there for x amount of years bought
it with riverneck being what it is. Correct. This is all new changing this. >> No, they bought it with riverneck being you know offices. >> It was technically IA zoned but the uses
that were in place were lighter uses and office buildings. >> Okay. So, we want the be the ability to use IIA for more heavy types of uses and places like Riverneck Road, which really
were designed at the time for office space, lighter use, to remain that way. And the only way to do that is to create two separate zones because not everything fits across all the areas.
Well, I'm opposed to the change. That's all. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other public comments? Anyone else on Zoom? >> All right. So, at this point, we will go
through uh the areas and so if you can bring them up on the slides as we go through them and discuss them and vote on them. So the 128 Riverneck space, >> I'm not doing this in any particular order other than the way I've got them
listed on my notes. So, this one is whether or not we put that allb light or >> Yeah, I think we need to determine um I think we need to figure out if we're
putting them both CV light, one CV light, one RB. Um my thinking is to put them both CV light. >> I kind of agree with you there. It's the same property. It's I'm fine. >> Same owner. I don't see the reason to separate the uh zoning.
>> Anyone else got thoughts? >> I'm in accord with that. >> Joel thoughts. >> I agree with Marcy. >> All right. Unless someone's opposed,
>> then let's take a vote. Um, >> we don't need to like We don't need We can just show hands. >> Yeah, show hands. It's not an official. >> It's not an official vote. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> so are you is everyone in favor of going
CB light for these two parcels? >> Adopting basically this map. >> No, CB. >> RB. Yeah, I've got an RB. Okay, >> all in favor raise your hands. >> Joel's Yes. All right.
>> Okay. So, >> so we'll go with that. >> You have the slides now to make these changes. You have to ungroup some of them. >> Yep, I will. >> All right. Next is 101 Riverneck area. And
which one is 101? >> Is that the the CB lights that have the question marks? >> Yes, I think so. >> The ones across from the cemetery. Ah, no, that's at the other end of neck. So, Evan, if you can go to that slide.
>> Uh, which one? Yeah. >> Uh, yep. So, those properties, um, there's one, two, three, four, five, six separate properties. So, my proposal is to put all of those
CB light. >> Yeah, I'm fine. >> The um what I noticed when I did the looking So, the top left one, that's the town of Chelmsford. Technically, it's should be
public. >> That little corner. >> Yeah. Oh, >> the one with the question mark on it on the left. >> Oh, the one that's a little bit bigger. >> No, up top. >> The tiny quant. >> That one. >> That one. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> So, that one's the public one. Um, but I think keeping it CV light >> doesn't do anything. Town owns it. >> Yeah, the town owns it, but there's no reason to really protect it. Um, I think keeping it CV light keeps it more whole.
And then the one in front of that is a multif family. And then the little triangle, I believe, is owned by one of the people who own >> Which one is multif family, Chris? >> Uh, that one in the middle there. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> And then the little triangle is owned by
one of the owners of that multif family. It's a multif family condo. >> Looks like they've >> bought it to extend their yard. Um and then the small parcels um on the other side. So I
propose that we put all of those CB light. >> Seeing nods. >> Sure. >> All in favor of putting all of those CB light. I >> Okay. Uh 127 Riverneck.
>> So, I'm just gonna throw something out there. >> Yep. >> So, it looks like we're keeping everything in this area here is CB light. >> Yep. >> Except those two little houses next to the cemetery.
Do we just do this whole section CB? Because then it's either CB light or or it's, you know, owned by the town or the cemetery. The houses are not what are the houses. >> The the three little houses are what? >> The two little houses right before the cemetery.
>> And what are they going to be zoned? >> Right now they're listed as RB and we're keeping them. >> No, right now they're zone IIA. >> Okay. But we're keeping them RB. We're not making them CV light. Or is that what you're proposing? >> I don't know. Do we just make this whole this whole area? >> No, I don't think we should. No, because I think
>> because it's bounded by public. >> It's >> it's an island anyway. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> True. It's an island anyway. Bounded by That's a good point. >> So no matter if we put it CB light or >> Y >> residential, it's still an island.
>> Yeah. >> No matter what we make cemeteries be what it is on the ground. >> Yeah. So yeah, in that case, I would propose to keep it >> out there. Okay. >> Okay. Um, so 127 Riverneck.
>> Wait, what about this one? >> That's the one. >> Which I see like that's Walsh. >> Okay. Okay. >> 127 Riverneck is the one on the left. Um, I think we've considered that CB light. Anyone not in favor of continuing
our path to CV light on that one? Okay, I think everyone's agreed that that continues to be CV light in our proposal. the 5 acre parcel
195 riverneck and the small property next to it. So we had talked initially the small parcel RB CB light. >> That's the one the next to Mercury. >> Yes.
>> The little blue house. >> Yep. And then the undeveloped 5acre parcel next to it. Um we had talked about RB, we had talked about CB light. Um my proposal would be to continue with CB
light and an overlay with that CB light continuing and it provides the opportunity for commercial and or multif family. Yeah, I would, you know what else I would like to do in the
CV light is add add a village to the juice table. >> I'm not sure we want to do that because >> not right this minute, but >> Well, I think also that creates a lot of problems putting a village in a commercial district.
>> I think that's a different solution. >> Yeah, but I mean it's like an alternative to multif family. >> It's a different type of I know what you're saying. And like like they have them in Bedford. Maybe we look at what um Bedford has some of that like really small single family homes kind of
like condominium type like it becomes like a condo, >> right? So it's it's kind of a variation of multifamily that's not a big box. >> Yeah. >> We can look at >> Well, it's variation of mixed use. Variation of mixed use. >> Got too.
>> So maybe we look at adjusting the the overlay the say overlay. >> Yeah. So we'll put that on the list of things in the future to look at along with FAR. All right. So one
95 and the small parcel. >> I'm fine. >> CB light. >> I'm okay with that. >> Joel, are you good? >> So let me just reiterate. If it's CV light, it's se and multifamilies
allowed. Mhm. >> Yeah, I'm good with that. >> Yeah, I think keeping that side of the street off CB light in that area is >> that makes sense to me. >> It's gonna it's getting rid of that pocket areas that we're trying to >> eliminate. >> All right.
Next up, uh the Monmouth parcel public or RB. The suggestion last meeting was to keep it or keep the direction public um to provide more protection now until
something else is determined later. >> We could always change it to RB later if needed. >> That works for me. Okay. >> I like that idea. >> I like that idea. >> Works. >> And I know Joel, you support that since you're the one that proposed it.
>> Yes, that is correct. All right. Now the topic of RC versus RB on Monmouth and McFarland >> RB >> RB I mean that's what they are and I think yeah >> we just take I think we need to look at
the FAR if that's the real real reason you know the concern and again I think now knowing how the engineers calculate FAR and I can reach I'll I'll reook at those numbers that using their methodology
that this really wasn't an issue. We just need to fix >> okay >> fix our definition of far whatever. >> So we'll go with RB on that um and commit to looking at FAR um in our next round of >> zoning updates.
>> Okay. Anyone opposed to that? >> All right. All right. That brings us to the end of our decisions. Um so at this point >> recommendations >> we will uh close the um neighborhood
discussion. We'll take a motion to close the neighborhood discussion and move these to a recommendation for public hearing. >> Motion to close the uh discussion and move towards public hearing. >> Motion by Marcy. Second by Anita. Uh
roll call. Joel. Yes. You You fooled me. >> I I wasn't ready to have my mic. >> I figured Marcy. >> Yes. Keeping on de. >> Yes. >> Anita. >> Yes. >> John. >> Yes. >> And Mike. >> Yep. >> And I'm an eye. So that's unanimous to
close it. >> Yeah. He's really, you know, >> he's Yeah. really trying to mess all of us up. >> Keeping you awake tonight. >> He's the only one who has a mic to deal with. >> All right. Next item. Uh data center zoning. >> Oh god.
So I think for the record no Marcy and Joel should tell us how the LOL meeting went. >> Yeah, let's hear about >> So yeah, if you can give us a brief update on the LOL meeting and then we can have Joel run through the uh slides.
>> Um >> yeah, go ahead. >> Yeah, I told him I was gonna have to talk about this one. Um so we both of us went to the little meeting um and they were there pretty much they spent about 15 minutes sort of giving a presentation on data centers. They talked about some of the same things we would talk about
like the different sizes of the data centers um different concerns that have been brought to their attention like water uses electricity um pollution noise all those things. um looking at, you know, how do they
potentially want to zone areas for data centers, especially because they've got Markley in there, which is one of the biggest data centers in Massachusetts currently in there, and they've been there for about 14 years. Um, so even if they reszone, they're still going to be grandfathered in as non-conforming. Um,
so they talked about that and then they sort of opened it up to the public to come in and speak. And I kind of I Joel, you can disagree with me agreement, but I kind of feel like the message was sort of lost in the public. They were just there saying we don't want Markley there versus this is what we want to look at for zoning for data centers because
Markley is looking at purchasing some additional property in L to expand on. Yeah. >> One of one being on Tanner Street. Um so um but it was more in the neighborhood that they just don't want a data center. um not that let's look at how we can
zone this to make this sort of work for us because they're there that even if we re if LOL resones it's still going to be there um as grandfathered did in non-conforming. So it was it was interesting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So in that sense it really wasn't
super informative for us because it was just basically a we don't like Markley kind of meeting >> pitchforks. Yes. I mean >> the pitchforks were out. The pitchforks were definitely out. Yes. Um and it was Yeah, it was very There
were a couple like the u environmental people that were there were like, "Hey, this would be great if you could use like solar panels to help bring in some green energy." So, a couple people did have some good thoughts and how we can get rid of some of this >> and batteries. >> Yeah, >> somebody brought up batteries.
>> Yep. um instead of like having all this diesel fuel here and um all these other things. So, there were some people that did come with some good thoughts to it. But it was, as you said, the pitchforks were out and I know this is going to be the first of quite a few meetings that they're
going to have. Um and hopefully they changed the question and answer part of the format so that it's, you know, not pass the mic and that gets sort of crazy because people get very upset that they didn't get heard. Okay, thank you.
All right, Joel, do you want to take us through the slides? >> Yep. >> So, if you can go to the slides, I There we go. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. So the only thing on the data center definition that I changed was
that I added on the very last line, if you remember, I had on-site utility substation and I added battery storage as well because that also is a potential um thing that someone might do for the purpose of backup power, emergency
power, that sort of thing. Um, and so, uh, I mean, I think battery storage and how we handle that is a different subject. So, I don't mean to be handling that here, but I did want to at least acknowledge that that was
something that could, you know, potentially be there. So, uh, if you go to the next slide, and this is where we did some modifications, especially thanks to, um, a lot of good inputs from Chris where I got stuck in a couple of
places. Um, so now we, as you can see, we've broken out accessory as a definition itself. And so I want to start there. So the accessory small data center is a small data center that is subordinate to and
serves only the principal use of the premises is located entirely within the same building as the principal use it serves. So that's really really really spelling it out. But I think that that's a good thing. I hadn't spelled it out that much
>> and Chris applied a number of that that language I think really helps to just make it very very clear what we're talking about. >> And then it goes on to say an accessory small data center shall have a total electrical consumption of no more than one megawatt regardless of source. That's the same occupy less than 20,000
square feet and have no associated external infrastructure dedicated solely to the data center. So that's where what we're trying to say is that you can't have no external infrastructure with regards to what may or may not be the
data center may be taking advantage of but nonetheless there isn't any external infrastructure dedicated solely to that. So if you had a business, if you had a manufacturing or whatever like that and now you add a data center to it and now you go from being, you know, using three
megawws to, you know, 10 megawws because you want to fuel your data center even though you're still considering it a accessory use that we're saying now you can't do that. So that's the that's the purpose of that definition. I I think we both feel Chris and I feel pretty
comfortable with that language as far as what it's trying to do, which is to allow people to have data centers as long as it's serving their particular principal use and as long as it itself is not creating any uh impacts uh
itself. Um so now I want to go back to a small data center. So now this is principal use. So data center which is a principal use. So again being like super clear that has up to 1 megawatt of total electrical consumption regardless of
source is less than 20,000 square ft and has no associated external infrastructure that was the original definition. I would like for us to consider whether we would say with associated external infrastructure limited to generators subject to site
plan review or something like that. And and the reason I I do that is because we we do have a number of places, businesses, whatnot, where there are generators. I mean, um I was just driving by the uh the refurb of the the
housing uh next to town hall and there's a little generator right out there by the road and uh you know, when we looked at the um at the car wash, there was a generator associated with that. Um, so you know, it would be to me, it would
seem to me to be arbitrary to say that we wouldn't allow a principal data center use to have some form of generator infrastructure. Um, now we're limiting it to one megawatt. So that means that you really can't have too
much of a generator impact. Um, but nonetheless, we would want to review to make sure that the generators are being, you know, handled appropriately as far as screened, uh, soundproofed, so forth and so on. Uh, that to me seemed like a
better way to go because otherwise, if you're going to have a small data center, you're likely going to need some sort of emergency backup power >> and not allow them to have some kind of backup power. Seems like we're just essentially saying you can't have one. Um so that's something that I would
would um would would suggest that the board consider um adopting that language that alternative language >> and certainly would solicit comments from anybody on on that and discuss that. Then the medium data center and the large data center pretty much remain
the same. Um the I think the change I don't remember if I made this change before last time or not this time but I just excluded any mention of a number of generators and and the reason I did that was because we were already limiting
them. Oh the other thing I forgot to add is that we reduced it from five megawws to three megawws. The reason we did that is because some of the other things that were driving what we're trying to control in terms of like the 50,000 gallons of of fuel, the
number and sizes of generators and things like that, it look those looking at ways you would estimate, you know, how much fuel would a generator use uh for or to generate so many megawatts and how many generators would you need so forth and so on. that those numbers all
seem to go together much better with three megawatts than five. >> So, so uh so now we're using or I'm proposing that we use three megawatts, not five megawws as I originally proposed. Um and then the large data
center is basically anything larger than three megawws. And that's just basically uh that's all we have to say. So before we and and um before we talk too much about the definitions, I want to go to the next slide which is the the
use um because here I'd like to propose three different kinds of of uses um particularly related to the small data center. So the medium and the large data centers, they're not going to be allowed
um that we agreed on. Uh the accessory small data center, we're talking about allowing that pretty much wherever you would have those kinds of things, which is commercial and industrial. Uh but the small data center is the one that
uh originally when when Chris and I were going back and forth, he reminded me that we had decided that we weren't going to have any principal use allowed. And I thought that not allowing a small data center seemed almost overly restrictive because of the
fact that it's limited to one megawatt because we would control like what kinds of uh that we're excluding any kind of external things that could have impacts on everybody except for possibly generators and even those are going to be somewhat limited because of the one megawatt and because of our review. So,
so then I was saying, well, okay, if we did, if we chose not to be as restrictive as not allowing it anywhere, which is what's in the the first use table, is that for the small data center, we consider whether it would be
allowed in industrial, but by some kind of review by the planning board. And then possibly the most uh the most liberal one I guess you might say is to have it in commercial where the planning
board can be reviewing that and then as right in industrial. And so I understand the concerns that were expressed last time that we want to sort of start small and and grow into it. And I was just trying to
prevent being overreactive in the sense that I think if people recognize that data centers are an issue that we want to control that they'll they will be motivated to have some sort of a definition in place. Um I think
allowing some use would be a good idea and it may be that the middle one is the one that people may end up you know sort of settling on as well. Okay. Well, allow it industrial uh with some oversight. Um but that's where I just
wanted to sort of stop there and just open it to get people's thoughts on, you know, do you want to like do you want any modification of the definitions? Do you want a modification use? But we should we should do them together, right? So the the definitions
and the uses should be coordinated with each other. >> Can you go back to the the definitions? I had do you have a question on definitions? >> I just have like a small knit from a presentation perspective. I
would switch I would do accessory small data center first then go into the small data center medium and large >> way the way you present it. >> That's correct. >> Exactly the way you presented it because that's I think the more natural like this is >> and I think it's easier to Yeah. And I
think it's and again obviously explain why we're defining a small data center because we have it. These are your little IT rooms in office buildings. Those are technically data centers. So we want to make sure that that's defined
and it we don't have like creep. Um >> then I'm fine. >> I'm fine with that. I agree. And then I'm fine I'm personally fine with or for the small data center associated external limited to generator subject to site plan review.
>> Do we need the site plan review wording in there? Because >> I didn't know. Um >> well actually um you probably not because if it's new construction it's going to trigger or if
it's a uh conversion of an existing office building it's changing from one use category to another use category. Um probably not. I mean, we can ask town council when
they when you reviews this anyway. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I wasn't I wasn't sure about whether that really made sense, but I was just trying to communicate something with it. So, >> makes sense. >> So, I just had a a clarifying question
on the accessory. The definition references principal use, but how do you envision handling this for a multi-tenanted office building? Is this is this intended to have one one data center for the entire building or is it intended for each business to have
the an opportunity? >> Wouldn't each business have it? >> I would say each business would have Yeah. Like >> it could it could actually be both >> because in most office buildings well not >> No, when you're doing
>> No. Yeah. Each company would have their own >> every each company like >> as worded it it just uses principal U. So take 300 Apollo >> the principal. >> If you remember my my my original attempt was that it was a facility that could be all of the facility or part of
the facility. >> No, it should be tied. >> I'm sorry. This is for >> accessory. So accessory I would envision this is per the company. So like I have enough I am at Washington each business
right like so each you know we have four or five businesses >> um >> you know we have >> biotech companies right we all you know each one has their own IT closet their own data center it's separate for security purposes you have to have that
you would never never ever for >> unless it's collocation facility in which case it shifts >> no no from even if you look at the SEC DC anything that's public a public company IC guidelines you have to have cyber >> those do but there are collocation data centers where companies get together and
rent space and share the overhead >> yeah but they would still be very separate because you have separate >> you may want to just consider switching out principle for business use >> yeah that's a good point okay >> yep Okay,
>> thank you. >> So, principal use of the business. >> Nope. It would be uh same building as the business use it serves. >> Basically want you want to allow each business within a building to >> to have their IT closet like their
>> understanding where the words are going to go, but I'm not going to worry about that. >> Let them do it. They're good. >> Joel's good. Joel's doing a great job >> for the use table. I know we talked about the
thought of not allowing it anywhere to start. Um I would not be in favor of the third option. I think that's asking for trouble at town meeting. >> Too permissive. >> Um but I would be in favor of the the
special permit in industrial Okay. >> Especially since we are moving with the CBLT now. >> Yeah. Yeah. But the thing is again I think this is a the third rail. Like
I think there's so much confusion about data center. There's so much talk especially from a legislative perspective whether something's going to be at the state level, the federal level controlling it, the impacts to the environment. I think our goal should be
to let's define this and let's make sure that anything that's currently being used doesn't morph like someone can't come in and say well I have a business and I have a you know my business has an IT you know and it's I'm already you know
I'm already under this and it morphs out of control then we can't control it. So I think the goal for us going in front of town meeting is to get these definitions out there and say no. Then when we have a business that
may want to approach us to do something then we can always go and and propose that to town meeting and switch wherever we feel that it would be appropriate. But I think going in other than all no
this will take shot down. It is too political of an like it's just too political at this point and there's so much unknown about legislation and who's going to legislate this.
>> I mean there's talk at the state house, there's talk at the federal level. Like >> I guess I'm I'm just having a hard time thinking that somebody was would flip out that we're just going to allow it in industrial
when it's far less impactful than because we are limiting it. This is the small one. So we're limiting it to one megawatt which is on the extremely low end of what typically is used in industrial anyway. I just think it's people don't understand it and this is in front of
town meeting and it's going to get emotional. >> But but the people who don't want data centers, they're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They're going to say, "No, I just want to leave it undefined and, you know, still be potentially susceptible to these things
popping up because we don't really understand them." Joel, you Joel, you remember the MBTA zoning, right? >> Well, how about this? >> I guess I you know I guess does anybody like the third option here? >> No. No.
>> Okay. So, we're going >> So, we're going to go in front of we're going to open this up for a public meeting, right? >> Public? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, why don't we >> Why don't we keep Right. like why don't we keep it this is one version one option we're thinking about doing this
is option B even like if you're going in front of fincom and go in front of the select board right like let's hear maybe get their thoughts on it >> for for the public meeting
and especially for a select board when they do their articles we're going to need to have I don't think we can go in with options I think we can Yeah, >> have an alternative in our pocket that we're willing to go to.
>> But I think if we're going to do that, we need to do option two. >> I think we can go typically we can go more restrictive >> in changes, but not less restrictive and not more broad.
>> That's typically the way that we've been able to adjust these. >> Not a multiple choice. start this out with small and um accessory and small including your um allowing by special permit and industrial for the small
>> and then if along the road you need to withdraw one component of it that's that's all you do. >> Yeah. And we can we can not necessarily withdraw it but change it from planning board to no >> in the process. I think it would be >> much more
>> easy to do that way than >> certainly than the other way. >> So I would I would do our proposal the second one. >> Yeah. So allow the accessory as Joel has
shown and then do the small data center >> special permit and IIA and is >> and see what feedback we get >> or what I am interested in knowing which I don't know if it's >> something that we I don't know how we
would know this but I am interested in knowing are these parameters for the small data center so ownorously prohibitive as to no one's ever going to want to build that here.
>> Like, are we just are we just entertaining ourselves making up these numbers? >> No, I don't think so. >> No, I think megawatt I think up to one megawatt is actually leaves opportunity for small kinds of
>> relatively, you know, controlled kinds of things. Okay. >> You certainly are not going to get any sort of >> anywhere approaching anything like what's happening in LOL when you cap it at 1 megawatt. >> Um >> well, >> can I or I'm just going to throw this
out there like do we do maybe a joint meeting with a select board and fin to go through this to get their feedback like right off the bat like at their temperature? I think that's a lot of effort. I think
we're easily able to get feedback um >> informally. >> Informally. >> Okay. >> I'm not sure it rise I'm not sure this one rises to that level. >> Yeah. >> Now Joel, do we know about the data centers that are already in Cherford? Like the one on the record road like um
how many megawatts they use? >> One. How about the one in L? >> 8,000 square foot. Uh actually surprisingly in all the stuff that's reported on Markley, no one reports what their megawws are, but they have 27
>> diesel generators that are of a size that you would assume they're at least one to potentially three or five megawatts each. So you're talking well in excess of what? >> 16 cooling towers. Like it's crazy.
>> How many square feet is the whole place? >> Oh, it's 100. No. >> 352,000. >> Thank you. >> When that first came in, >> they were like, "Oh, look." >> Are people comfortable moving forward with that option too for small data
center? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And then see what feedback we get in the public hearing and select board infincom. >> Yes. And worst case scenario, we can always if we get to town meeting and we get
push back, we can adjust it in town meeting, too. >> Yeah. True. >> Yep. >> Yep. It's always always uh amendable to an amendment if it if things get tough. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Joel. Thanks, Joel, for all. >> Thank you, Joel.
>> Thank you. >> All right. So, I think we've closed out that discussion. I don't think we need a vote on that one. Um, so Joel, if you can update those and get them to me for next week or so, and we can get that one
on the the board for the next uh for the August public hearing as well. >> Yep. >> Okay. Next item, managed growth strategy. >> Uh, we have a meeting scheduled for next week, >> so I think this probably needs to be
discussed at our next meeting. All right. >> One one thing I was going to mention is that it as I was thinking about that it was occurring to me that we actually are by default the planning board
already has a set of I think unarticulated goals and uh just in the things that we're doing. So, I was just going to give some thought to putting them together um to run run by the word board at some
point because I think I mean I think when you look at what we're doing, we're we're largely we're not looking to expand industrial. We're actually looking to convert a certain amount of industrial to commercial. We're really more interested in sort of the the missing middle sort of thing than we are
in single family. Um, so it's, you know, I think I think those are already pretty good indications of where the board thinks this town should go as far as managed growth. So I was going to try to put those pull those together and run it by the board and then potentially
use that as something to, you know, feed into the managed growth strategy. But Evan sent us out some some homework things to look at before the meeting. So as far as specifying capacity and see if we can get a handle on capacity and that sort of
>> what kind of capacity >> get a better >> capacity on infrastructure like sewer, water >> infrastructure >> sounds good. >> Thank you Joel. >> All right. Uh
tracking uh nothing to really talk about there. just continuing to provide the updates there. Contractor yard version seven if you can go to that. >> These are all PDFs though, right? >> So we can't see track changers.
>> So on >> what the Oh no. So the track changes document. We're not actually I'm not actually tracking changes. I'm tracking the status updates. >> Okay. So, I probably misnamed that file.
Um, all right. So, for contractor yards, uh, this after last meeting, um, I went back and looked at some things on the use table. If you could scroll to the use table.
I looked at this and realized that our current indoor contractor yard is allowed in CB and outdoor contractor yard is special
permit in CB. All other commercial is no. I'm wondering if we want to take a look at the first tier contractor service business.
adjusting this a little bit to make the the to split out the CB and to make the moderate planning board special permit in CV only
and no in the other commercial areas. What's CB? Hold on. Now I'm confused. >> CB is the >> So moderate is outdoor. >> So moderate includes light outdoor.
>> So there's light storage outdoor. >> No. Then I'm a no on that. That's not >> CB is roadside commercial. Yeah. That allows automotive repair, open lot sales, wholesale businesses, retail offices. >> Like I don't want
I don't want to encourage a lot of I don't want to encourage outdoor and CB in the commercial space. Like I just don't want to encourage more of that. You don't you just don't want to encourage more outdoor contractors yet,
>> right? In in the commercial space anywhere. >> No, no, no. I'm fine with it in IIA. >> Okay. >> Um if we fix all the zoning of IIA that we want to fix. Um but assume, you know, we go ahead with our IIA zoning, then I'm not sure. Like
again, I'd rather have other types of businesses that are allowed in CB. Like that's my fear. Like I don't want to be a town that we have all of those businesses in CB. So just from a planning perspective, >> so like where do we have them right now?
Like North Road, >> they're in they're in the CB districts along um Littleton Road. >> Littleton Road. Yeah. >> Ting Tingsboro Road. >> Some >> um >> down off of Bill Rucker Road. What's that street? And then on and then in CD
um there's some on uh Princeton Street as you head into Vinyl Square. >> Oh yeah. >> Uh Middle Sex Middle Sex Street is all CB. >> So those aren't those aren't traditional
like commercial retail corridors like a chump street. >> Yeah. But I'd like to like ideally like even like Littleton Road like I like that to like be more like a ch like more commercial like a chumpster street like I don't like you know what I'm saying like I don't necessarily >> like just because it's there we're doing
planning for the future I think I would want that to be more >> to encourage more of a commercial like >> which it primarily has >> on little on Littleton Road off of
Littleton Road to KD Road is like um in industrial and contractor condos and things of that nature. >> Yeah. Like but you know ideally I'd love to have that street to be more like especially where it goes into Westford, right? To have that be more and it's coming out of Cher more like
continuation of more of like a village. But Anita, the proposal that we had talked about allows or it has special permit in all of the commercial districts except for CBLT
>> for the moderate. That's the proposal we had talked about. >> So my proposal now is to constrain it a little bit more >> um and allow it where it's currently allowed and not allow it where it's not currently allowed.
>> Okay, that's okay. Okay then. Yes, I'm in agreement with that. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes. Sorry. Sorry. I totally agree with that. Fine. I'm fine. >> So allow it by special permit in CB and CD >> and then not in the other three. >> So it' be CB and CD. It's allowed in CD. >> Um
>> by special permit. >> It's currently not allowed in CD. >> Correct. So that's that's >> so just allow it in CB. >> Yes. So that's what I would propose is allow it in CB by special permit. >> Okay. only moderate and the the tier one
the contractor service business um would be allowed in all the commercial areas. The moderate would be allowed in IIA and special permit in CB >> where it is now. >> Sounds good.
>> I think that's good. >> And then heavy. >> So where's CB? trying to figure out what I >> because the outdoor contractor yards are allowed in CB. >> This would still be more restrictive because >> it wouldn't allow the heavy contractor
yards in CB. >> Right. >> So, this is still even more restrictive than it is now. >> I'm still worried about that poor Martell kid, >> the tree guy. I'd like to I'd like to find him a home. I think he went to Burka. >> Did he
>> think so? >> So, >> but there should I mean someone else like that. >> But I mean yeah I mean those are the the IIA uses that we were talking about. So that that's what I would propose to be
updated um so that we allow the moderates where the outdoor is currently allowed. um thoughts >> now that I understand what you were saying. Yes. >> Okay. >> I'm agree with Sorry, you need to do
less. >> It's okay. >> Just a little rabbit hole, Dodge. >> It's late. Time for me to go home. >> It's only 9:30. >> Any other thoughts other than Adidas? >> I'm in a cord.
>> Okay. Joel, are you okay with that? I'm not sure those I'm not sure those qualified for thoughts, but that's okay. >> Joel, you okay with it? >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. >> Mike, John, >> yes. >> Yeah. All right. >> Okay. All right. I will make those
updates. All right. Moving on. New business is none. uh community development director's report. >> There's a lot there. >> All right. So, I was I was um asked to
um sit in on a webinar related to this topic. Um at some point in the near future, we should probably take a deeper dive on this. Um I'll just give you the the very
high level summary. The 2024 Mass Climate Act introduced new permitting reform uh section 225 CMR 29 which speaks to energy facility sighting board uh
related to uh solar and battery storage. This is a newsworthy um in Tukesbury I think. >> Yeah. So, uh, these new regulations, um, introduce a new local option for
consolidated permitting. It's optional, meaning it's similar to MBTA zoning where the state says you don't have to do anything. Um, and if you don't do anything, if a project comes in, you just follow the state the state guidelines and regulations.
Um it defines uh municipal permits related to uh solar. It defines so municipalities can permit only small solar projects that generate uh less
than 25 MWs which I think is megawws. And then on the storage side for batteries, municipalities can regulate um projects up to 100 MWK. Anything larger, the state uh sighting
board uh reviews and approves. There's a process where towns can um petition to um be involved like Tukesbury did. The regulations also call for uh no longer than a tw 12-month local uh permitting
process in which one decision is issued um that consolidates all any and all local permits. So, planning board, concom historic district, whatever they may be. >> Uh the statute identifies um these two
uh uses as a as a do use. The regulations um prescribe the process at the local level. What kinds of projects are exempt from local permitting? Uh it defines site suitability.
It defines regulatory review standards and common conditions. So, these regulations specifically define setbacks, lighting, monitoring, storm water, nuisances, and um emergency
response. Um they've also issued uh some guidance documents and and two model uh zoning bylaws. Uh the qu what I'm not clear about and I
asked the question I'm still waiting to hear hear back is if these are do if this is a do use which means it's reasonable regulation and presumably the state uh regulations are defining those reasonable regulations.
Well then what's the point of any community adopting local zoning? Uh so it's still not so I still don't fully understand that. Um but my suggestion is I think the planning board
needs to get to a point where they understand to what extent it makes sense for the town to adopt zoning. And if and if we decide that we should adopt zoning, well then time is of the essence. Obviously, um I have no idea to what extent any of
these projects would be interested in coming to Chsford. We obviously have commercial solar um and we have a bylaw which seems to be working fine. I'm not aware of any um principal battery
uh storage projects. >> So, principal battery is that what what what is that? It's essentially a warehouse with a ton of batteries in it that's connected to
um a principal source of of energy. And I think if I read correctly, it would have to be attached to clean energy source. If I >> I think I think the batteries what Tusberry had had um approved by the state
sighting board. It was a large battery storage facility, >> but it was for like solar or wind power, I thought. >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't know the details. >> I mean, that makes sense in the direction. In the case of um another
there was another article about multiple facilities going in notary one but there the company that was bringing in multiple battery sort of clusters or whatever in support of municipal utilities and um and in that case obviously that's
not I don't think that's clean energy >> but I think I somewhere in the documentation that I read through they did define the battery storage in this context. And I thought I read that it was primarily
battery storage for the clean energy. I have no idea where I read that. >> It seems to me if they're trying to make it a do that that would be that would be sensible. I mean, they're trying to move towards
clean energy and and one of the problems is that you need energy storage. Well, similar to MTA zoning, the state has they they have a lesson learned and they're providing a lot of um local
technical assistance. So, NIMCOG has grant money similar to MBTA zoning to assist to assist um their member towns. Um and then there's the state's doing a lot of these webinars over the next, you
know, handful of weeks. >> So, the clean energy storage facility is defined in here um >> in the regulations. >> Yeah. >> What what's what definition is it? It's
small. It's under S. Small clean energy. >> There it is. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, this is Okay, I get it. Interesting. Looks like they put sound barriers up around it. Does it give off a lot of noise? >> So, the
>> this is the proposal. >> I think they're defining these more as clean energy storage, clean energy infrastructure and clean energy generation. So it's really related to solar. >> Yeah. >> And wind
>> and something >> which is fascinating because from a technical point of view you cannot even differentiate between clean energy storage and dirty energy storage. >> Well except for where it's coming from. >> Yeah. If it's coming from
>> it's Yeah. Yeah, but you but it has no impact on the nature of the facility. >> But the pollution it does. >> No, the battery isn't polluting. It's the generation. >> I understand. But so if you're trying to
generate clean energy and you allow batteries to take clean energy and store it for >> but you don't allow them to take dirty energy, how would you know? There's no technical difference from a technical perspective
an organic farmer. They check up on it. >> They're most of them don't. >> But what it is defining it as is is you can't install I think you can't install an energy storage facility that's not attached to some clean energy source.
>> Yeah. I mean, that's what they're saying exactly >> because they're encouraging the clean energy. They're not in it's not necessarily the battery storage that they're encouraging. They're encouraging the clean energy which really requires the battery storage >> and then
power providers will start playing games about I'll trade you my clean energy for your dirty energy. >> Well, they'll be un they do that already and it's indistinguishable. >> So So I think >> apparently there's there's like so they
are putting up sound barrier. I'm just looking at the Tixbury one. >> So, it must make a lot of noise because they have to put up sound fence to limit sound pollution for neighbors. >> Well, it might be generation. Um any Yeah. Based on my experience at power
plants, anything related to electrical does give off some hum. >> Yeah. No, but again, >> so I know how hard it is to get like sound barriers on 4.95. >> Most of the batteries I have are pretty >> now >> and how much they cost. So
>> that's >> so going forward. Um I did see that there are some dates in here too of when it goes into effect. >> I think it's already in effect. >> I think it towns can adopt it, but it really goes into a required state I
think October 1st >> of this year. >> Of this year, >> right? Correct. >> Right now we're in the optional >> Yeah. the optional optin phase >> and then it goes required October 1st. >> Wow. which there's no way we're going to get to. So, I think what would be
helpful is some way to figure out if we don't do anything, what happens? Yeah. >> Do the state regulations automatically kick in? >> Probably. So, >> so what was presented was that um if you
if you do nothing, your your existing zoning bylaw applies. So again, we have commercial solar bylaw and then obviously any um new facility may trigger uh major
business complex may trigger site plan. >> Um so at least at least procedurally it would appear before the planning board. >> But as a do use in the state regulations >> your your review would be limited in
scope. Mhm. >> And I'm assuming if it's within con jurisdiction, their review would still be enforcable like it is now.
>> Um, and so as of October 1st though, do the state regulations automatically go into effect and override ours? That's my understanding. Okay,
>> that would be my expectation. I would think so. >> So, let why don't I uh take a deeper dive and uh report back at the next meeting on that answer. >> What should we be doing between now and October and what happens after October?
And then I think my guess is that since there's not much we can do for zoning changes between now and October 1st, >> um actually there's nothing we can do for zoning changes between now and October 1st. >> We'll just put it on the next meeting agenda. >> We have to assume that as of October
1st, if that state regulation goes into effect, that's what we'll end up following. So I think the next couple months >> special meeting >> would there's no way we'd be able to pull something together. No, I mean we could do a special town meeting at a subsequent date before >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, I think between now
and October 1st, I think we would have to just figure out, we have to assume that the regulations are the state regulations will go into effect on October 1st and figure out procedurally what we can and can't do and how we're going to handle this. Um, because I think Evan, it sounds like it's going to
be more work on you to consolidate the process into one peritting process. Um, and then we also at the same time try and figure out how we handle it after October 1st
in terms of changing the zoning. Likely ask for NIMCOG assistance again uh to do the same thing that they worked with us on the MBTA zoning changes. >> Um, do the compare and contrast our zoning with this the uh model, what
changes we need to make. um or do we just strike it alto together and replace it with the model from the state? So, uh asking for NEMCOG's help probably soon because they're probably going to get a lot of towns and cities asking for their
help. So, if we can get on their calendar um and then work with them to come up with some proposals for zoning changes that we then figure out the timing whether it's going to be the the Springtown meeting or a special town
meeting sometime before. Okay. So, I think we'll definitely need their help to sort through all this. It's a lot of information and updates. Okay.
Thank you, Evan. Le on updates. >> Well, my stuff's been moved. >> Oh, actually, sorry. Before we get there, Evan, did you have anything else talking? Okay. Sorry, Mike. >> All the strategy stuff will be next week. So, >> yep. >> Okay.
>> Senate Village isn't meeting this month. So, >> huh, >> we got nothing. >> Anita, >> uh, MCBA is having a meeting tomorrow. >> Okay, >> John. >> And the next NIMCO council meeting will be next Wednesday.
>> All right, Joel, anything? >> Yep. The board of health met last night, actually. >> I think it was last night. Yeah, it was last night. And um, there are some there are some interesting things that came up. Um,
of course I I asked as I always ask uh what's going on with the gap analysis and and that you know we we did have uh we're very interested in the disposition of our comments and uh uh so Donna the public health
director reached out to u the consultant to let him know that you know we were interested that that the board of health was interested in when you know there was going to be uh the next the when he's going to finish consolidating the comments and then the next step would be
a staff review and so I asked uh well would that be in the next couple of weeks maybe or something and she said she was waiting to hear back so um as has been par for the course for the gap analysis it's coming it's not
here yet >> thank you Joel continue to drive that timeline Yeah. >> Now also uh what came up was um they uh they did some talking about
chemicals that are used for spraying with regards to train um tracks and also power lines and so forth like that. And they were thinking about different ways of handling that. And I think they are going to discuss it further but they're looking at potentially having something on their website like they do for the
mosquito spraying and stuff like that. So, uh, so there's a there's an interest in, you know, people being at least aware of, um, of that and what are common sense things to do with regards to that. Um, another interesting thing
is that there are two septic systems that are in the aquifer that are over 20 years old that have failed. Um, and so, uh, it's in a neighborhood that is not connected to sewer. And so there was going to be some I guess discussion
in the neighborhood about whether they would whe they would go on sewer. And to to go with that, there was a meeting between the board of health and the DPW and um and Donna, the public health director, shared with me um some of the
wording with regards to uh policy uh regarding that. And so if you have a system that is at least 20 years old in an aquifer um protectionary that has failed that and it's no longer feasible to replace
it then upon review of a request for an exemption then the DPW director may allow the resident to connect to sewer. So I thought that was a very good positive step. Um I mentioned there that certainly in the managed growth strategy
some of the one of the things I think we would definitely be interested in as a town is to one of our goals would be to get every everybody that's on septic and aquifer protection onto sewer. So it's not a big it's not a you know it's not a huge number of households but
nonetheless you know if you're talking about an environmental goal that would certainly be one of them. >> What kind of number is it? >> It's 20. Oh gosh. I'd have to go back and look at uh it's
it's in the it's like Yeah, I don't have it. It's in my other book. It's like 23 or 19 or something like that. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's not huge thankfully, but nonetheless, it is more than one or two. >> Zero.
>> Yeah. Uh then the other interesting thing was uh with regards to Hildrith uh and the the question of PAS and what uh and and the um land owner
needing to address that in terms of uh reporting a release and so forth and so on. If you remember there that was a a thing with the board of health. uh they had a public hearing we swan on it so forth and then they were waiting to hear from uh DP about you know how that was
resolving and what she um shar Donna again shared with me was that um D has made the determination that even though they originally sent uh a notice of responsibility to the land owner then as
they reviewed it and they realized that that was premature and in fact uh that doing that with is not consistent with their current approach. So this is now DP's current approach is that for low-level detections of PAS and
groundwater on residential properties, they are going to presume it's an upgradient source rather than an onpropy source. So in other words, they are they are not necessarily they say that it's widely detected in the environment and so they are not going to treat that as a
you know source issue. >> Uh and there and even though the even though the PAS levels were above the minimum, they apparently weren't enough above for the state to consider that an issue. >> So do we know what that what that
threshold is? Yes, it's uh 20 nano somethings. >> Not the reportable threshold, but the new threshold that they the minimal the minimal whatever threshold they're now
using >> like like whatever is actually going to make them care about it. >> Yeah, >> you they're not going to publish that number. >> That's on Anita's little chart there >> on residential property. apparently they've never heard of people like
dumping stuff in their subject and so forth. So >> I just I just thought everybody would be interested in knowing that that's where DP is at these days. >> Um so uh >> in this state in Massachusetts,
can you imagine what it's like in Texas? And uh so that I think is uh >> yeah that's pretty much it for the board of health. >> Okay. >> Um nothing from the conservation commission because July is an odd month
where we alternate. Um so next week will be the conservation meeting. Um >> yeah. >> Oh I do have a go back too. Um the other thing that uh they they provided me a copy of what they had sent to uh our uh
house representatives and also to our state senator with regards to the current the mass ready I think it's the mass ready act it's in >> um that that the senate had voted on then the house voted on that basically undid some of those
restrictions or removals of local uh control that we were concerned about. Yep. >> And that um that uh that then it was going to go into conference. And so we uh did contact um
Simon Cotaldo's office, his aid, his administrative aid uh actually called us and we talked with her for a little bit and basically it's going into conference. We just emailed her today to ask her what the status was and they have not scheduled the conference yet. They are they're going that's the next
step is to go into conference between the House and the Senate where apparently our our state senator is is not in support of of our having you know our our say in some of these things but our representatives fortunately
particularly Simon Caldo is is and so u you know I don't know if he's actually on the conference committee or not we asked him is there anything that you know you would need us to do in order to like communicate to somebody write somebody whatever whatever. >> So, so you're saying Barrett or Senator
Senator Barrett's not doesn't he's in favor of that? >> That's my understanding. That's my understanding. >> So, have we reached out? Has our board of health, our Hong Kong reached out to the town of Lexington. >> Lexington, >> isn't that where Barrett lives?
>> I wonder if they know about what's going on. I would be really shocked if people in Lexington would be in favor of something like this. In any case, um, that's where things stand. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Joel. >> Well, I suggest that anybody who knows
people who live in Lexington should reach out to them and let them know what's going on at the state level and what their senator from Lexington is supporting. >> A number of our boards and chairs did reach out to all of our senators and reps. >> The problem is we're reaching out. We're
like one small town. like we need to reach out to other towns, other committees. >> Those notices went out to a number of conservation officers across the state. >> Um there was a lot of publicity around that. >> And just um put a final point on this,
Anita, you've mentioned over the uh months that by the time the town even knows about it, >> it's sometimes too late. >> Too late. So, the reason I mentioned that is that it was MACC uh that issued a statement on this particular one.
Um, but just this past week uh through my list serve in the environmental bill and the economic bill, not to your surprise, there's dozens of zoning zoning amendments being proposed. You've heard about the ones where
um allow 5,000 square foot lots anywhere there is water and sewer infrastructure. Um there's a variety of other significant amendments that are scattered throughout all of the state proceedings. But to your point, you
would think that um state reps or state senators would they would have early announcement and notification >> and that they would send those out. But for a town to try to track all these
on their own is nearly impossible >> for citizens to track, >> which is why which is why these these um MACC type organizations do it on behalf of their membership. >> Yeah. And I like to see I personally like to see like wish we had a list of all the senators and reps and what their
where their income comes from and how many of them are tied to >> um >> let's not get into that. >> Well, I would but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sorry. >> I just uh I just wanted to add that it was not just MACC but also MSMCP. >> Yes. >> Uh
was very very proactive about getting >> I'll send you the ones that I'm aware of. >> Second round. I'll send you the ones that I'm aware of. >> And this is one of the things that unfortunately with newspapers >> going by the wayside because a lot of people are used to like >> it being delivered to them.
>> Yeah. >> Right. Like I know I there's a lot of people who were surprised that we have a new town like we were in a we're surprised that we lost our Paul left and b that we had two candidates. >> All right, Anita, we got to keep moving. >> Sorry, Facebook was how I knew. But but
like we need some >> meeting minutes. >> Everyone review them. >> He did not. >> I did not. >> And I did not. >> All right. >> We will table it till next meeting.
>> When is the next meeting? >> Two weeks. >> Um All right. >> So at this time I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> I have a question before do we be after? >> Uh let's vote. Adjourn. When is when do are we skipping any meetings? >> Nope. >> We're not skipping any meetings,
unfortunately. >> Might be. >> Attend the ones you can. >> We cannot skip any this year. >> Yeah, we got two more. >> Mike can't leave yet. >> Yeah, don't leave yet. We haven't adjourned. >> Yeah, we can't skip any yet. Um, we
can't skip any because we've got public hearings timed for both August meetings and then we've got some hearings coming up at the end of July. >> So, we won't be able to unfortunately >> when the chumps are supposed to be
coming out. >> All right. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Motion by Mike. >> All in favor? Joel? We uh we have to do roll call. >> Oh, that's right. >> Yeah, we do. All votes. >> Marcy >> Icy. >> Dudra,
>> Anita, John. >> I >> I >> And I'm an I. >> Thank you everyone. We are >> good night.