We will get started. Good evening. It is 7 o'clock on Wednesday, January 14th, and I'm calling this meeting of the Planning Board of Chsford to order. My name is Chris Levali, and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight, we will be following the posted agenda. This meeting tonight is both in person and uh
via Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point during the meeting, we will continue in person. The meeting is being televised live and recorded via Chumpsford Teledia and will be available on their website and on YouTube. Uh tonight we have a full board. Anita Tanini is on Zoom so
we will be doing roll call voting tonight um for any of the motions. All right, first item on the agenda is public input. Public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to any issues within the jurisdiction of the Chumsford Planning
Board, but are not currently uh the subject of a pending public hearing uh before us. Public comment on any public hearing shall only be heard during those hearings. So, any member of the public here wishing to speak during public
input? Yes. Right up to the microphone, please state your name and your address for the record, please. My name is uh DaleRandle Jr. I'm the trustee of Riverneck Road Realy Trust. I'm a director Butter um at 243
Riverneck Road. I just had a couple of questions. Um I don't know who could address them and who can't. So, whoever can best address it, I don't know if there's questions for later for the uh water department or whatever. But one of my questions, >> is it related to the water department's
um uh gas treatment plant? >> Yeah, of course. >> Okay. So, that that would be after we take those questions after. >> I wasn't sure. Okay. But when it's time my time to speak. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Any other members of the public? Any on
Zoom, Evan? All right. We will move to the first public hearing um new public hearing which is the 50 Orleans Street Chsford Water District Riverneck Water Treatment Facility seeking a um site
plan review uh per section 195104 and special permit per section 19574 um related to the lot coverage for the aquifer protection zone. So, good evening ladies and gentlemen of
the board. Um, my name is Justin Rosenberg. Um, my joined by my uh colleague Steve D. Franchesco. We're from AECOM, the design engineer of the River Knock POS project. We also did, as you remember, the uh the designer for the Crooked Spring POS treatment project. And we're also joined by uh
Brandon and John from representing the Chumsford Water District will be presenting on behalf of the district. Uh so as the chair said this is for the Riverneck Water Treatment Plant POS improvements project located at 50 Orleans Street um planning board uh file
202601 number one of the year. Next slide please. So I'll just start off with a a project overview. Um, if you remember from the Crooked Spring uh project, a lot of this is going to be very familiar. It's a very, very similar project to Crooked Springs with some
slight changes. So, as similar uh to the Crooked Spring project back in 2021, the Riverneck plant also exceeded the state PAS drinking water limit and the district was again placed under that consent order to treat and remove the PAS from the drinking water supply. So
again, very very similar to Crooked Spring. The improvements at the Riverneck treatment plant is going to include the new uh POS treatment building. Uh as you can see the the rendering on the screen there. Um it's a about a 6200 square foot masonry building and the main purpose of this
structure is to house uh several carbon filters that remove the POS. Um it includes also a smaller electrical room, mechanical room, etc. So as I said, this is a a 3D rendering of that. Again, very very similar to Crooked Spring. So, here we have the uh site plan of uh
the Riverneck site with the PAS building. I guess the main points to highlight for new work is of course the PAS building kind of in the middle right of the screen there and the uh the new access road to get over to the PAS building which is coming off of the uh
existing road down to the existing plant. One thing you might remember from the Crooked Spring presentation was we actually had a second building on that project which was a a spent washwater tank which receives uh backwash water sending through the filters when you
have to clean them periodically. That water is sent to that spent washwater tank. In this project actually we're reusing uh the existing backwash tank that's on site. So that's going to minimize some of the disturbance on site that we didn't that we had on on Crooked Springs. So just a single new building
on this project. So, here we have a uh a a snip taken from the town GIS website. And what this shows is the extent of the the district's properties in the area. Again, the actual project is taking place on that large uh lot in the middle
of the screen there, but all of the lots with the dash line represent Chumsford Water District property. And so, we've called out some of the the most prominent features here. of course the existing treatment plant building, the existing spent washwater basin, and that's the uh the location of the new
PAS building. And as you can see by the dimensions on the corner there, uh we're we're very far from uh the abutters um on the on riverneck road. As you can see, the closest one is actually over 180 ft from uh that property on the
corner there. And then the other corner of the building is is 230 ft set back from Riverneck Road. And then the other property lines aren't shown, but those are well over 5 600 feet away from a butters on the the west side of the property.
So this is this is a very very should be a very familiar uh graphic as well. So this is a floor a floor plan of the interior of the building. Very simple. Um again it's a masonry structure to house the carbon filters in the in a depressed floor to meet the uh the roof
requirements of the of the planning board. Um so that that main process area is kind of the the main part of the plant. On the left is just a uh a clear well for backwashing. And then on the right you have just a small electrical room, mechanical room and storage room.
Uh this is a just a a section cut of that very same building. Um again very very similar to Crooked Spring. Again, you can see the uh the backwash clear wall on the left, process area which will house the carbon filters on the right and then a cut of the mechanical room. Um it's important to note again
that we are uh several feet below the uh 35 ft limit of uh of roof height above finish grade. So this slide again just highlighting some of the main characteristics of uh the project. Um the one thing that is I
think the most different from uh Crooked Spring is the fact that we are in uh NHSP priority habitat for the Blandings turtle. So back during design we had submitted to the state for review. They had come back and uh stated that the Blandings turtle uh was the the
endangered species of of this property. We were required to develop a turtle protection plan to be implemented as part of this project. We had developed that plan that had been submitted to the state uh for review. It was approved in November of 2025 and it was part of the application that we had provided um to
the planning board. So that's kind of the the big main uh change from Crooked Spring. A lot of this again is very very similar to uh Crooked Spring. Um, we do have min some minimal tree clearing for the new PAS building and of course that new access road as I highlighted. But
really the rest of these characteristics are exactly the same as Crooked Springs. We've no change in use. This is previously a water treatment plant. It's still going to be a water treatment plant. As I showed, we're not close to any property lines with the new building. No new treatment chemicals, no more traffic. There's no additional
staff, no additional parking. Um, we have an underground infiltration trenches to handle runoff from the structures and we'll actually be utilizing the existing detention basin there as well to handle runoff. We have no additional site lighting. There's going to be no additional noise or odors generated from this project. Uh, we're
not disturbing greater than an acre of land. Um, as I mentioned earlier, that building roof peak is about 1 and 1/2 ft below the 35 ft uh height requirement. Um, we've also spoken with the conservation commission. were not in any jurisdictional areas and we had no impacts to the flood plane identified.
And we've also spoken to the Chsford Fire Department. Uh they again determined as with Crooked Springs, no sprinklers are needed for this building. Uh and we also reviewed the current site access with them and they also indicated that like Crooked Springs, the current site access is acceptable. So with that,
I guess I'll open it up to questions and uh consideration for site plan review and special permit granting. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Evan, do you have anything to add? I do not. >> All right. Um Joel, we do have some letters to be read.
>> Yes. Yes, we do. Let me get to those. Okay. The first one is from DPW. Uh from Sheila Joyce, project engineer. The engineering department has performed a review of the site plan application
submitted for applicant. The following contents of the submiss submission were reviewed for appropriateness of method and accuracy as well as for compliance with the town of Chsford storm water bylaw, town of Chumsford storm water management regulations division 3 sewer capacity and connection restriction.
So they reviewed the application packet site plan review outstanding DPW engineering issues not addressed provisions for an enclosed dumpster pad and dumpster should be depicted upon the plan sets. The long-term and perpetual care of the dumpster, including the emptying and the enclosure, will be the
responsibility of the property owner. During construction, care should be taken to maintain separation of at least 10 ft horizontally from the edge of sewer services to the edge of water services where a horizontal separation of 10 ft is not practical. Both services can be installed closer to each other, but the water service must be 18 inches
higher than the sewer service per D standards. See Massachusetts water laws, chapter 9, section 9.8. Signage for no storage. Snow signage for no snow storage in detention basin should be posted. Construction entrance should be shown in detailed with 3 to 6 in of rip
wrap. Cut and fill calculations must be submitted. If applicable areas on site with slopes which exceed 3 to one must haves must have stabilization. The following serve as reminders in writing and are not specific action items for the site plan. Colon Orland Street is a
private and not a town accepted road. No work shall interfere with easements, including but not limited to New England Power Service Company easement. Sewer comments. No increase to the town of Chumsford sewer infrastructure shall be more than 500 gallons per day. It is DPW's understanding that there is an
existing on-site sewer treatment system with sufficient capacity to treat additional flows from the PAS treatment system. No increase to town of Chsford sewer infrastructure is proposed. Backup power for pump system to existing on-site sewer treatment system should be included on plans. Recommended storm
water management conditions. Ownership as well as O andM of all storm water systems and BMP should be clearly stated on the plans to avoid confusion in the future regarding responsibility of the storm water management facility. The deeds or a covenant should clearly specify the homeowners or association or
property owner whom shall be responsible for owning the system as well as inspection and maintenance. schedules. It is the owner's responsibility to provide completed annual compliance records to the engineering department at 9 Alpha Road. The project storm water management system shall comply with the
Department of Environmental Protections storm water management policy. Storm water standard one untreated discharges standard met including include calculations to support maximum velocity of 0.13 feet per second for two-year 24-hour storm. Storm water standard two
peak rate control and flood prevention standard not met for AP1. Post-development peak runoff rate exceeds the pre-development peak runoff rate for the 25-year storm event and the 100year storm event. For AP2, postdevelopment peak runoff rate exceeds the pre-development peak runoff rate for
the 2-year storm event. For AP1, the volume of runoff associated with the 100-year storm increases from 5,47 cubic feet to 13,220 cubic feet. Storm water standard 3 recharge to groundwater standard met. Test pits in
recharge areas must be witnessed by town representative DPW engineering for confirmation are required in infiltration areas may be accomplished after approval and prior to drainage installation. Confirm impervious area value 16,621
ft versus 16,427 square ft. Difference is negligible for calculations but consistent value should be used. Storm water standard 4 80% TSS removal. Mass D standard met town of Chumsford storm water standards met to
the maximum extent practicable. Storm water standard five higher potential pollutant loads standard met. There are no land uses with higher potential pollutant loads within the project site. Storm water standard six critical areas standard met. Storm water standard 7
redevelopment project standards 2 3 4 5 and six. This project does not meet the qualifications of a redevelopment project. This standard does not apply. Stormwater standard 8, erosion and sediment control. Standard met. DPW reserves the right to review an an erosion and sedimentation control plan
for the site. This must be submitted prior to the pre-construction meeting. The storm water pollution prevention plan to be developed by the contractor prior to construction shall be submitted to the DPW director. A minor land disturbance permit is required for this project. Storm water standard 9
operation and maintenance maintenance standard met. Storm water standard 10 elicit discharge standard met recommended general conditions of approval. And these are uh looks like they are all the typical standard
conditions. So I won't read through those. You can see them in the attached document from the fire department. Fire prevention officer. Dear members of the board, the fire prevention office respectfully submits the following comments and conditions for your consideration regarding the proposed
water treatment plant at 50 Orleans Street. We should all know these by now. Code compliance. All construction shall comply with applicable codes and regulations, including but not limited to the Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR, applicable Massachusetts
CMRs, Massachusetts general laws, relevant NFPA standards, and the town of Chumps bylaws. This office will review the project plans as part of the building permitting processes process. Knox box keys to be provided on completion of the project for access to the facility. Knox box keyed to
Chelmsford fire department specifications to be installed in coordination with this office for the location. Site access plans will need to be submitted depicting truck turning plans utilizing Chelmsford ladder one to this office. Snow storage plans also need to be shown on site plans. We
respectfully request that this letter and the outline conditions out uh conditions be incorporated into the planning board's decision and entered into the public record. Sincerely Josh Abbott, Captain Fire Prevention Office Conservation Commission uh replies, "This project does not require approval
by the Chumsburg Conservation Commission, but does require approval by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program since is located within mapped or species habitat." And then also from the building commissioner,
Mr. Canata, please be advised should the planning board approve your PF PAS treatment facility at the above subject address, you still need to meet all zoning bylaws uh yard requirement as per 195 attachment to table of dimensional requirements. Do not hesitate to contact me with questions, comments, and or
concerns. Thank you respectfully, Jose Negro. And there were no comments from police and also not from the Chumsford Water District. I believe that is all the town letters and then we also have a private resident
letter as well that's attached to the agenda. >> That's it. Thank you. >> All right. Um we will go around the board for questions. Mike. >> Uh, nothing in particular, although I'll
note the the letter asking we add the wood turtles to the turtle list. >> Yep. >> Which I would thoroughly support. >> Okay, Joel. >> Yep. I have a few questions. I noticed on the plans that there is a significant
change in grade on the road that >> basically comes off of Orleans and then comes to behind the building or comes to the build the new building. What what um I guess my concern there is how is for example snow and ice going to
be like what kinds of deicers or whatever you going to be using there because I assume that would be something that you would be want to be cautious about because it's the fact that it's an incline and it's a turn at the same time. >> Sure. I mean so I can I know Brandon I'm sure you have restrictions on >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Okay. And so as far as not know not concerned about what kinds of deicers or sanding or anything you need to do in order to keep that safe and navigable for >> people. >> Could you come up to the microphone for us please?
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Typically for our properties we we plow and maintain all the snow removal. Uh there's some locations that will use salt. Others depending what the well is there we typically don't. >> Right. >> So >> Right. Okay, thank you. Um with regards
to the storm water, um in your report you say that um that you are not fully complying with the
uh storm water design handbook because full compliance would mean doing work within the 100redyear. um not 100year within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone and um but that it sounded as if you didn't fully
understand what the status of the infiltration basin particularly the pipe leading out of it was going to be or the drain. So I was just wondering if you could talk to that because that wasn't clear from the report just what all was being involved in that >> particularly because this basin is serving as the main infiltration.
Um >> yes, so storm water is handled on the site in two manners. We have um >> I'll go over here. >> We have two infiltration trenches along the back, you know, kind of the back side and the right side of this building
here that's taking run off from the roof, right? >> And then for you know kind of runoff from this side on and from the new access road that is being picked up by this uh rip wrap swell along here and then moving to this uh the existing
detention base and this pipe itself is really not changing here. >> Right. So I guess my question is well I think it was when you're doing the recharge analysis >> that it and I have to go I don't remember exactly where it said but
basically there was some question as to how well you knew how well it was going to drain because you didn't know quite know fully the status and that in order to know the status you'd have to basically remove it and replace it or something like that. I don't remember. >> To be honest, I'd have to go back to the report. And and and and DPW's comments
to that effect, we only got those a couple hours before this meeting, so we we hadn't even had a chance to review them either. So, >> we'd have to go back and take >> Yeah, I think I think we all agree that we haven't had time over, but I at least wanted to identify that that's an area of concern for me.
>> Okay. Um, and that if you were going to need to do work in that area to have a more realistic assessment of what you think the the ability of that basin is going to have for recharge for infiltration to function effectively as infiltration,
then that actually does not bother me as much in part because there's already an existing building and work that was done within the 100 foot. And I think this is a pretty important question with regards to is it going to function as it should. So that's the that's my my main
question. Uh because in reading the in reading your report at least there was some question in my mind as to whether you fully understood what that was whether it was or wasn't. Okay. So that was that'd be something I'd like to to to to at least have explained a little
bit more >> thoroughly. Okay. Um, and then also you mentioned that there was a turtle plan approved in November by Natural Heritage. Is that this turtle plan? >> Is that the one that's that that was provided as part of this application? That is correct.
>> So Natural Heritage has actually reviewed your plan and >> correct >> they didn't mention the wood turtle. >> That is Yeah, that is correct. That Blandings turtle was the only species that they came back with as part of the the MEC MESA review. >> All right. So I I will say on that um
the turtle protection plan I it if it doesn't even even even if it doesn't specifically say the wood turtle before any construction or any site disturbance our our qualified biologist which is a requirement of the state of approved plan is going to do a sweep of the site and if we see any turtles we're going to
move them out of the way to make sure they're protected. So whether it's Blandings turtles or wood turtles we're not going to leave any turtles to that could be you know of risk of being harmed. >> Yeah. My my main concern there would be that it be included in the materials that are being provided to the people
who are not the biologist. Uh because there you have pictures of a blandings but you don't have pictures of a wood turtle. And so at a minimum would like to see you include those as well so that anybody who's on the site and sees something can recognize that this is
something that we need to be concerned about. Um so that >> yeah I think to that um I mean we would instruct the basically to whoever's doing the work that if you you know any turtle should be protected so that I would I would stress that to them as well you know regarding regardless if it's blandings or woods any any turtle
that is at risk of being harmed during construction should be moved uh out of the out of the limits of work. >> Okay. Well, the what the reason that it makes a difference is because in part of your turtle protection plan, if you do find a Blandings, and I would add or a
wood turtle, and I would further add if you happen to find a box turtle as well, possibly >> um then that that would be something that you would uh have your biologist, you know, um do the typical measuring,
weighing, photographs, um stuff like that of a turtle so that reports can be filed to natural heritage. Um, so that's why it's important to include those as well. So, I would I would just like some confirmation from um you or from your
designated biologist that you are aware that there are wood turtles there, that the habitat is also for the wood turtles and that potentially also uh that he wants to be aware that there could possibly be a box turtle, although there is not in there are no rec recorded
observations of a box turtle. There has been one oral report of that which was number of years ago uh by someone in the area but it's not uh reported so it's not official record. Okay. >> Okay. >> Um >> um could I add something?
>> Uh no not we're not at public comment yet. >> I'm I'm with a >> she has a flu so she couldn't make it. She's from a >> Oh, sorry about that. >> She was supposed to be here today. >> Sorry about that. Yeah, sure. Hi, I'm Jillian Flanigan um with AECOM. Um we
also included in the turtle protection plan and as a requirement from NHSP that um we do an annual report and the biologist would submit um any records of any state listed turtle regardless of
its landings turtle or or not. >> Okay. Okay. That that sounds good. I still would if you could add the photos um to what other people are are seeing. I would I would be feel more comfortable if you did that as well. Um,
and also if there are any I think I would I would like to and this is entirely up to you, but I would like to be able to that understood from the turtle protection plan there's a bi-weekly inspection. Uh, and I would I
would be interested in getting a summary of that as well. Um and I think the I think the conservation agent would also um just so that we can know like what the status of things are and how things are going. Um but again
that's not a requirement. It's not sort of that's not really within our jurisdiction but I think that's something that we would be interested in uh in following. And then the only last thing I have is that um you're you're
needing to work into a relatively sharp incline on the uphill side. And if I recall when you were building the first plant, there was a significant amount of issues with the instability of the slope because of sand and and so I wanted to
be sure that you were aware of that and that you were going to deal with that appropriately in terms of stabilizing it and so forth. So >> correct. Yeah, I'll I'll point that out here. >> Yeah, >> we'll actually be stabilizing the slope because it's more uh with of course as you know because it is a steep slope
here. You can see the rail. This will be stabilized with rip rip wrap, excuse me, all from that point to the start of the access road all the way over here. So, we have accounted for that here. >> Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to highlight that because that was it was unexpected if I recall correctly in the original
plant in the construction of the original plant. And so I wanted to be sure you were aware of the corporate uh the history of what has happened on the site. So you're aware that's a possibility that there'll be a lot of >> unstable slope because of sand. >> Understood. >> Okay. >> I'm also from a country. Can I just make
a quick >> comment regarding that? So the and to tell you the reason why we did have to steepen that up because we did meet with the fire department earlier. They told us what we needed for a turning radius. So to get that turning radius, we had to increase the width there. So that's why,
you know, we have a a slope that's steeper than we like, but we really have no choice. So that's why it's going to be rip wrapped for stabilization, but that was that was the reason for it. Not just that wanted a wide road. We had to get be able to get the the ladder truck in there. >> Right. Okay. All right. Thank you.
That's all I have for now. >> Okay, John. >> No questions. Um I also received uh communication from two residents regarding the turtles. I won't repeat the what Mike and Joel have already uh those points that have raised but no questions at this time.
>> Okay, Deodra, >> I'm good. >> Marcy, >> no questions at this moment. >> Sita, >> yes. >> Um, well, just a few comments. I 100% agree with Mike and Joel's comments that they have, especially around the turtles. And I guess I have a question because I didn't get to read it
thoroughly, but on the turtle protection plan, does it have like time of when construction can start? >> Do you know? Uh more and go ahead Julian. >> Yes. So construction can start at any time. However, the turtles active season
is around April 15th, I believe, to November 1st. So if any work starts before April, um the um once it hits um the April 15th
time frame, then the inspections will start and then they'll stop around November. Once the turtles are in their inactive season and then if construction continues to next April, then the inspections will start will need to start again. >> Okay. Yeah. Because I guess my concern is if construction's happening when
they're not active, you're going to kill them. So, cuz they're hibernating into areas. So, >> um the turtles will go into the marsh. Um and this is out of the wetland area. So, they would not be um impacted in their hibernation.
>> Yeah, the wood turtles hibernate in the brook actually. >> Yeah. Aren't there some that go into the Okay. >> Um I guess the other stuff that I have regarding is there is a awful lot of comments on the DPW's letter that they have. Um they actually mentioned exceeding the slope 3 to1 to make sure
there's stabilization. Is that rip wrap that they're talking about an acceptable form of stabilization on a steep grade? >> I don't know. >> I don't know. It's a it's something we would have to make sure that the DPW has a clean ladder anyway. Sorry. >> Yeah, cuz on here it just says
stabilization, but I mean that's I'm just curious about that. And then when you brought up the comments about storm water, I know in their letter to >> um one of the standard two was not met. So that's something that's concerning >> because that's the one around peak peak
rate control and flood protection. So just concerning that that's an issue. Could I could I respond again? Steve D. Franchesco with ACOM. As far as a slope, once I mean typical engineering practice is if it's a for slopes, if it's 3:1,
you can just use grass. Once it gets to 2:1 or steeper to one and a half to one, that's about the steepest we'll go. I mean, if it gets any steeper than that, you need a retaining wall. one and a half two to one and a half to one rip rip wrap is an you know engineering wise
is an acceptable stabilization method but you know we would never use just um like a stabilization fabric and lumen seed if we're 2 to one or greater >> and what are you in that area that you have >> that's one and a half >> one and a half is the worst case >> okay >> right
>> that's all I have right now and as I said we again we have not had time to review DPW's comments so we will >> yeah there's there's a lot in there >> yes All right, Anita, do you have any comments, questions? >> I do. I do not.
>> Okay. Um, I've got just a couple. Uh, most of them were already covered. Um the in addition to the DPW's um note about uh uh no storage s no snow storage
signs at the detention basin um I always like to typically have the snow uh plan the snow storage plan as part of the on and m um as well uh so a diagram in the on&m plan for where the snow can be stored. Um
>> yeah I'll I I'll just reference that here. So, it's on it's probably on another plan, another drawing, but this is the area we've identified. It's the snow storage area. Yeah. And as as you know, Brandon said, the district takes care of their snow removal. Obviously, they're not going to put snow in the potential. >> Yeah. But we do like to have it in there
just in case our contractors that are hired and things like that. >> Absolutely. >> Um and then the firetruck turnaround was mentioned on the fire department. Um, so that's all I don't have any other questions.
Um, so at this point, um, unless you have something else, we can open it up for, uh, public input. >> Anything else? >> Are there any members from the public who wish to speak? Come right up to the Frank Smart 223 Riverck Road. I am the
most direct abut of this project. in the first slide that was shown, the GIS map. Could you please display that? >> I'll bring it up. Uh, it's going to take me it's going to take me another minute. >> All right.
>> And Evan, for our next meeting, can you have those attached to the agenda as well? Thanks. >> I forgot to ask that. >> Yeah. is also while we're waiting for that is the the heritage um approval is that included in the documentation as well.
>> I forget what page it's on but it's in there. >> It's a lot of pages. >> Why it's not working? >> It's the one that showed the the uh the footage. >> Yeah. from the original uh presentation.
>> Yes. >> It's not opening for some reason. >> Pardon me. >> It's not opening for some reason. >> Technology. >> Okay. The GIS map of my property is not accurate. I
say >> it hasn't been for certain amount of time. >> I believe my property is much closer to this. I don't know how what level this presentation is at because we there was
nothing mentioned about tree cutting about what >> what is what's the height of the present building there? Does anybody have that? >> It would have to be under 35 ft, I think.
>> Here's the GIS map. >> Okay. But you had a footage up there. >> Yeah. You can't open the >> open. So, this is what we >> Yeah, that is not an accurate display of my property. >> Which one is your property? >> That one. >> Most direct. But you showed it had the
in here and everything. >> Yeah, I think it was 230 closer. >> At what? At what you Yeah, you what shows my property all the way out to here down to the street is not accurate.
My property today is in here. Goes back here this way. And I just had it surveyed. >> Do you have a stamped survey plan? >> Not with me. >> Would you be able to submit? >> The water department, I believe, has it?
>> Would you be able to sub up here, Frank? >> He's over here. >> Over here. >> The microphone. I know the microphone. >> It's loud. >> It does that to everyone. Um, would you be able to submit that plan to Evans so we could take a look at it?
>> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> During this I'm going to use the high level presentation. It was nothing about tree cutting. And the question is that I had just
asked how high is the present building. In all the maps, all that I looked at in this presentation, all the drawings of the building, they just had the height of the cinder wall. They didn't say, "Okay, this is
the peak of the building." Tonight, I'm hearing now it's it's going to be less than 35, but there's nothing on the drawing. if they were to go through because everybody's talking about this rip wrap in the slope of the land. If they cut
property down, cut the trees down between my property and theirs to the building, it's going to be atrocious. I have nothing against the project. I'm just I don't want to be out in my yard sitting by my pool looking at the
building. I'd like to see from where it's proposed where 35 ft's going to be when I'm in my yard. Joel had a good point about that corner when they come down if that with there's
rip wrap there today on that. It's a steep slope and it's going to curve left. There's al actually a telephone pole right there too. It's steep. I'd like to see this whole building
moved down a bit so there'd be less cutting back here. I know this is a boundary line. Look at this boundary line. I'd like to see this come down a bit so there would be less cutting where my
property is probably right in this area here. There's there's nothing I see. That's just the projected tree line. You know, why does it have to be out this way? Why can't we just move it
down? I'd also like to see I mean they have a paved driveway here. If they move this down and they could come this way, move this up. One of those thoughts.
But I'm really concerned about the cutting along here. Lighting on the building. on this side. My house is right here. I must admit the water department and I are great neighbors. We have worked hand
in hand. I've been here for 48 years. Been through many many superintendent. It's not that I just I just want to protect the view. That's all. >> Thank you.
>> Um it was actually a question I had um earlier that I forgot to ask. Um for the engineers, how many trees would be cut down from this project? >> Is there an existing state drawing too?
>> I don't think I saw one. We have not done a tree count out there to determine. I mean, you can see what the clearing limits are, you know, and to answer some of those questions, the the plant is there because we're trying to stay out of a wetland resource area. So, you know, if
you tell us to push it in the wetlands, don't move it. Don't but no one's ever told us to do that before. And and then it we also don't go around with the road because we have to get a fire truck, you know. We really looked at all of the property that was over there and this
was the only place we could find to put that plant. Okay. Thank you. >> But are you going to do a tree count? >> I don't think it was a requirement, so we were not going to do it. >> Okay. Are there any other
members of the public who wish to speak? Uh my name is Jeff. I am uh very interested in purchasing a property that's going to be directly impacted by uh the project here. Uh again, I want to emphasize not against the project. I just like have a few questions and confirmation of what was said earlier today. Um you said that there was not
going to be there was going to be zero lights on the building. So we can assume a building of that size that was stated is going to have zero lights on it. >> Could you could you address the board, please? That was what said. I just want to make sure if it's zero, then it's zero. But if it's not, I'd like to be brought up maybe motion activated lights
because at the property I'm interested in purchasing, you can very easily see existing lights today, which is the new project will be substantially closer. >> I believe it was minimal. >> I believe on the project it said zero. >> So, >> okay.
>> We'll get >> precision matters here. >> Mhm. Um, you said that no additional traffic, but if you could emphasize or articulate, you said uh just earlier the turning radius. I would just ask the turning radius of of what? If there's no additional traffic, nothing is
happening. >> Could you address the the board, please? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. >> Um, it would be the the fire trucks. The turning radius of the fire trucks, >> which is a requirement for the fire department review. >> Okay. Um, and I guess it was questioned that there was,
you know, uh, Mr. Smart uh talked about moving it I guess lower here. I don't know the the decardinal direction but uh there's still plenty of room before you hit that flood line. Um you know not asking it to go into the flood line as the other building the existing building
is in it already but just closer. You could alleviate a number of trees there and increase that uh the barrier. It also was said that there is um zero noise or no noise. Um, the existing plant does have noise. So, if it's going to have a hum, that's fine. We just want
to know what it's going to be. Um, so I just think some precision language here would be appreciated. >> Okay. >> Okay. I think that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other members? Crannle representing um 243 Riverneck
Road. Um for those that you don't know that this my property previously had a um 40B approved comprehensive permit on it and been directs. I've owned the property for 24 years. So, we have a
pending project, the boards may know that's an appeal in town that we won. The town has appealed us to do a lesser development over there than what the one the previous developer had done, which we thought was a friendly lip program to end up not being friendly. >> Are you talking to the microphone,
please? >> Yes. I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? >> Okay. Sorry. Um, so my question obviously the hundreds and hundreds of thousand dollars my family spent my developer. We would like to ask whoever could answer this question. What impact
it will have on the abutters, not just myself, the abuters's rights to and property rights to develop the property um where the wells would be. I know there's a certain 400 ft that because they came to me at one time not long ago
when they got a grant stating that they want and they contacted me. I didn't contact them and they said we'd like to buy the acreage that I lost and I know Mr. Luna would know this. I I also would my other question is is we had to do a full study that I had to spend $72,000
on to see where the turtles migrated. I lost six and a half acres of my property. That's gone forever. So my question is was there ever thing ordered just because it's the town of Chson in the water department. They they're not above the law of anybody else. So was this ever ordered by conservation or
anyone? You're taking their word on their turtles. how how would have they migrated six acres onto my property in their building but not onto theirs. They're redeveloping. Maybe they were grandfathered in before. So that would be my thing. But my first question would be what kind of impact is this if any
and if it's any any I would like to know what the impact are going to be in my rights as a developer with a pending project that I have now and spent million dollars on. So um I I would like that answered. And also when do you when do you expect to break ground on this
the time frame and when do you expect target completion date? And um I I would take it that we would um be sent any notices or any decisions at the state and local level. Maybe you could answer that similar to the letter
that I got as an abut as a trustee tonight. So if someone could be kind enough to answer any of those questions I asked, I'd appreciate it. So, I can take a first stab at the um the rights
question and Evan can correct me if I'm wrong. Um but what they're doing here should have no impact on your ability to do anything on your property. Um the two issues are completely separate and not um
>> not relevant to each other. >> Okay, sir. But could I could I have them? They're the experts, right? They would they did the whole project. think they know where things are laid out. I want to make sure that they're far enough away from my property that they don't say they're too close. You can't build there because our well needs 400 ft buckers puffer zone.
>> They're not doing any addition they're not doing work to the wells. It's an additional building for not drilling any new wells, correct? You're using existing wells that are there. Okay. That that has changed. >> It's just an an additional building for PA filtration.
Um, in terms of the turtles, I can take a stab and Joel can correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but I believe most of that regulation and those um, requirements come from the state and not from the
local boards. Um, there might be some uh, jurisdiction on conservation commission if there's building in the buffer zone. Um, but in this case there is no building in the buffer zone. So there is no conservation commission
jurisdiction. Um did I get the turtle? >> That's right. >> Question correct. Okay. >> Um and then I think you had one more question about notice. Um >> if this project is approved um then they
are able to uh file for permits and things like that with the town. Um no other butter notice is required. Um and they can probably uh answer the question about uh the timeline. Um so >> just one one I'm sorry just one more
thing. So the we would get notifications over this hearing if the board decides here if it gets continued and we obviously will get that decision. >> We'll either be voting tonight but likely not. Um okay or we'll continue to the next meeting. >> Um and you will get um updated on that.
>> Thank you for that. Thank you. >> Yes. >> You want us to answer? >> Sure. if you could. >> So, as far as the timeline for this project, it's going to be about a year behind the Crooked Springs project. So, the Crooked Springs project, we broke
ground there in about August of just past August. >> So, this one should be this coming August. We're under we're under the bidding uh process right now, but we're getting state revolving loan funds, so we have to go through the whole state process, which does take some time. So,
I'd expect that we're finally having a contract awarded starting about August of of 2026, and it's a two-year duration for the project. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, board. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Any other members of the public? Any on Zoom? >> No. >> Okay. Any follow-up questions or comments from the board? >> Um, I have a quick one. Can you go back to the picture with the trees and could you guys step up and on here can you
show me where the building's going on this view >> approximately in this area here take the kind of the corner of this building >> right about >> so it does look like I mean from what I can see there's going to be pretty
significant mature tree loss when they're putting this building in and I don't think there was any discussion on that? I know there's that's a big concern of mine. I mean, I don't know that they could replant anywhere else, but um we've had discussions before over that type of thing happening and what we
would do for it, but I mean, those are pretty big. >> And this is just outside of the wetland buffer zone. >> Yep. >> All right. And what is the Concom's feeling on like the amount of tree loss that potentially is there just outside of the buffer zone? Are they not >> They don't have any jurisdiction or
comment on it. All right, >> we can I'm just asking if they uh >> but I know and I know on the existing because I kind of took a scroll through on the existing state. I didn't see anything pointing out like the existing tree stuff. I think I saw existing
soils, but I don't think there's a like they said they didn't do a tree count because it wasn't required. Um, typically it doesn't always have to happen. It depends on the project. Anything else? Any other members of the board have
follow-up questions or comments? >> Not here. >> All right. Um, so I think we're in a position to uh continue this meeting to the or continue the hearing to the next meeting. Um, I think we uh need you probably need to review the
letters. Um, I think the firetruck turnaround uh plans uh would be added. Um, >> I'm sorry. Can I add one more thing? >> Sure. I I mean, I guess the the tree seems like it's a significant concern of
several of the board and um I guess I I would like to ask that the um project developers look at what trees are going to come down and if there's any, you know, if they could do an approximation
of the number and the types of trees and if there's any way that that tree removal action could be mitigated in some way. If there's any other areas on the on the property where um native
trees could be planted or some other mitigating um approach could be taken and and particularly if it would help with the viewshed from the abutters. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Um so then uh additional uh work on the on& and m plan for the snow storage plan. Um did mentioned the uh potential uh count
of tree loss and what types of general trees would be lost. I would also like to see the positioning of the building on the GIS map just to an overlay just to help us with some of the uh positioning um because it was really
difficult to to figure out where the property lines were on some of those planned designs. So, if you guys could just take the GIS um picture and overlay the location of the building and the driveway. Um
the also what would help is I think looking at the building height it does the wall of the building looks to be about 22 and then you've got the roof um in addition. So it definitely
looks like it's under 35 ft. Um could you also give us a rendering of the two buildings together? um or some diagram that has the two buildings. So that way we can uh compare what the new building
would be in relation to the uh current building give us some perspective >> and and in the top in the context of the topography and the tree. Um and then
can anyone think of any other things we would need for that next meeting? >> The uh more detail detailed discussion about the infiltration basin as to what its status is and >> remediation or >> making sure those pictures get included
that he was asking for for the turtles in that too. >> Yeah, the pictures that Joel was asking for being added. >> Yep. for the turtles. >> Yeah, that too. All right. Um,
any other questions, comments? >> Any closing thoughts from the applicant? >> There was several questions. I think someone was recording them here from the from the public. Will those be emailed to us also for us to address? We have no problem addressing them.
>> Um, >> I didn't jot down everyone. I figured someone up here would be recording that. >> Well, the video is recorded. So, if you want to go back on Chelsea Tele media, okay, >> you can take a look at the recording. >> All right. Because we we can address those. >> I've made some notes, but I don't have the specific questions.
>> All right. >> All right. I will entertain a motion. >> We continue to the Should we do this for the 28th? Is that the next meeting? >> Next meeting is the 28th of January. >> I move to uh move this uh public before you do >> if we move uh if we continue this to
January 28th, would you be able to get all of the materials to us um beforehand? >> We would certainly I think we can. >> Okay. I just want to make sure we give you enough time. >> Anything that you know that's that's going to be difficult. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So,
>> all right. Excellent. >> 28th it is. And I I guess you can let us know if something comes up and you can't make can't get all the material. Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Deerra. And we do a roll call. Mike >> I. >> Joel. >> I.
>> John. >> I. >> Deerra. >> Hi. >> Marcy. >> I. >> Anita. >> Hi. >> And I am an I. And we are continued to January 28th on this hearing. Thank you everyone.
All right. Next item on the agenda. Zoning 2.0. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> My favorite topic. >> All right, let me gather my things. Um, so next item up on the agenda is our
zoning public hearing. um for the purposes of receiving public comment to amend a number of zoning AR um areas. I'm not going to read them all because we will be covering it in the
slides. Um, the way that I'm planning on presenting these is that we will go through these in the order that I hope to be presenting them in town meeting. Um, and
in the batches that I hope to be presenting them in town meeting. For example, um, all of the SEAD uh, potential changes will be in one article. Um all of the uh new definition of bed and breakfast
in the addition in the use table would be in another article. Um so you will see that format as we go through the uh slides. >> Okay. And what I'm also going to do is
um for each article I want to stop and pause and take comments and questions. Um I'm not going to do all of them and then do the questions and comments. I think it'll be easier to follow. >> Um >> from the board, from the public as well.
>> Yes, both. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um that way everything's fresh in our minds as we go through it. >> I agree. All right. So, the first one, um, amending the town code, uh, for the SEAD
overlay, um, wrong one, Evan. Yep. All right. So, the first one um is a few different sections. uh revising by project uh def uh information use
regulations to provide clarity performance standards A and B to require compliance with um article 7, the application procedures uh to add a uh term and then um some clarification
in 119 BD and 119D to add a new um item. So the first one is the applicability um and the proposed additional uh language is underlined here uh for
uh the project involving a change of use from one category to another. Uh the gross square footage and the square footage of the footprint of the building of the use does not exceed the original use. So both conditions would have to be
met. um for this to trigger. >> Did you want to comment? >> Um nope. We're going to go through all the say stuff first. >> The next one, >> hold your fire. >> Apparently, >> use regulations. >> Um for this one, we are adding the
underlined um sentence. Uh and this was related to the discussion we were having about potential um combinations of uses um and essentially from our last discussion I did add the
word primary uses uh so that it's more related to two um primary uses as opposed to a secondary use >> um added to a primary use. Um and so this is related to some of the discussions we're having about um
residential uses not necessarily in compat compat being compatible with some other uses in the overlay performance standards. Um this one is one of the suggestions from Joel um a couple of years ago actually
um where we were discussing some of the environmental um uh topics related to 270 bill I believe um and really wanting to have a little bit more uh teeth in the bylaws to
require um some documentation and um uh technical evidence um when we're dealing with environmental uh potential environmental impacts uh when it's commercial and industrial abuing residential.
>> Uh same thing on the next one. Um so this one is related to general. Um >> has that been run by the previous one? Has that been run by Oh, sorry. Never mind. I'll hold my fire. And then this one's related to uh
special permits. So the first one was general projects and this one's special permits. Um same wording um just added in both sections. Application review procedures. Um just adding a term a building or
structure. Um for clarification you can go to the next one. This one is related to um wanting a little bit more detail in the project narratives. um when we discussed
uh projects coming before us um really asking them to uh provide the the evidence that they're meeting the standards. Um so that's what this is adding in here that they're required to provide the the
detailed evidence um and not us asking for it every time. >> Sweet. The next one, application review procedures. Uh the addition of five is on this one. Um
substantial changes to a storm water system or site elevation um would be yet another trigger for um a modification uh requiring a hearing. >> And that is it for the SEAD changes.
questions or comments from the board and I'm not going to do a round robin. >> Have they gone has all this gone and been reviewed by town council? >> No, not yet. >> Okay. >> That will be forthcoming once we decide what we want to have them say. >> Yep.
>> So, can we go through these one at a time? >> Sure. >> So, 195 111 applicability. Yeah. And I I don't I don't know exactly who was the author of this, but I know I had this idea. So the the thing my
thinking on this one at least I don't know if this is from anything I did or said but my thinking on this one is that this is an example where you have I mean u Mercury's perfect example where you have a building that is reasonably
sizable and it has two floors and so your gross square footage uh is you know basically double the footprint essentially. Um but then if you come in and you bring in a say a um warehouse where you only have one
technically you only have one story then you essentially haved your gross square footage and so you're not capturing essentially so essent essentially they have the same gross if they have the same gross square footage then that means they essentially have double the
footprint and that's the that's what this was trying to capture was those cases where >> scale of the building. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. To to to not get caught up in the idiosyncrasies of the gross square footage computation to then overlook a potential massive increase in in in a
building >> because of the way you compute it. So that was I think it's a great a great addition. >> Do you think the verbiage though that's used here captures what you're trying to do? >> Yeah, because it's the it's that you're including the square footage of the
footprint. Mhm. >> So they're there you're capturing just how much if if essentially what you're doing coming in with a warehouse is that you are >> um essentially have the same volume but you have half the square footage gross
square footage then you want to capture any sort of increase >> um by the footprint not by the not by the gross square footage. >> Yeah. So the gross >> we don't we don't we don't have volume, right? We don't. >> Right. But you're equating gross square footage and volume. So it's like the
length times the width times the height. >> Gross square footage is just how many floors you have times the area of that floor. Okay. >> Right. So if you you can have a building that's exactly the same size. >> No, I get that. But I don't understand how you fix it. >> I get the problem you're trying to fix,
but I'm not I'm not comfortable. >> Maybe we should be doing it by volume. Well, that's what I just >> floor. >> Yep. Volume would be another way to do it. Yeah. But then you'd have to define what the volume is and the computation
>> times the width times the height. >> Yeah. But I don't think we Evan, we don't do any volume calculations. >> I don't think anybody does. >> Well, is that is there a way to do that? >> I mean, I'm sure there is. It's not >> maybe Joel if there's a maybe if we just did like
took an example and did the math out. I think we'd be able to like I I'm more visual person than a numbers person. If we can like maybe for our next meeting just have the math and show how this works. That would be I think useful to visualize it.
>> Yeah. I mean I'm getting when you're talking about making it smaller like a warehouse versus the double but what happen if it goes the other direction? So now you have the warehouse which is less gross square footage. It's the same footage as the building footprint. Are
they then allowed to do more outside? Like how does I'm trying to understand >> it's two it's essentially where before we had one constraint which was the gross square footage. Now we're also adding the building footprint as a constraint and those two constraints
will control basically it to the size that you want. But if you only leave it at gross square footage, then you could have significant increases in footprint. >> So, I guess I'm just getting I guess I'm getting stuck up on the and because it's
>> because you want both restrictions. >> You you want to change in or I think I I think I I agree with three >> because I'm just trying to get because it's if there's one change or the other is changing, that's when you want to is
>> I'm trying to I just I'm getting caught up with the record. >> I see what you're saying. >> Usual. I agree with you. >> Well, yeah, but it's the I understand what you're saying, but that's the that's the predicate. That's the I mean that's the uh condition if if there's a change whatever the predicate is then
what you want to ensure is that you restrict the gross square footage and we're as saying also you also want to restrict the building footprint. So your predicate is both things. And so when you logically combine things together
where you have both, you use and you don't use or because then it could be you satisfy one or you satisfy the other. You don't have to satisfy both. This is you need to satisfy both. And so that's why it's an and if that makes any sense.
>> And I'm getting it doesn't it doesn't. I'm like lost. I can I can do a I can do a little diagram or something >> that help. >> That'd be good. >> Okay, I'll leave it at that. I can do the diagram. That'll be helpful. >> But I would I would I'll be hesitant to use volume. And the only reason is
because even when you look at definitions of gross square footage and and building footprint, they get very involved as far as what you count, what you don't count, blah blah blah. And so going with volume, especially when nobody else does it, no one's going to understand what that is. And so
everybody understands what footprint is. Everybody understands what gross square gross uh square footage is. Let's go. >> Volume is like third grade geometry. >> It is. But when you actually zoning, >> not anymore. >> Not in zoning. Exactly. Not in zoning. I mean, look at look at the definitions
for gross square footage. You know, do you count the walls? Do you not count the walls? Is it inside? Is it outside? You know, inside dimensions, outside dimensions, what are you counting? It's like I I don't want to get involved in that. >> Sorry. Okay. >> So Joel will do a diagram for the next
meeting on those. >> I can I can kind of see it like I'm imagining the slices. >> Okay. Are we going to do anything about 12? >> I think that one looks good. >> Fine. >> So what was the what was this? I I just was drawing a blank onto why we were
asking for this. I mean it sounds good, but I just couldn't. This one was where we potentially may have two byright uses >> you're going to put together >> individually sound great but then
potentially together may cause a problem >> depending on the project >> like a kindergarten and a wood chipper factory. >> Yeah, >> exactly that was the good one. and we've had some discussions about
some projects fairly recently that um >> kind of did this >> had some potential issues. So um that's where we this one came from. >> Yeah. >> So we wanted to at least have the opportunity to discuss the combination of uses as opposed to just having it um
by right. >> That makes sense. >> All right. So the next two Yeah. This was a comment when I first came on. It really wasn't tied to 270. It was just in general that all this is really doing is it's just giving the board the ability to ask for this information.
It's not to say that we will ask for it, but if we do ask for it, an applicant say, you know, no one's ever asked me for this. Where does it say in your bylaws I can ask? You can ask for this. And so we would point to this and say here here we can ask for it. >> So a good example of this would be I
mean an example of when you would might want to do this was in the case of the car wash. where we had a generator potentially was noisy. There was going to be, you know, they gave assurances to the board that we didn't actually need to measure noise at the boundaries because of the extra insulation they were using, the board was satisfied with
that. And I thought that was very >> we have a noise bylaw. >> Yeah. But it would be a case of of where if we were like say for example in that case if they weren't providing it >> and we had concerns about what the noise was going to be for the senior living next door then we would have them do
some sort of you know measurement or something like that evaluation or whatever >> whatever is technically possible uh then we could ask for that and they would go okay so that's really all it's all it's meant to do. Can you can you explain how
you'd apply it to water quality and air quality? >> Um, >> not as easily because noise is the main one that we've ever encountered. >> Well, the turtles on brick kiln. >> Well, art article 7 I mean article 8
doesn't include uh natural I don't include turtles and stuff like that. The noise application makes some sense to me. >> Yeah. >> Um >> but there's also air quality. >> But you got water, you got water and air quality >> listed as well.
>> Yeah. >> So think about measured by >> struggling as to how you would apply it and to what extent you would apply it. Could you ask for some sort of calculations off of things that they're thinking to have in a similar situation
and then add that to existing conditions to see outcome? I mean >> I mean right now you right now your water quality is regulated by storm water >> and you have no authority under air quality, >> right? So I'm trying to figure out how you
what's how do again noise there's a direct connection between a proposed project >> and impacts. I just don't I'm not I'm just trying to understand how the board how and why the board would pursue water quality or air quality.
>> Right. >> I can mean as as written it covers it covers the entirety of article of article 8. >> Right. which which then goes into uh solid waste, >> um a variety of things. And then uh
number 40 is erosion control. So some of these I'm not sure if the board intended to try to apply all of article 8 or just specific >> sections of article 8, >> but it says may require. So just because it's there as an option
>> I can take the action because if you're thinking do we want to restrict it to noise or >> do we just you know >> yeah I mean if if you're going to if you're going to contemplate or consider applying it to water quality and air quality I think we need to figure out >> what exactly what does that mean? Yeah, I agree with that. I'll take the action
to look into that and it may be that that's just not a doable thing in which case. >> Okay. >> And you do know that we ideally need to close this public hearing next week, next meeting. >> Yeah, I'm aware of that. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Um application review procedures. Yeah, I was wondering what that what uh what was being envisioned there as far as structure. >> I think this was one of your suggestions from a couple years ago. I think it may have come out of Hilddrth where there
was a stone wall. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But structure wouldn't include stonewall. >> Um >> according to our definition of structure, right? >> You're right. >> It depends. We had >> but more more relevant is it uh definitive subdivision doesn't come
through um sead, >> right? Um, you can leave structure in there. I guess some certain some stone walls under our zoning definition of structure may qualify as a structure. However, I
just want to uh uh kind of caution. It's very easy for for staff to identify a building over 75 years old, >> right? >> Regardless of whether it's shown on the plan or not. As you know from experience, not all stone walls in other
associated structures are shown on plans, >> right? >> So we may staff may not catch that. >> Yeah. >> Well, the stone the stone wall in our definition of structure has to be over four feet. >> Yeah. >> So most stone walls I don't >> think quite four feet,
>> right? >> So I think this came from from Hildrth. But it's it allows us to have that ability that if it is caught and if there is one in existence then >> yeah if it pertain if this pertains specifically to stone walls again if you
try to play that out I don't know to what extent the planning board through zoning is going to be able to protect a stone wall you know if it goes through the middle of the property and that's where the building envelope is and that's where a parking lot of building has to be
located. I I'm just trying to envision what's what's the what's the legal application. So, it's good, you know, it's one thing to require the information and be on a plan, which you currently do, and then this is basically saying, well, you
know, now we're going to send structures to the historical commission. I just don't know what the board's going to do with that information. If you're the historical commission, they're likely going to say, "Yeah, we want to protect it." I would think so.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I just don't legally there is certain walls aren't don't have legal protections. If they're not property boundaries, they don't have legal protections. >> Right. >> Yeah. I guess I guess my point is that if we're going to go with this, then we
need to understand that this will not protect stone walls that are less than four feet >> because they will not by the definition of structure be a structure. >> Right? So that's all >> there are potentially other structures that we don't know about. So
>> yeah, I'm not saying not to have it. I'm just saying that we in that we don't be surprised then when there's a three-foot stone wall and and we cite this and they say, "Well, no, it's not structured." >> Well, it also be hard to tell the age of those things sometimes, right? Because there's no permit required. >> Well, in the case of Hildrth, there was a documented history of the wall. Okay.
>> That was actually through records that dated way back when they were writing, handwriting them in cursive. There is a retaining wall in the um behind the Santander on the whatchamacall 2 that was raised as an
objection and wasn't historic. It turned out >> like someone was able to discern that. I don't know who. I forget. But >> well at some point 75 years you'll be able to see what the the pictures on the internet. >> Yeah. Great. >> Back to those moving. All right.
So this one, any questions, comments on this one? >> Where are we? Sorry, I'm lost. >> Okay, that's what I thought. >> Related to applicability. >> Mhm. >> Right. Asking for the narrative details. >> All right, next one. Substantial changes
to the storm water and site elevation. Any questions, concerns with this one? >> I have a question. What's the definition of substantial? Good question. It's a judgment call, I believe, but it is used in the next one that's already in there.
>> It's like minor modification, >> some judgment there. One question I had about this. So, and it and it just I'll just mention it. We don't have to discuss it because it's not really relevant to this. And that is that we don't really encompass a change of sight
condition, which is what 270 was. that basically we learned in the process that the site itself was not as we thought it was. We thought it was clean. Turns out it was contaminated. So we our none of our regulations are take into account the fact that we that the site itself
there's something as some aspect of the site particularly with regards to contamination becomes known or not known. Um, so can't can't address that here, but just in general at some point would like >> I think I think on certain sites since 270 you've put special conditions in
there that if if contamination is found that must come back to the board. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, that would be that would be a way >> I forget which project we did that on, but I think we did it on at least one of them. >> Okay. Well, I mean, might not be a bad I mean, maybe it's hard to identify when
there's going to be a determination of contamination, but might not be a bad idea to have that just as standard. >> You see, in a condition. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, any other questions,
comments from the board on this one? If not, I will open it up if anyone has um uh public input on that article. Anyone on Zoom? >> No.
>> Okay, moving on. This one is >> nature of zoning. This one is to change the um zoning table for essentially changing the
approving um board or the the approving uh unit from the ZBA to the planning board for parking garage and structure. Um the it's the commercial line 16 parking
garage structure. Mhm. >> Um, see there's the structure again. If it's a 75y old parking garage, it might be historic. >> Um, it aligns with the accessory parking garages that we have in the industrial.
Um, and then the recently added accessory parking lots, commercial and industrial. So, all of those approving boards would be the uh planning board. And speaking of which, can we ask the historical commission for a list of historic structures that they're aware of?
>> Well, they have a list. >> Do they have a list? >> They do. Yeah. >> I mean, they we have all the buildings documented. Accessory structures. I'm not sure we have them all documented. >> Okay. So, just deal with it when it comes up.
>> Maybe they have a starting list. >> We can inquire. >> Back on this one. >> Sorry. >> Sorry. um just kicking in. >> I did reach out um to the ZBA um have not heard back um to see if they're okay
with it. I let them know uh but I have not heard back. So >> should our ZBA liaison bring that up with >> That's Anita, right? >> Yeah, >> Anita. >> But I did email I did email uh Brian directly.
>> It's the best best way. >> So So, um, any questions, comments on this one? Anyone from the public wish to speak on this one? All right, moving on.
The next one is changing the dimensional uh tables um the various dimensional tables in our zoning that have the minimum depth of zero uh to NA um
because minimum depth of zero is essentially no depth no minimum required. >> Why? Um, and so all of these are the >> Why is it zero or why are we changing it? >> Why are we changing it? Seems like if
it's the same thing, >> consistency, >> it's the difference. It's the difference between null and zero. >> You do any programming at all. >> It's a big difference. >> Okay. >> Big difference. >> This is housekeeping because some places it's zero, some places it's
>> um, so the question came up last time we were doing this. So to prevent future questions, >> I'm just curious what type of questions will come up at your meeting. Can only imagine >> I'll be around for this one this time. >> All right. Any public wish to speak on
this change? Moving on. Um you can skip ahead, Evan. boarding house. >> Yep. All right. For this one, it's to revise the definition of boarding house.
Um, this came out of a follow-up discussion I had with someone from the last town meeting. um they realized that the current definition of boarding house overlaps a bit with the new family definition um in terms of household uh
numbers and things like that. Um so what I did is I looked at the um the state definition of a boarding house. Um so the current definition
um is really related to a single housekeeping unit. Um occupants may share bathroom or kitchen facilities. So a lot of that has some overlapping and confusing aspects with the family definition.
>> So what I did is I looked at the state definition. um looked at a couple other towns um and came up with this newer version. So it's essentially replacing the entire
uh definition. So facility licensed under the state um state general laws which temporary or semi-permanent lodging is provided for rent to four or more lodgers who do not live together as a single housekeeping
unit and who occupy individual rooms. Occupants may share bathroom or kitchen facilities but such shared use does not constitute a single housekeeping unit. Occupancy is on an individual room basis with separate agreements or fees. Um the building does not contain
self-containing dwellings and is not considered a single family, two family or multif family dwelling. >> So it provides a little bit more clarity um with some of the other potentially overlapping uses. >> Mhm. >> What are individual individual dwelling
units shall not contain individual dwelling units? >> Well, a a unit has to have a bathroom and a kitchen. >> Yeah. Self-contained apartments. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. So someone could not come in under boarding house definition if they have
separate >> right >> apartments >> right >> one one question I had which was a question I think I recall from town meeting which was a concern with the family definition of you know like a
fraternity living next door that you know fits under that definition and they were concerned about a bunch of 20-year-olds living together and doing what 20-year-olds do. So, um,
this I don't know that this entirely captures that. U, but I was just curious what what our if that comes out what our response to that would be. >> So, that is addressed. Um when I looked at the state definition, it part of the
state definition does exclude fraternity houses, but then we would have to define fraternity houses, >> right? >> Um other towns have um addressed it by
the uh occupancy is on an individual room basis with separate agreements or fees. Fraternity houses do not have that. Okay. >> Although they certainly could structure themselves so that they did. They could
>> they could they could but if it's >> they wanted to get around this >> but if it's a national fraternity they probably wouldn't >> but a local one but I mean I don't know if Chumps is like a hot bit of fraternities and sororities fraternities you know they're going to
be >> I mean you myself but >> yeah cuz I was looking at when looking at that too and you talk about like you get a bunch of college kids who want to rent you know run on Chsford side of the Chsford fine. You got, oh, there's four bedrooms, but five of us are going to rent there. You know, it's not like
they're looking to run a boarding house. They're just kids trying to, you know, how does >> Yeah. But in those cases, the landlords typically don't have individual leases. It's one lease that they co-sign. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Fat house on a future project. >> Not I don't think we're close enough to that. So, >> any members of the public wish to speak on this one? Good. Okay. On to the next one. Um,
bed and breakfast. This also came up at the last town meeting um where someone uh suggested that it might be a good idea to add a bed and breakfast as a use. Um, since we do have hotels, motel,
boarding houses. Um, and so thought it might be a good idea since we didn't have it defined. we might want to define it. Um, >> then do we want to say where it is? >> Yep. That's the next part. >> Yep. >> So, the definition um is a pretty
standard uh again based on the state definition um and also excluding other defined uh unit or um definitions that we have.
And then for the use table, um I looked at the similar uses for boarding houses, motel, and hotels to see where they are located. Um tried to match that uh essentially the
motel hotel u mapping. Um and then also added the RC. Um thought that maybe the multifamilies uh depending on how they're structured um or renovated potentially have an
opportunity for um a bed and breakfast. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was wondering about the RM why that was a no. I would have thought that would be a planning board. >> We could do that one too. Which one? >> RM. >> RM RM
>> RM. I wasn't sure why I would exclude that. >> It would be interesting to hear in the public hearing whether people are interested in RA or RB having it as well. >> I wasn't cons initially I wasn't
considering the um residential areas. Evan had suggested the RC. Um Evan, do you want to I liked your reason. I mean just simply because RC are the uh traditional neighborhoods within close proximity to Vinyl Square and um Center Village.
>> Makes sense. >> It also has a lot of um historic houses that are large. >> Um but yeah, it's they're within walking distance of the centers. >> I have I have seen those though and they get ridiculous with parking.
But I guess if it comes to the planning board, that would have to be a consideration for parking because it's it's something that happens now where they have old agreements and allowing multiple people residing and it turns it's a cluster. >> Yeah. And that's why it would come before us,
>> which at least you have the opportunity. >> Yeah. >> Anita, did you want to say something? Yeah, I was just going to say I like I don't know RC is still very residential. I'm not sure how people are going to feel about this. I'm not sure
whether you know like a single family neighborhood even though it's zone RC and it's close to the center would feel about having some an Airbnb next door. Well, BNB and Airbnb aren't the same really in
my mind at all. A Airbnb's short-term rental, that's pretty much not allowed. So, a bed and breakfast, I believe, is a under state law is a is a lodging facility, which requires some sort of state licensing, maybe local licensing,
>> like a boutique. >> Airbnb. Some communities have required licensing. Um in Shelmsford the deter the zoning determination has been you cannot operate Airbnb in a residential zoning district because it's a commercial business.
>> Yeah. It's less what was it last 30 days then? So isn't it like but isn't it been best it's lodging right? So isn't that commercial? like it's still some sort of like >> it would be it would be right now a bed and breakfast is not permitted because it's not listed not a listed use what
the board's contemplating is making it a a listed use >> right and it's still lodging and it's still short-term lodging it's so I again RC is still residential and and there's
a lot of single family neighbor neighborhoods and I'm not sure how many how those people are going to feel about having larger large largers coming in and out on a short-term basis. I would just I I'm not I'm not in favor
of that. I'm a no on that. >> Yeah, >> good point. >> Even if it's a special permit. >> Yeah. >> Okay. If we're not going to allow We're not going to allow like the eldest.
Yeah. Well, keep in mind that we do have boarding houses allowed by special permit actually by the zoning board >> in RC. What about >> in RC RB R A? >> Yep. >> RM.
And I just don't see that being very popular. I don't know. I don't >> seems like there's more regulations around a bed and breakfast than abboarding us. So at least if it was a bed and breakfast versus the other, you'd have a little bit more control.
>> Yeah, it's state licensed. >> Yeah, >> but I but to Joel's point too, I don't get why RM's not if RC was. But then I'm also questioning because if Anita's bringing this up, how many people during the town meeting are going to object? And then does that shut this one down completely?
Is it two phase? >> I just think you should pick our pick our battles, right? Like >> you can always you can always u have a friendly amendment. If somebody wants to include or exclude, >> they can propose that town meeting.
Anita needs a friend >> if Chris accepts it. >> I mean, what do the board members think? Did >> I'm okay with striking it out of RC. >> I I like the idea of the definition getting in and getting in front of people.
>> And I think for less conflict on the first runaround, if you didn't include it in RC or RM, >> a lot more people would probably be in favor of it versus potential confrontation. Could you go after changing it at, you know, the next, you know, I mean, because it would be nice.
I mean, this is a thing where it would be good to have control a little bit more of these areas and allowing it if we wanted or not depending on what's around it, but you know, how do you want to run it for the meeting? >> So, >> well, I mean, I think we get introduced to the concept of I mean, do we even get
any bent and breakfast in town? >> Yeah. >> Once we, you know, and then we can see is it seem like it's something we want more of or not. Mhm. >> All right. So, if other members of the board are okay with it, I will take that advice since that's the same advice I
gave Kelly on the lighting bylaw, um I will take that same advice and um take baby steps um for for introducing the bylaws. All right. So, I will remove the RC um >> zone.
>> Okay. >> Perfect. All right. Any members of the public wish to speak on this one? Kelly BD 117 Park Road. Just something from the Peanut Gallery. In listening this discussion, I think you ought to
treat boarding houses, bed and breakfast, and Airbnbs with the same set of standards because as Ania has been pointing out, they all have the same business model. It's a commercial entity in the middle of a residential area.
>> Thank you. I I actually was contemplating um adding boarding house um adjustments on this one, but because of the number of articles that we have, it might be more
prudent to do it than next time. >> But thank you, Kelly. I was considering that. >> All right. Um, any other questions on those? I think we're now at the lighting bylaw.
So, for this one, I will ask Kelly Bey to um come up and uh he's, if you remember, we um had some discussion at the last uh before the
last town meeting about the lighting bylaw. Um there were some last minute changes. We ended up pulling it at the last minute. Um I worked with Kelly to take another look at it. Um asked him to
separate out the um commercial and industrial from the residential. Um make it simpler. >> Uh make it a recommendation for residential. um and uh requirements for
industrial and commercial. Um took another look at it. Um I think it's a really simplified clean version. Um Kelly's going to walk through uh some of the slides and then we can have a
discussion. Um the bylaw itself is a little bit lengthy so I we didn't include it in the slides but it is in the attached document. Mhm. >> Kelly, >> thank you. Uh Kelly Bey Park Road, uh
back before you again. Um the bylaw that we proposed at the last spring town meeting um was uh what's the word I'm looking for? uh
aggressive uh in its scope in attempting to rein in everything uh that uh could possibly be uh regulated including municipal lighting. And um I heard I got
very uh a great deal of constructive uh feedback, constructive criticism, especially from the finance committee. I just want to shout out to the finance committee that was very awakening. And so we came back uh with with Chris's uh guidance uh with something simpler. The
the history here is we have an outdoor lighting bylaw. We've had one since the year 2000. That bylaw uh regulates all lights, residential and commercial, that are are newly installed. So that's
been on the books for 25 years now. it hasn't always been um adhered to nor uh enforced. Part of the problem with the old one is that there was no enforcement mechanism um implied or or stated. In
that intervening time, LEDs have taken over how we light and LEDs have many good qualities and many bad qualities. And so in the meantime, science has told us that there is uh there there are concerns that we haven't had before that
we need to be alert to, especially with senior citizens, with conflict zones at intersections and so forth. A lot of those have to do with glare. Um there's also components on the effect of LEDs on human health, the effect of the blue
wavelengths of LEDs, which are uh quite strong on the nocturnal environment. I guess you can go to the next one, Evan. Uh, and in particular, I want to I want to address this issue of glare because it it it is how we in the town experience it most often is when there
is a security light on the side of a building, uh, be it commercial or residential that is pointed out sideways in an attempt to illuminate all of the property. But the problem is that light doesn't really, you can't really end it at the property line very easily unless
it's shielded. And so consequently you get a lot of overspill and it is this glare which is um which most people find objectionable. Be it a neighbor, be it somebody who's trying to round a corner and uh there is
a a bright um uh you know a bright light on the side of a building. be it a public service uh public safety officer investigating something and the security light from the building is shining right in their face and they can't really see the spaces. So, one of the things we
hope to do is address glare uh through this and that's what a lot of what the shielding is about. If you can go to the next one, you can see where the glare is. Here is a this is a a real situation on Nantucket. I showed this last year. This is a school and you can obviously see the glare from those build from
those lights and what they did next slide. They simply turned them down. Now what's really important here and I don't think I made this point well enough last time. When you turn a light fixture and you turn it down, you don't make it any dimmer. You just change the distribution
of the light. So instead of going out, you you allow the light to wash the wall and become a more diffuse uh source of illumination. So you can see in this picture that the foreground is still lit. And so that's sort of the goal here to try to address some of the glare and
this will become an issue uh in the nuisance component. Next slide. The other thing that is new uh since 2000 for sure um is this notion of color temperature and uh it's measured in a a temperature
scale called Kelvin. The higher the number, the bluer the light. And uh again, this goes back to what we're finding environmentally in terms of the damage that blue wavelengths can do to the nocridal environment. Uh that there's something called the insect apocalypse. I didn't make this up. You
can go look it up. In the last 50 years, we've lost 75% of all insects. Now, bad lighting isn't responsible for all of that, but it's partly responsible for it. Why we don't have as many fireflies or moths flying at night, that sort of thing. So color temperature it is. We
would be remiss if we didn't make color temperature part of the next generation outdoor lighting bylaw. Next please. So um as Evan I'm sorry as Chris was pointing out I'm trying to keep up with you here.
this the new version that we've put forward. Um, it's still a general bylaw. And my reasoning for doing that instead of the zoning bylaw that we have is that it allows us to um identify existing bad lighting as
nonconforming >> and then give a 10-year grace period for bringing that into conformance unless unless certain triggers happen like uh this construction or you change the lighting and those sorts of things. Um
the uh uh as Chris said, we've I've separated it into uh residential and commercial. The the commercial requirements are essentially the same as you saw last time. And there has been general agreement I think from everyone that uh including the commercial sector,
the business association, that what we have proposed there is not unreasonable. Essentially, if if you have a if you're a business and you've got one of these uh lights on the side of your building that is shining outward, it's not con it would not be conforming, but you'd have
10 years to bring it in conformance. And since LEDs have a finite lifetime, it's entirely reasonable that somebody would replace their lighting anyway within that 10 year period. What's different this time around is that uh whereas there had been requirements for
residential uh lighting and in fact I should point out that the original bylaw that is on the books right now has a requirement that new residential lighting be shielded and and not above a certain strength. It has been there all along. However, uh given the the um
constructive criticism, shall we say, that I got on the notion of regulating uh uh residential lighting, uh we withdrew all of the requirements there and instead put in a set of recommendations for what we the town
would like to see, you know, so that uh the residents can take that as guidance for adjusting their lighting or changing their lighting uh to to be um to better lighting without necessarily having to require it. However, uh one of the
things that we want to leave in, we want some protection from let's say a neighbor from a business or a neighbor from another neighbor for a really uh bad, glary, egregious overspill of lighting. And that is the nuisance
component to this which exists. It's just like your noise uh your noise bylaw. You know, if you can hear the noise within 300 feet of the of the outdoor ampl amplification, uh you're not in conformity. And the same would apply here. One of the things that's
very interesting is that we um we redefined where we would measure uh uh the lighting. before it was at the property line and uh the new the new guidance is becoming well it's not you would never actually just stand outside
at your property line you'd probably be in your bedroom uh and and be worried about this lighting. So we're changing the definition of where you measure if you're trying to determine a nuisance from from the property line to 15 ft inside or at the building wall whichever
is closer. That's a more realworld approach to this. Um and then finally what is what remains from last time but in a much simplified form is the enforcement. Uh a problem with all bylaws that I have seen involving
outdoor lighting except for a very few and our existing one is that there is no mechanism for enforcement. So in simple terms we outlined the new bylaw. I guess we need to go to the last panel. uh the new bylaw uh would would be uh enforced
uh by the planning department and I've had a couple of really great conversations and a a sitewalk if you will at night uh with Jose Negrron and uh we've had some really good conversations about this and how we'd go about doing this. So it's not like coming out of left field for him. Uh
there's the usual exemptions and one of the things that we added this time that was a matter of debate especially on the finance committee of of um how about uh lighting that you use along your walkway so you can get inside safely or landscape lighting or holiday lighting
and then how do you define holiday lighting? So we we took all those off the table by making those exemptions. Um from what I can see holiday lighting is up pretty much 365 days a year. So we would would be pretty hard to regulate. Um and so that's basically all I have
for you this evening. Uh I I took what we had last time and uh with the guidance of Chris and Evan and also Jose, we made it a simpler uh tighter bylaw that I think will be uh more
receptive to to the other boards in town and also to the town meeting reps. >> Thank you. Yep. >> Any questions, comments from the board? >> How does this compare to some of the some of the other towns surrounding towns? Because I know I've heard things
such as downward-f facing lighting with certain regulations and things like that. How does this compare? >> Yeah, the current term for that is fully shielded, which means that all of the light is emitted below horizontal, and that's in here. Previously, like in the existing bylaw, it says fully shielded,
but that's not really used. I'm sorry, full cutoff, and that's not really used anymore. So, one of the things that we embed in this bylaw were needed are the regulations that have been not regulations, but the standards that have been created by the illuminating
engineering society, which is the standard setting body for lighting for the for the entire country. And so, you'll see IEES in there, here, and there. uh this would come into play mostly from a commercial side. So when you have a project come before you uh as
before we would ask for a submission of lighting plans and those lighting plans would have the numbers on them that would make sense from a an IEES standard sort of view. So, uh, in terms of how this matches up against other
neighboring towns, most other towns that, and there are more than 60 towns in Massachusetts that have some form of outdoor lighting bylaw, one way or the other. Maine just passed one, too. By the way, um, just this past week, they
are they are hopelessly vague and hopelessly uninforcable. uh they'll say things like uh must be pointed down so that it doesn't cast a shadow on a neighboring property. Well, how do you quantify that? And so what we're trying to do here at the expense
of introducing a number a number that can be measured and measured quite easily, we're quantifying what a nuisance would be and and can give uh in the hands of of somebody from the building department or a police officer going out at night or whatever it might
be. In 10 seconds, I can tell you whether you're conforming or not with a simple measurement. >> I got to say I was pretty excited when I had seen this coming when it was supposed to go to the town meeting before and then when it got pulled, I was a little bit sad because this is a thing that I actually like the idea of
getting more stringent with. That's why the 10-year time frame from a financial point of view, I get, but at the same time, it's kind of sad that it's going to take 10 years to come up to code. Um, and the other thing that kind of bugs me a little bit is I get that you're going after commercial, but the impact to
residential. I mean, being a resident that has more impact to me than, you know, I get the commercial spillover, but also having the residential issues around with lighting is a big thing as well. So, I would hope to see in the future that being a little bit more strict. Um, because I've read the codes
the way they stand today and there's not a lot that you can do with them when you're getting spillover. And the other thing is depending on property going 15t inside um just the impact for wildlife and things like that on property when there's light pollution. Um even though
you say use like getting in your bedroom window, you know, it does matter to the environment for where it's spilling over. So that the 15t seems a little bit far for me as well. But again, I understand baby steps with doing this. But >> overall, >> uh thank you for those comments. I I
would point out that uh Mike uh in the previous set of public hearings suggested that maybe we shouldn't wait 25 years to update our outdoor lighting bylaw and a and a cadence of maybe five years might be appropriate and I actually in redoing this I was thinking
that uh that we this is a something can be a a starting point for us and then again five years from now we will be halfway through that uh grace period. so to speak. And of course, I would hope and really appreciate if if those who
are non-conforming would choose to do the right thing uh and make the changes before 10 years are up. But but that the 10 years is a is a good number from the standpoint of the business community uh because they see that as a realistic thing. Uh it was supposed to be
realistic from the standpoint of the town in terms of the especially the street lights that we have. And in my early conversations with Christine Clansancy about this, we sat down and we agreed that 10 years was pretty reasonable for our existing street lighting system, which has been in place
since 2012. It's been around for a while. What I hadn't anticipated is that the existing street lights we have are not burning out very fast. And and interestingly, our existing street lights are pretty good. Pretty good. The
only criterion in here that it wouldn't meet would be the color temperature. And so, uh, that's not in there anymore in the in the public right ofway section. It's no longer in there. Now, I think that's I think that's a loophole that somebody could exploit. I'm not to name
names, but there are a couple of utility companies that might want to uh replace the lights that they have with LEDs, which hasn't happened yet, but trust me, it will happen. It will happen perhaps very soon. Um and so um we would hope that they would do the
right thing and and but what we've done now doesn't require really doesn't require the town to do anything to expend any money to replace anything. Now I would like to work with Paul Cohen
and Christine Clancy when all of those street lights were installed. Sorry if this is getting off the rails here. I >> apologize. It's part of the the reason why >> when we when the street lights that we have were installed, it was part of the energy services contract with Johnson
Controls. And while we we wait we had a wait a minute moment with what they were planning to do with street lights, we didn't capture the area lighting what's around this building or at schools and those are really really bad, really bad.
And so I would hope working with the town apart from this bylaw that we could get some of that corrected uh in the in the coming years um just as a matter of natural evolution. >> I appreciate your advocacy for this >> and I think the the concept of baby
steps is really what I was working with Kelly on on this because we really want to get something passed and the residential component was such a was one of the two hot topics. The other area was the requirement for the town um to
replace uh lighting um because of the financial situation right now. So um we wanted to pair it down, get something in, have Kelly work with Christine and Paul to come up with a plan for the town lighting. >> And are these slides going to be typical to what would be shown at the town
meeting? Because I think the visual aspect of them is very helpful. Yeah, any slides I'm showing tonight will be the basis for the town meeting slides and then I'll continue adjusting and >> okay an important wasn't really stated outright but if I may Chris our our my
hope and expectation is that as before this will be put forward to town meeting as a joint effort of me citizen petitioner and you the planning board. >> Yep. >> Who will be presenting? >> Be presenting. Okay. both you
>> it might just it might be just you because uh I was looking ahead to when uh the second night of town meeting is going to take place and I'm going to be in Japan somewhere. >> Okay. >> But I can always zoom in.
>> We'll we'll figure that out when it comes. >> Just add a comment when it comes to um No, I I appreciate some of the reworking. Um, you know, municipal lighting is still a concern of mine and um, I would like to see something from Director Clancy stating, you know, that
she is comfortable with it because I remember when we received or I saw a memo from the first bylaw. It was quite shocking the amount of cost that it was going to require. Uh my other concern is I know we've had these lights in existence now, the street lights, and
they're but um I wouldn't want to see this um necessarily um restrict the the lumens or the brightness so much that I think you'll get more complaints from residents because the problem you're going to have is if you drive around now, I I it's most likely to conserve
energy. In some areas, they're not that bright. So, I just want to make sure that she or her staff is comfortable with the the lu level of lumens because I don't want to, you know, you don't want to have to spend all this money and then have residents complain they can't see as good as before. And
>> well, the municipal lighting and the right uh right of way lighting is removed from this as part of the >> at least as far as the towns go. Yeah. If if I if you are a utility company or a private developer and you want to slap street lights up on the ride of way,
which National Grid is doing now, um then those would fall under the provisions of this, but the town's street lights would not. >> So, right now, a town street light impeding onto other properties wouldn't be helped by this. >> Correct. >> Awesome. Also, John, just for the just
baby steps, >> when when Johnson Controls replaced the street lights, they replace them basically lumen for lumen. >> And you would think, well, that's just the same amount of light, but because of the extra blue component in an LED light, it actually looks much brighter
than the previous street lights did. So, it might be someone's perception that it's not as bright as it used to be, but the reality is that it is brighter, appears brighter than it used to be. one uh one slide I'd like to see because
I remember somewhere in everything that was in the last last submission um the question of how is this different than or what is this doing differently than the current bylaw is doing and I think highlighting what advantages that
this bylaw is going to give you over the existing bylaw would be a really good thing to highlight so people recognize that there is a need for a change. Thank you for that. And that is I suspect what we're going to do. Uh and we attempted to do that. If you go back to the the if
you go back in time to look at the deck that we prepared, one of the things that I did was here's what the existing bylaw does and here's what the new one will do that's different. And a town meeting representative took issue with that and didn't
interpret it correctly in a number of ways. And um that was one of the components of why we withdrew it. But it was mostly because we given the financial situation in the town, we didn't want to force the town to have to
spend a lot of money. And it was less than Christine Clansy's estimate, but it's still millions of dollars to replace the street lights here in town at a time when we probably can't afford it. Certainly can't afford it. >> But we will add that slide, too. Yeah, I think that would be because I think
people are going to want to see a reason why it's needed. I mean, not just why it's different, but why it's needed. >> Can I just ask, do we currently have a lighting standards officer in town, or is this going to be some new position that's going to be have to be created with salaries and >> things of that nature as we're talking
about >> it's Jose >> the budget and >> it's Jose. >> It's Jose. >> It's gonna be Jose. Okay. >> Which is why I appreciate you're taking the time to go with Jose because that was an issue I raised originally, >> right? was that that hadn't happened yet. So, >> and and you know there there is a a sort
of physical um part of this that h will have to be sorted out because if you want to measure how bright a light is or isn't at night uh and use that magical meter uh he'd have to be out at night or
someone would have to be out at night. And what I'm doing with a lighting professional is trying to to come up with a simple sort of calculation where we can look at a light that's installed on the side of a building during the daytime and knowing its lumen output and
how far away it is from the property line. Uh do at least an estimate of how much light is going past the property line. >> Yeah, I think that'd be good. >> That that's a that's a work in progress. And uh the lighting professional I asked to do this, he says, "Oo, that's a novel idea. We'll do that.
>> And we do need to keep in mind that the current bylaw >> is enforced by Jose as well, >> right? >> Just no one ever uses it. >> Well, that's why I was asking because I remember we've talked about a couple of these things months ago and like all the
specific equipment they're going to need and the cost of this and things like that. That's why I'm like just there's been so much going on like do we have this person or is it somebody else's job already in town? >> Not a lot of people complain about it. And when people do complain, Jose would go out and look at it but not be able to
measure anything. It it's a judgment. So this provides him a little bit more objective measurement that he can use. >> Yeah. >> Aren't there I mean how are the engineers >> Go ahead, Anita. I was going to say, have we reached out
to the CDA um just from like a business perspective um or commercial um just to get their sign off on this then or their thoughts? >> Yeah, thanks for that Anita. Um, I I
first approached the CBA uh before the first time we came before and had a couple of great uh uh meetings with Kirk Marshall and uh and others including the board and they are not opposed to these
restrictions on the commercial side. They are unlikely to come up before a town meeting and say, "We support this," but they're they're content with what I've done, we've done, and not opposing it. And I did send the CBA and check back in with Kirk on this new version,
which basically from the commercial point of view is unchanged from last time. Uh, and they that he says it's the same. We're we're in the same spot that we are in terms of uh being satisfied with it. Thank you.
>> Any other questions or comments? Any questions or comments from the public? All right, there being none. Um, >> do we need >> Thank you, Kelly. >> Do we need to continue this or is this >> So, this is the last um article on this
zoning public hearing. Um, so yes, we will need to continue this till next meeting. Okay. >> Um, we will for next meeting I plan to uh probably update some things. Um, >> Joel will have some homework. >> Yes.
>> Um, and we will go over uh we won't go over all of the slides. We'll just go over the changes. Um, and then we will hopefully be able to vote on these next meeting. Evan, >> do you have anything to add? You'll have
a one citizens petition which will be uh opening on the 28th as well. >> That's right. >> All right. Um All right. So, I will take a motion to continue this to next. >> I'll move that we uh continue uh the
zoning amendments hearing until the next meeting on the 28th. >> Motion by Mike. >> I'll second. >> Second by Deudra. And we'll do a roll call. Mike. I >> Joel >> I >> John >> I >> Dearra >> I >> Marcy >> I
>> Anita >> I >> and I am an I. So we are continuing that till next meeting. Thank you and thank you Kelly. All right. Next up on the agenda is the
Middle Sex Street neighborhood um zoning. Um it is not a public hearing yet. Um, following the procedure we did with the um, Kate's Corner, I wanted to
do an informal uh, opportunity first for uh, neighborhood input. Um, add any anything uh, that people want to add in and then we will open the official public hearing on this next week. Um,
>> next meeting >> I or sorry, next meeting. Um, I did present this to the vinyl square uh committee um this >> Monday, this past Monday. Um, and uh got
some uh good vibes. Uh people liked it. Um pretty much unchanged since last time I presented it. Um but there were more people that uh were attending this time and um got a really good review from one of the
residents in the area as well. So uh so that's on that. So uh we can go over uh really quickly um the article So back in 2022, all of you will
remember that NEMCOG uh did the uh zoning conflict study and a number of uh zoning conflicts were identified. Uh this area is one of those areas that were identified as zoning conflict. Um and based on our discussions with Kate's
Corner, we decided to have this new zone. Um, we did create the CBLT um, in the last town meeting. Um, we applied it to Kate's Corner in that same town meeting uh, successfully and um, now we're
looking to apply it to the Middle Sex uh, zoning. Um, I'm not going to go over all of these. Um, just going back to the definitions really quick. Um, one of the
things I did do for these slides is I highlighted the areas of the definition that are are um to compare the ultralight and the light manufacturing so that people can see the slight differences between the two um
definitions. >> Um, so the uh dark text is the potential differences. Um the zoning map, the zoning parcels. Um this is the
current zoning in place. The next one is the zoning that we are proposing and I will Can you expand that a little bit more, Evan? So just to recap, um I made some changes
to these labels based on uh some feedback the last meeting. Um the top left hand corner of the diagram um will remain CD. Uh the few parcels to
the right of that will be changed to RC. Uh >> wait, I'm sorry. Where are you what are you pointing to? >> Corner. >> Top left corner. top left corner. >> Okay. >> Under the word parcels. >> Okay. >> Um under the word reszone, uh the top very top remains uh multif
family. Uh and then the residential areas underneath it that are currently IIA would change to RC. Um, also attached to our agenda tonight, I have the same zoning handout that I provided at town meeting, uh, that
allows people to follow along with the, um, acronyms and also the use table. Um, the main core of the IIA um, for the mills and, uh, for the railroad area um,
is being changed from IIA to CBLT. Um and then the area of the um IIA district that abuts the RC uh down towards the middle right um are changing
to RC as well. Um there's a little swath of IIA over near the the right side um that cuts down to uh the street. Um and that is changing over to CB
to align with the uh CB near it. >> So that's what we're proposing. Um again, no changes since the uh last time we spoke about this. Um, and then the next slide summarizes the parcels that we are reszoning. >> Any questions, comments from the board?
>> Awesome work. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Hey, Chris, have we or Evan, have we sent out the letters yet to >> the Butters and what have you for this? Yeah, letters went out um the week of
the 5th prior to this week's uh vinyl square meeting on the 12th. >> I've received several uh calls from um from residents. Um interestingly enough, my calls have been
for properties that are not proposed to be reszoned. >> I got a few inquiries as well. Um I got one inquiry um further down um and uh asking if we could reszone that area. Um
it's another one of the um areas with zoning conflicts. Uh so I responded that it is on our list. We have to rep prioritize as we go through these. Um but it is on our list. So this does seem to be a popular
um movement that uh seems to be uh in >> gaining momentum. >> Yes. >> And gaining favor with a lot of residents as well I think. So um we also the vinyl square committee
also uh posted a number of postings on the Facebook as well um advertising their meeting this meeting and then the um the public hearing next meeting. All right. Any other questions or
comments from the board? Any members of the public wish to speak? Good evening. Ralph Block 2 Edwards Place. The only concern that I have, I actually uh am in favor of the majority of the
changes that you're looking to make. The one concern that I have is the property along Stony Brook. Um 1319- 13-9-20, excuse me,
still um houses a uh I I believe it's the remnants of the original mill building that burned down. back back before uh the Mckitric building was built and the uh Manzo
Freeman building to reszone that and and give that the opportunity to be developed I think is kind of ludicrous. Uh it's it's not a usable lot. If anything, it should be deemed open space and that follows through. you really
don't get a good uh a good depiction as to how the how the railroad runs through there. And I I understand CBLT for the railroad, but not for the area
in close proximity to Stonybrook. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Who owns that? >> Which one is that, Evan? >> That one. Yeah. Can you show that? >> I believe it's >> it's highlighted in blue.
>> Yep. >> And I believe it's uh in common ownership with one of the mill properties. >> So to address um >> I think it's chunks management. So to address one of your concerns, the
designation of of public in the zoning is for public land and because it's privately owned, we would not be able to zone that public. Um the
idea here on this one um on this can you go to the uh slide with the zoning? So right now it's owned industrial.
>> Um we're proposing that we it change to CBLT. the redevelopment or development opportunities exist regardless of whether it's IIA or CBLT. what we're what I believe and the board
members can also uh weigh in but if that area is to be developed or redeveloped there are higher protections for that area that that surrounding area and the natural state of that area um from the
CBLT zone than IA provides. Um, we would, like I said, we would not be able to to reszone that public. Um, the only other options would be
residential, commercial, or the CBLT. And that's kind of where I was headed was if you zoned it as residential per se because of its proximity to the
brook, it's not a buildable lot. So just by means of it being cut in half by the brook, you can't build on it anyway. So in calling it residential, you've offered
the protection of the property. It would have an opportunity for the trees and the and the brush to grow back. It would again buffer the noise from the trains for for that whole neighborhood
of Edward's place. That lot was clearcut about 10 years ago, 10 15 years ago. And the noise is horrendous from the train. It was never like that until it was clearcut. So if we could somehow
protect that piece of land, let it grow back, you can't you can't build on it. >> Call it residential. I think Evan can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if
it's unbuild unbuildable for residential, it would also be unbuildable for most commercial uses. >> Yeah. So, I don't know too much about this property, but I think it's used for some sort of staging or parking or storage of vehicles or 18-wheers or what
have you. The aerial photo seems to indicate there's a there's a trailer here. Uh so if you if it stays industrial or CB light then it can be used for commercial accessory purposes like it is currently.
If you reszone it to residential then you are making it pre-existing non-conforming. You couldn't continue. You wouldn't be able to expand any of the accessory commercial uses there. As far as buildability, it would be a
difficult property to build for any type of use. Period. Yeah. Now, good point with the the um there's a storage container on the on the property now and it's unfortunately it's also started
to be a dumping ground for trash. Um I don't know what can be done about that, but I know you can't you can't park vehicles there. You can't park tractor trailers there because inherently they leak oil and the oil
leakage doesn't have any kind of protection for the brook. So you have an opportunity for the oil leakage from from the trucks to to find its way into the brook. So that that even creates a bigger problem.
Have you ever tried going to like com about I don't know where the wetlands and stuff is in this property or there's dumping >> at least riverfront involved if it's Stony Brook >> but there might be something in there with especially if it's becoming like excessive with trash and things like
that that they can push >> I don't know can we look at this property sorry can we look at this propert like um like I'm not opposed to zoning is residential. >> Well, the the challenge
>> there's nothing there now and there's nothing can be built like what's next to it? >> Well, Anita, the challenge with residential is that it is owned by a commercial entity. So the guide the guidelines that we've been
going with is what's currently what the current uses and because it is owned and being used as a essentially a commercial use changing it to a residential
>> ain't going to do much >> I don't >> well I mean when we change something I mean the the current use gets grandfathered in. Right. >> It does. >> Yeah. But it does limit future sales. It limits >> Yeah. >> what the current owner can do.
>> But it's not. >> Yeah. But it's not buildable. >> I I don't I don't know. Maybe it's worth a chat with the owner. >> But I think the the current condition is something that the concom I mean I think that could be raised.
>> I don't know. I don't know what >> reszoning it to residential is going to solve any better than what reszoning it to CBLT will because a lot of things you mentioned are really more concomated issues because there's
riverfront riverfront has quite an extension buffer so if somebody's doing stuff in the buffer zone of the riverfront or doing stuff in the riverfront they shouldn't be. >> Yeah it's a if memory serves me correctly it's 150 ft. Yeah, I think it's 200 actually. But >> 200 is it 200 now?
>> Yeah. For riverfront. So I guess what I'm saying is that in general our our objective always has been to reduce the zoning conflict. Certainly going from IA to CBLT does that. I mean that was the same thing at Kate's Corner. We didn't go all the way to residential with some of the lots. We just went to CBLT.
>> But in this case, I don't even know what going to residential is going to buy you in terms of protection that you weren't going to get from CBLT. And and in my opinion, changing it to residential in the middle of the CBLT essentially creates a new zoning conflict.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, it wouldn't really be in the in the middle. I mean, you you're just adding on to what you're already changing >> in, you know, you just >> I mean, you'd create two pockets. So if you did that, you create two pockets of
CBLT and you'd rather just have a swap. >> But if but if someone wanted to buy like say the person who abuted this the CBLT wanted to buy that then they could build they could they'll they may have the the space
to build residential because then it would be you know >> water like somewhat you know you would have a view of the water and stuff like that. I don't know. >> But like Joel said, anything they do there is going to be restricted by conservation.
>> Th that's where the biggest restriction is going to be. It's not going to be a zoning restriction. >> It's going to be a >> right. But it since it abuts RC, right? If some if the R if the butter of RC purchased this property, then combined
they may have an ability to build something. I mean, >> do we want to add something but not right on the river? >> I think you would have property you've got this. So, you could >> I would think you would want to develop something there so that you would have
some sort of storm water control what's happening. If you go to residential, you can't build on it. You're essentially leaving it as it is. And that isn't going to keep people from dumping on it anymore than if you made it CBLT. I think if you make it some use that somebody can actually do something with, then the the way our codes and
regulations so far are set up, they're going to they're going to build into it protections that we want for that area. So I think we would actually want it to be CBLT so that somebody would actually do something there. But if you make it residential, it's going to stay as it is and it's just going to continue. The
only difference may be that somebody isn't parking a trailer there, but it's still going to be degraded and people are still going to dump stuff there and it's not really going to be controlled. So, I don't think you're going to accomplish uh accomplish what what is wanted through that. >> I think if you look at the um if you
look at the last lot uh at the bottom of Edward's place, that last lot abuts the the lot that we're talking about. >> Mhm. >> And the property line is quite lengthly. Um
>> which one are you talking about? What property number? uh 1319-20 >> 16 >> uh I can't read it. It's under Yeah, I think it is >> 16 and then 20 cuz 20 above each other.
>> 16. Okay, fine. The only thing that it that that that would be of benefit I think by changing it to residential was if the owner of the property -16 were to somehow acquire that lot he
could probably build another house. >> Would you want him to >> or multiple houses there? >> Yeah. I mean >> that's also that's also a risk for that area >> is that if you if that is residential
>> the and it's the same owner those lots could be combined and more housing could be put in there. Well, you could if it's RC, you can only build a single family though, right? >> But you can zone that so you have like multiple lots now versus that one giant
lot, he could subdivide those lots and put more houses in. >> Mhm. >> I think there's more protection by being CB light. >> Yeah. And separating it. >> I do too. And even if somebody wanted to do that, I don't know why they couldn't use seat. >> You've convinced me. It's a combination
of >> I'm actually on the side note I'm curious if that parcel is even buildable. >> It's not >> like with the rules. >> I don't think there's enough space. >> No, it's not. That the -20 lot is know how no way is that buildable.
>> I would recommend following up with David Coons on that property um to see if he can take a look at it to see if there are any conservation issues with that. >> He's the conservation agent. How do you spell the last name? >> K O N C E.
>> You go to the website. His number's right there. >> He's on conservation committee. >> Yeah, he's very good, too. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, sir. >> Any other members of the public wish to speak? >> It was a good discussion.
>> Sorry. Nice to have Virginia back. >> Hi, Virginia Timonss. Uh 28 Love It Lane. Uh as Chris mentioned, um we were helping him try to roll out the cascade of communications for this and I want to thank Chris for his efforts with that
too. I did get one input since um our discussions Monday night that I just wanted to share with you. Uh there was a question about whether the new front setbacks, building heights, number of stories, or any potential coverage
changes might affect or pose any issues with existing structures or create nonconformities. And I don't think it was a concern. It was just like maybe the planning board might just want to sanity check or double check that. So I just thought I'd
pass that along to you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I mean that is a potential risk in any reasonzoning. Um I think in general if we're going to a
resident from IIA to residential um and there are non-conforming part of what the ZBA would look at is other houses in that area as well. and if they're in alignment with the other
non-conforming air residential areas, it doesn't typically pose a concern. >> Um, and based on what I've seen, most of those are pretty similar. Um,
I think going to the CBLT, um, it likely would be less non-conforming because I think if my actually no, it may be well the setbacks and things for IIA
are typically larger than the CBLT if I remember correctly. Um, so those would not be more non-conforming, they'd be less non-conforming. >> So, yeah, that's something we can continue to keep in mind, but
>> good question. >> Yep. >> Yeah, it's a good question. >> Okay, any other questions, comments? Okay. Um since this is not a public hearing uh it's a general discussion
um we will continue this in the uh next meeting as a public hearing and then get ready for town meeting. All right. Next I am on the agenda is the community
development director's report. Okay, good evening. Uh, Chris had asked me to include the um the town's ADU annual report to the state. This was presented at the uh select board's meeting uh
Monday evening. So, as you may recall, the ADU state regulations uh require annual um not compliance, but annual monitoring and reporting uh from towns into the state. And this attachment is
the town's uh last calendar year uh report. Uh and I'll just go over the highlights uh very high level. So for a calendar year 2025 uh seven detached applications were
submitted of which four have been approved and none have received occupancy yet for um attached or within 11 have been submitted nine have received building
permits and one has received a co so that's a total of 18 essentially over maybe an eight or nine month period. Uh so you know I I I think um I think it's
safe to say that uh we we continue to receive uh increased number of inquiries uh applications uh are in increasingly uh being submitted. Um, so I think it's safe to say, you know, um, around 20 to
25 a year is, I think, is is pretty reasonable. >> Um, and I say that within the context of I gave you a handout. Uh, the state is very committed uh to advancing and
promoting um, ADUs. So, one of their first steps is uh what I handed out to you, the announcement of a uh uh construction loan program for income eligible people. Uh second one that you may have heard about uh announced uh or
discussed Monday night uh was the state is in the process of doing a a design um kind of contest. The intent there uh or the expectation is that at some point the state will um pre-approve ADU designs for building
permit purposes. And if someone walks in with one of those pre-approved designs, uh then it's then it's good to go from a building permit uh perspective. As you can imagine, um hiring professionals to do the to do the surveying and the
building plans is expensive. So the state is trying to reduce the the entry uh the entry costs associated with um building ADUs. Um while there is no uh indications
uh yet I think it's safe to assume that the state uh will also be monitoring the uh you know the actual uh zoning and whether that is a uh um whether they consider that to be uh a hindrance uh to
the uh development of ADUs. Wish the state would put a little more motivation into helping towns with their infrastructure to handle this sort of stuff, but >> yeah, >> you know, that's just being reasonable. >> Understood. >> Do we do we know how many of these were
owner occupied applications versus not? >> Um, >> I don't think we we don't require that. you cannot require that per the state um the state uh the state law and the regulations. Um so we don't have any uh ability to
you know factually determine if what the you know what the applicant's intent is. Um >> can you request applications through FOYA? >> We just know the address we can look at. >> Oh yeah, we we have all the information I think about to Anita's question. I
don't think we we don't ask >> right >> whether the um the principal dwelling is owner occupied or what the intent of the ADU is. >> You're not allowed to do that. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Looks like none of these have gotten rejected either, right?
>> No. In fact, um uh so all of these have been um with the exception of a of a driveway uh non-compliant uh issue, they've all been um 100% compliant for setbacks and so
forth. Um so it appears as though people are designing to comply. >> Good. And >> is this um something that was they turned in already? Yes, this has been submitted. >> So, did they just not finish it?
>> Um, I don't know exactly. >> It says like required on the edu bylaw ordinance question. They didn't do anything with it. And then >> yeah, I'll check. >> I'll have to check on that.
Uh only other item I have is um the first meeting of the manage growth strategy committee has been scheduled with uh with Northern Middle Sex Council of Governments for January 22nd. Um essentially just to bring everybody
up to speed uh what we've done since uh the the state denial is we've uh we've pivoted to NIMCOG. We app several months ago, we applied for a a grant to basically assist with scoping and budgeting. Uh so Monday uh next
Thursday's meeting will be the first of three meetings as part of that. Um I think it's a $10,000 uh grant through NIMCOG to focus on uh scoping and budgeting. >> What time does that mean?
>> Uh I haven't determined that, but likely seven. True. >> And that's the subcommittee with the >> Yeah. >> The task force with the >> Yes, the task force. Correct. >> With our two meetings open to others. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's going to be a posted
meeting. >> Public meeting. >> Going to be a posted meeting. We'll have to take minutes. >> Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. All right. Uh, let's go back to the agenda. Leazison updates.
Anyone? >> It's the holidays. >> Yeah, not much here. The one meeting I had, uh, they had three people with the flu, so they didn't have any quorums. So much for the historic commission.
I guess I guess one update for us is they're looking for the north final square north Trumpsburg. They're looking at doing some sort of spring event, but they were tossing around different ideas, but then they're talking about shutting down the road and there was a little bit back and forth if that's even possible over there. So, because they
want to try to do something with a trolley or something to bring you to the mills and also bring you potentially down to like a movie area at the park and do something on the center. So, it's kind of interesting what they there's a lot of energy for it, but I'm not sure where it will go yet. So, TBD
road under the common. >> Well, I'd rather shut down like on Memorial Day because once every other year the parade's down there. So, >> it's there this year, too. Yeah. >> So, they do have to shut down do at the same time, but they said no. >> That would if you're shutting it down for the parade, it would make it so much easier to shut it down for the rest of
the day. But, >> all right. Any other updates? >> Uh, Senate Village meets tomorrow. I know we're going to be talking with Nimcog about some of the um plans and drawings that we just got um roadways and sidewalk expansions and they were going to have
>> this for 110. >> Uh yeah, Chumsford Street. I'm still trying to go through them like this makes no sense to me because I couldn't get it to blow up enough that I could read the words without it becoming blurry again. So that is my goal uh before tomorrow night to figure why this
is not working. Um, I've had lots of technology issues over the last week. My computers have not liked me. Um, so I'm going to do that and I know they're planning a another public hearing at the library to discuss the potential plans and stuff in February. We don't have a
date yet for it, but hopefully they'll start having some dates between next week and the beginning of February. >> Okay. >> And the next U NIMCOG meeting NIMCOG council meeting will be next Wednesday, the night before man's growth. >> Okay. >> So, I'll be attending that. Joel
>> board of health met and uh I did not ask about the um the uh you know um there were some interesting um things. There was a I guess a number of um health inspections of of
restaurants and things like that where there were violations. Usually it's a training issue and so they're fixing that. So, Press Cafe was actually one of the ones that this happened to, but it was because they moved management to a new place, so they brought somebody back. So, fixing that issue. Um, one of
the main things they were discussing was a regulation on uh connecting to sewer and the timing of pumping and inspection uh so that as the systems get older that they're done more frequently and also that particularly in high aquifer areas
that there's it's more stringent for high aquifer areas. So I think that's good. So they're working on basically just changing their regulations. So they'll be voting on that in the next meeting. And some of the interesting information that came out of that was that Chsford has 101 septic systems. 29
are in high aquifer areas. Uh and they know where they all are. Um and some they'll never be connected because of the just the way that they're where they are with respect to a sewer line. But in general, what they would look for is as those systems age that
they would have those people consider going on public sewer. But there's an issue because of our our sewer moratorum. And so they want to have a discussion with the select board and uh since Aaron is also the liaison from the select board at the board of health,
he's aware of that. And so uh that's I think it's good information for us to know >> and certainly something I fully support as encouraging. >> There's no moratorium anymore. >> There is. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't know. I I can't answer that. And the other interesting thing
was uh that flu cases jumped from six uh in December to or November. I forget which months, but they jumped from six to 103. So we're >> Y. So you're one of your number >> you're number 103 apparently. So
>> I know flu shot seems to be working for me. >> Did you not go get your flu shot? >> Don't be jinxing yourself. >> Yeah. So uh the next uh meeting is on February 3rd. >> Okay. Um conservation met yesterday. They had
no regulatory hearings. Um they are still potentially looking at bringing forward a zone uh not a zoning article but a uh bylaw change. Um they're still discussing it uh in their subcommittee.
Um so probably next meeting they would talk about that um and what that would be >> pertaining to what >> I'm trying to remember what it was. Um buffer to vernal pools. Yeah, I think so.
Something about that. >> Um, so formalizing the the the um buffer >> maybe buffer to flood plane too. >> I think it was flood plane. I think that's the one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because we do have vernal pools
already. So, it's the flood plane buffer that they're potentially looking at. Um, that's really all they had from that meeting. All right. Um, any new business?
We've already covered managed growth strategy. So, meeting minutes. >> Actually, before we do meeting minutes, >> um, would we put the Chumsford in discussion on the agenda at some point? Did we think we're going to do that after town meeting? >> I know we talked about it last time.
>> What on the agenda? the chumpsford in issue like are they complying with zoning? What's happening with that? >> Oh, I thought we decided it was not worth pursuing since they're closing in >> March or something. >> Yeah, but I thought it would be useful to have a discussion to ensure that what
happens after that isn't a continuation of the same kind of use and someone else isn't coming in to do the same thing. So, >> yeah, I think we did talk about adding that to the agenda. >> Thought we did. >> Yeah. Um, so we can add it to next week's Do we have any regulatory
hearings coming next next meeting? >> No, you'll have uh one new one on February 11th. >> All right. So, yeah, let's >> just as a discussion. >> Yeah, let's add it to the agenda. >> We can add it. It's going to be a very short discussion. Um, >> that's fine. Let's just add it to the
agenda so it's public. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um, and you just reminded me that there was also supposed to be a meeting, I thought mid to late January,
um, about the gap analysis. >> Yeah. >> Followup. >> Yeah. >> Is that >> It's not mid January yet. >> Just wait. >> I don't I I don't expect it to happen in January. Yeah, I expected me.
>> I will I will ask the question at the next >> until January of 2027. >> Yeah, I gave them a break. >> I'm like, doesn't ask that question every >> I don't think we heard a year on that. >> I do let them know every time. It's an it's an of interest to this board.
>> Yeah. >> And Concom, too, because they do ask about it as well. >> I'll do that. Okay. >> All right. uh meeting minutes, the November 6th meeting minutes. Um I believe >> Oh, no. You have uh >> 12th
>> 12th November 12th and December >> 10th. Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> It's a typo on the uh No, it's not me. >> I was looking at the old version of the the agenda. >> Okay. >> Well, I'll give you the motion.
>> Yes, please. Motion to approve minutes 112. >> That's right. The meeting minutes on the notes on the agenda is wrong, but >> wait. >> Yeah. >> Um just said, >> yeah. >> Okay, hold on. >> Does anyone have any things they have an
issue with the first one? >> Which one is that? When are we looking? >> Double checking to see if everyone is here. November 12th. Everyone is here. >> November 12th. I don't think I had anything. >> November 12th. >> Yep. Move to approve the meetings minutes of November 12th. >> Move.
>> Second >> by Deerro. Second by Mike. And roll call. Mike >> I. >> Joel. >> Hi. >> John. >> I. >> Deerro. >> I. >> Marcy. >> I. >> Sertha. >> I. >> Anita. >> I. >> And I am an I as well.
>> All right. >> So unanimously approved. Um the December 10th one um did have a correction on it. Uh the correction was that that I sent to Becky was that Sarita was on Zoom on
that one. >> Um on 251 they have Joel listed as voting twice. >> I didn't catch that. >> I missed that too. >> Yeah. This motion passes 611. Roll call. Luna, Soua, Souza, Tanini, Contos, and
Fernandez. And then you. So, John voted twice, but the numbers don't match. >> Voted twice. >> All right. >> I had to read that three times to make sure that I was reading it correctly. I'm like, no, he's there twice. You don't even 51. >> Well, it's right after that one. So,
it's motion by Luna to deny the site plan review for section 195 104. >> But I don't look at the names. I have to start doing them. >> Yeah. Apparently, >> I only do this every so often. Either my first name or last name gets spelled wrong. They like to put a P in my last name mostly. >> My name is
>> If you go under like I just could find it by two 2-51. So, you have that roll call, but then it's the motion that's right below it that says by Luna to deny the site plan review. Yep. Um section 195-104 for 1911 195 Riverneck Road. So, if you go down to where it says motion
passes 611, then it goes roll call. Luna, Susa, Susa, Tanini, Compto, Fernandez, and Labbali all voted >> uh in favor of denial. So, >> they have John voting twice. >> Vote vote early, vote often. >> Yes. >> We don't want his vote getting thrown
out because he was, you know, this is voting twice now. So, >> so page two, >> yes, >> paragraph two under motion. Um it has motion passes 6 to one to one
>> and that is where the soua is listed twice. Okay. >> Um >> so what's the correction? >> So we got to pull them out. >> One of those susas. >> Oh the numbers work. >> The numbers work. We just can't because the way it's written it's 711. >> But John also can't vote twice. So you
got to pull him out of there. >> Yeah. >> All right. So Evan, do you have that correction for Becky? Thanks. >> All right. So, I'll take a motion with that correction. >> I was disappointed. >> Move to to approve the minutes of December 10th as corrected. >> I was disappointed the lemon tree was
>> I know. I was too. I was looking for the lemon tree to see the lemon tree. So maybe I shouldn't. >> It didn't register with AI. >> No, it did not. >> You can approve the minutes. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I was kind of disappointed not to see the lemon tree when you go visit.
>> Motion maybe. >> Motion by Mike, second by Deerra. Roll call. Mike >> Joel. >> Hi. >> John. >> Hi. >> Dearra. >> Marcy. Sertha. >> Hi. >> Anita. >> I. >> And I am an I. Man.
>> All right. I will take a motion. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Motion by Deedra. Second by Mike. >> We don't need a second roll call. He'll second anything. I >> I turned off Zoom on Anita. >> Unanimous. >> We don't need a second.
>> I guess vote on that one.