All right, let's get started. Um, good evening. It is 7 o'clock on Wednesday, February 11th, and I'm calling the meeting of the Chsford Planning Board to order. My name is Chris Lavali, and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight, we will be following the posted agenda. This
meeting tonight is both in person and on Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point in the meeting, we will continue in person. The meeting is being televised live and recorded uh by Chur teledia and will be available on their website and on YouTube
tonight. Uh Anita is out and Stha I believe is on Zoom. Uh the rest of the board is here in person. Uh first item on the agenda is public input. Um is there anyone on Zoom?
for public input. >> This is highly unusual. >> Check that the same thing. >> All right. >> Nobody. >> Nobody's that interested in our zoning pilot. >> All right. Next item up on the agenda is public hearing continued for the zoning
amendments. Um so we did vote on all of these specific zoning articles uh last meeting. Um they're at town council to review. Um there are a couple uh things
to note. The um two the article for lighting um was split into two different articles. one is a general um bylaw article for the lighting bylaw itself to add in and then
the other article removal of the zoning art the bylaw >> um and the removal will be after the uh the general bylaw if it passes. If it doesn't pass then we're just going to withdraw that bylaw. >> So they're not going to be combined on
consent >> I don't think so. >> Right. Just kind of undo it if you did that. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm not sure if that would actually work, but >> anyway, >> well, they wanted to put the the three
>> warehouse things together and consent a denta. >> Yeah. >> But >> um also for uh the overlay piece, um Evan and I are going to be meeting with town council. he did have um some
uh questions and suggestions. Um so we may be back here discussing a little bit of fine-tuning for it >> um specifically related to some of the concerns uh that were raised last meeting um about
making too specific uh of items that are not within our purview. Um, so maybe re refining it a little bit. >> So Evan and I will meet with him at some point soon. Uh, get his recommendations and then if changes are needed, we'll
bring it back. >> When does the warrant need to be signed? >> Um, sign on Monday. >> Yeah, they're signing on Monday. >> They past tense or they will. I'm sorry. >> This upcoming Monday. >> Okay. But they're going to be likely small
tweaks and changes, so it'll still be within the scope of of uh the warrant. >> I mean, could we make a motion to authorize you to agree to the changes on our behalf if they seem reasonable and not >> We don't need to. We have plenty of time
to bring it back because I don't know if we're going to be able to meet with him before they sign the warrant anyway. and and edits can be made all the way up till town meeting, >> okay, >> for those types of changes. >> Um, so with that being said, we should
be able to uh vote to close this public hearing uh this week and then if we need to discuss any minor changes, we can put it back on the agenda um as a as a uh
administrative item. So, >> sounds like you're looking for a motion. >> Yes. >> I would move to close the public hearing on zoning amendments for the annual town meeting. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Deerra. And we are going to
have to do a roll call. Uh Sera >> I. >> Uh Marcy >> I. >> Deerra. >> I. >> John. >> I. >> Joel. >> I I >> And I'm an I as well. >> Nice.
So that is closed. >> Now is that both the one and two items here? >> No, that's just a separate one. >> Yep. >> So for this one um we had the first public first part of the public hearing
uh last meeting. Um so I'm not really going to review too much. Um we will open it up for public input officially again and then we can close
the um well we can vote to recommend this one and then we can close the public hearing. Um so for this one actually I was looking at the um map again looking at
some of the uh properties and I noticed that there's a property um in RC kind of at the Evan can you bring up the map? Can you highlight that property that I
had asked you about? Um, >> so >> which one is it? >> It's in the RC triangle towards the bottom. The top >> point of the triangle >> up here. >> Uh, not seeing your cursor.
>> Is that where it says remain RM? >> No, not up there. >> Down. Oh, there it is. Uh, there's your cursor down below. Uh, towards the middle of the map uh to the left. No. Down.
>> I don't even I don't even see his cursor. >> Yep. Uh no. The big uh property right next to that where your finger was. >> Oh, this the one in the yellow. >> The yellow RC >> where it says remains RC. >> Nope.
>> Joel, I think if you go down, it's like underneath the CV light. >> Show us. >> More timely. >> That guy. >> Okay. Okay. I think that's the one. Um, what I noticed is that on the property card, it
is listed as IIA. Um, but it is an RC property on the map. Um, so I >> wanted to make sure we weren't >> on the property card. >> On the assessor's property card, when you click on the property, >> oh,
>> it actually says IA, >> but on the map, >> are there any more like that? >> I have no idea. There's Yeah, there's lots like that >> are there. >> Yeah, the the um the zoning map is accurate for purposes of of zoning. Uh
unfortunately, the assessor's um zoning category um is incorrect. There's there's plenty of cases. >> Um the when it's brought to the assessor's attention, uh they'll fix it.
Um, and at some point we we may be able to engage with uh the town's GS manager andor Nimcog to try to do some sort of automated um identification. >> Okay. >> When they assess them,
>> they're not they're not looking at the zoning for assessment purposes. They're looking at the actual use. >> Okay. >> So, I just wanted to let you know that that was something I'm >> Okay. So if we're we're not changing it. >> So we
>> it is currently RC. It remains >> currently RC and remains. >> Okay. The reason I bring it up is because it might bring us notice notification issues. >> That's well that's one of the reasons why I wanted to mention it to everyone in case someone does bring it up that it's if someone thinks it's IIA, it's
actually not. It's RC. >> Okay. >> Um >> Okay. >> So >> um >> did you check all of them against >> I did not and I won't. So, it sounds like the potential is any of them could be coded wrong on the assessor's site, but you go by the map.
>> Honestly, you know, a bright high school student could probably do it. >> Yeah. So, I just wanted to make people aware that if people do raise a question about it, it's we're going by the map, the map is correct, and those are the properties that we're changing. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> Very interesting. >> Yeah. All right. Um, so at this point I'll open it up for public input if there I'm assuming no one online. >> No one. >> All right. >> Oh, well motion to vote.
>> Well, do we vote first or do we close the public hearing first? >> Can we close the public hearing? >> Yeah, we could close the public hearing. >> I would move to close the public hearing. >> Second >> on the uh >> motion by Mike, second by Deardra and I.
Sertha >> I >> Marcy >> I >> Deedra >> John >> I >> Joel >> I >> Mike >> I >> and I'm an I >> okay I would I would move that we uh
recommend these changes at town meeting >> motion by Mike >> both one and two >> well one we already covered >> we already did we already did all the ones yeah we did those separately confusing. >> This is just for the uh >> I'll second
>> CBLT. All right. Marcy, >> Serita, >> I >> Marcy, >> hi. >> Dearra, >> hi. >> John, >> hi. >> Joel, >> hi. >> Mike, >> I am an I. >> Technically, aren't you a me? >> Sorry.
>> All right. Next item on the agenda is citizens petition for the family definition. Um I'm assuming he's not on. >> No. >> Okay. I continue to email him every
after every meeting. Um try and find out when he might come. This is Brian. This is Brian. He is not responding. >> Um >> hope he's okay. I do plan on giving him until the last meeting possible uh which is in April. So I will keep this on the
agenda >> and then we'll vote at the last meeting that we have to close it. >> Um if we don't hear from them we don't hear from >> there have there been materials. >> So we won't open a public hearing on this. We'll just leave it lie and >> yeah we'll just continue.
>> Okay. >> Excuse me. Um actually we did open it last meeting. >> We did. We actually opened it >> I believe. So >> yeah because it was advertised. Okay. Yeah. So we have to continue it. >> All right. Then I move to continue the uh public hearing >> till next meeting. >> Till next meeting.
>> Second. >> Motion by Mike. Second by Deerra. Sertha >> I. >> Marcy >> I. >> Deerra. >> Hi. >> John. >> I. >> Joel. >> Hi. >> Mike. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I. >> Bing. >> All right. Next item on the agenda is
191 195 Verneck Road, Commonwealth Construction and Utilities, requesting uh definitive subdivision approval under the subdivision control law and rules and regs governing subdivision of land. The project calls for construction of a
new roadway and associated infrastructure to serve as frontage for three new industrial zone lots. The site is in the IA zoning district and uh the combined sites are about four 5.4 acres.
Uh special permit for section 18575 aqua her protection lot coverage is also requested and they appear. Casey, >> how are you? All right. >> All righty. So
quick to um so my name is Casey Ferrer. I'm with Howard Sun Hudson here on behalf of the client Commonwealth Construction. Um we are here before you uh to discuss a definitive subdivision plan that is an extension or the official filing of the
preliminary subdivision plan uh that we are here before you in June of 2025 for. Um, so just a quick, I guess, reiteration of the property. Uh, there's actually two property locations. It's 191 and 195 Riverneck Road. Uh, 195 Riverneck Road, as you know, exists with
a single family house, um, a driveway and associated single family house features on site. Um, 191 exists as an about 5 acre property that's currently wooded and undeveloped. Uh, the combined total between the two properties is
about 5.35 5.37 acres. Um, and the properties are located in the IIA zoning district. Um, the proposal is a three lot subdivision. It's the same subdivision that you saw in the preliminary subdivision. Um, the requirements in the
IIA district for a new lot is 40,000 square feet, 150 foot lot width, lot depth, and lot frontage. Um, the subdivision would create a proposed roadway. Um, and because the roadway would service what's chiefly used as
industrial or industrial industrial zone properties, um, it would be, uh, meet the requirements of a business street. Uh, a business street in the towns requires a 60oot rightway and 34 feet of pavement. Um, as well as 5T or a 5ft
sidewalk offset on one side of the roadway, not both, not both sides. Um um again, three lots would be created and serviced by the proposed roadway. Lot one is at the corner of the proposed roadway in Riverneck Road, what you
would see uh far planned south. Um that lot has a total lot area of 97,393 ft with 663 feet of frontage and 487 ft of lot width uh with 268 ft of lot depth. Again, that is the proposed lot
that's furthest planned south. Lot two is fronting only on the proposed roadway. So, it is that middle lot between lot one and lot three. Um, and that uh lot two would have a total of 50,522
ft, 175 ft of frontage, 194 ft of lot width, and 343 ft of lot depth. Um and then lot three, which is the rearmost lot, uh which is the lot furthest plan north at the end of the
culde-sac would have 56,425 ft of lot area, 174 ft of frontage, um 196 ft of lot width, and 195 ft of lot depth. Um the as mentioned, the proposed subdivision
would also fall under um a special permit for the aquifer protection district. um the Oxford Protection District for uh imperous coverage greater than 15% or 2500 square feet I believe it is. Um but in either case we
are exceeding uh both um and the um performance criteria to meet the impervious coverage special permit of the Oxford Protection District is to meet or exceed u mass stormwater standards or Chsford stormwater regulations. Um so in order to achieve
this uh the proposed roadway has been designed with four deep sump footed catch basins uh one CDS unit which is a pre-treatment unit that I believe you all may be familiar with as I've proposed them on several projects. Um and then additionally a infiltration
basin. Um I will note that in a typical um in a typical town of Chumpsford Road um most storm water would go from a catch basin to a sediment for bay to an infiltration basin and not use a
proprietary unit um with the new chered regulations that would no longer achieve the 90% TSS removal required. Uh so we do have to turn towards proprietary units to meet the requirements of the new chumps regulations.
Um the infiltration basin has been that was previously done in April of 2025 and that was witnessed by Sheila Joyce of the DPW. Um the infiltration pond additionally will be captured within an easement
within lot 3. Um that easement uh totals 12,74 square feet and would be conveyed to the town of Chsford upon construction and acceptance of the roadway. Um now for utilities on the proposed roadway there
will be um electric gas water by Eastwater and uh sewer. So number one for sewer there is three existing stubs on the proposed or the combined the combination of the proposed lots. Um the
the bigger lot 191 Riverneck exists with two existing sewer stubs and then 195 has its own sewer stub. So a total of three sewer stubs for the property um allowing an increase of 1,500 um total utilizing 500 gallons per day
uh per sewer stub. Um that does not mean that we have a maximum of 1500. It means that without purchasing more sewer through the DPW, uh we would have an allowable use for the full roadway of 1500 and then an option to buy more uh
if available. Um gas and electric would obviously be serviced and owned by national grid. Um, the plans show the gas and electric in locations as defined by exhibit A of the Chumpsford subdivision rules and regulations. And
that just determines where on the roadway profile uh utilities shall exist. And then uh east water shows a connection uh within Riverneck Road um running down towards the center of the
culde-sac exiting through lot 2 wrapping south down the outskirts of the western side of the properties so that we can create a full loop back to Riverneck Road as is typically um required by many water districts. Um and then lastly
going back to the construction of the sewer. So because the grade of the property as you go into the property goes downward um a gravity collection system will lead all storm water to the rear of the cold sack where a pumping system will exist to bring it back up to
the front and um connect into one of the existing sewer stubs. um as far as design of the of the roadway that I believe captures the proposal and I am open to uh any
questions. >> All right. Uh Mike, >> nothing here. This looks pretty pretty straightforward, pretty standard, assuming the storm water stuff is met. Joel, >> the thing that you just made reference
to pumping back up to the sewer connection. What was it? That's >> You just said >> Oh, I'm sorry. I meant sewer. So, we have sewer that goes as a gravityfed system to the rear of the culde-sac and then it pumps back up through a sewer pump to get back to the sewer stub at the top of the site.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Sorry about that. >> Yeah, that was a little alarming. Um so you didn't show uh the test pits on the plan. Uh is that possible to provide?
>> Absolutely. I thought they were on the grading and drainage plan, but if they are not, we can definitely turn them on. >> Is that on is that in your submittal? I'm looking at the >> next page here.
Uh I uh yeah on page five are those test pits about >> so the top right has all the test pits listed and then the ah >> location are on >> what page are you on?
>> Yeah what page is page five. Okay. of the plan set. >> Um, and I'd like to take some time to look at this. So, if you can come back to me, that'd be great. >> I don't have any at this time. >> Nor do I, >> Marcy? >> No. Do I right at the moment?
>> Sa I just had a quick question. I noticed there was a monitoring well currently on the property today. Is that being removed with this project? >> This project would not remove that. We'll leave everything existing as it is. And um the only disturbance that
we'll make is to construct the roadway. >> Is that shown on the on the current drawings that it's still there? >> It should be on the existing. >> Yeah, it should be on the existing plan. Uh if it's not showing up, then we can unfreeze it. >> It might be there. Maybe I missed it.
There's quite a few pages. But if you could point it out maybe in the plan. Yeah, I believe it's probably on a Is it there? >> Yeah, that's the existing that you saw. >> Um I I'll review the plans and see if I if it's on or if it's not because I do
not know at this time. >> Okay. Thanks. >> That's all I have at the moment. >> Okay. Um Casey it looks like on the plans that there
are two infiltration ponds. >> So one of them is um more of a staging pond. So there the existing property funnels kind of towards the middle and goes through the back. So, what we provided is an area before our pond so
that the existing storm water that goes that way has a place to stage and then swale around the proposed pond. >> We're not using it to meet any of the storm water standards. It's just there as a good practice. >> Okay. Thanks. Mhm.
>> Um and then on one of the plans I saw what I thought looked like two different limits of work. Got to find what plan it was. Um, >> the limits of work should be shown on the third sheet which is the demolition
and erosion control plan. >> Yeah. >> And what you might if you're referencing the straw that extends to the west. Yes. That is just for the construction of the storm water loop or not the storm water, the the water loop. >> Oh, the water loop. Got it. Okay. >> So, just because we'll be trenching in
that area, we just wanted to provide an erosion control. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then I also noticed on the plans what looks like a fence or guard rail along the side.
>> So, at the end of the culdeac. >> Yeah. >> Yep. So if you um look at the grading plan at the back side of that culdesac um there's a decent drop off that's at a 3 to1 slope. So we're just providing a guardrail at the end of it um for to
prevent cars from going off the edge of the drop off. >> Now when lot two is developed I'm assuming that that guardrail would be removed >> would depend on what the site plan says for that specific lot. I would anticipate that the guardrail would be
broken in place for the driveway entrance and then however the the site would be graded would determine if the guardrail remains or not. >> Okay. All right. >> And that would be for lot two and lot three because both of them have the guardrail on them. >> Oh yeah. Okay.
Um, and then the other question I had was the lighting that you proposed. Um, I saw the note that it would conform to
the lighting standards. Um, and if the lighting bylaw does change at town meeting, it would conform to the new bylaw. >> Um, so right now, if it was approved as part of this plan, we don't show a photometrics. What we're
showing is what the typical layout um would look like of separation between light posts that DPW likes to see. Um, which I believe was 175 ft between light posts with several street trees in between. So we're showing a distance between not a phototric plan that would
>> I'm talking about the uh on the the screen. >> Are you talking about the type of fixture? >> Yeah, the type of fixture. >> So the type of fixture is >> we've we've proposed on a subdivision prior our own fixture and we were not allowed to produce our own fixture
because this is what DPW uses. Okay. So that's why these details are scans because they are the order sheets that DPW provided to us. So, if DPW allows us to use a different fixture that would then meet the new bylaw, then yes, absolutely. Okay. But we're just going
to go by what DPW forces us to use for now. >> All right. Um, and then where would I see snow >> noted on here at all? So snow storage as part of a roadway is
just going to be curb edge. They're not going to be picking it up with, you know, a a skid steer or a load or anything and and offloading it. So it's just a typical roadway that they're going to plow it to the side of the road and then if DPW determines that there's too much road, they come through or the water department comes through with
their loader and they load it up and get it out. >> Okay. >> So we're not we're not indicating any specific locations for it, they'll just plow it to the road edge as they typically would any other roadway. >> Okay. Doesn't the guardrail kind of get in the way of that? Yeah. >> No, the guardrail is offset on the other side of the sidewalk. So, as they do the
sidewalks, they would be clearing uh the area between the guardrail and the um plowed snow anyway. >> The snow wouldn't be pushing off into the neighbor's property either. >> The neighbor's property to the east side is uh higher in elevation than ours, so
we wouldn't be pushing it and dropping it off over that side. No. All right. Um, I do have a couple more questions, but uh, they're kind of follow-ups on the letters, so we'll do the letters next. Sure.
>> All right. Using papers tonight if she had any any more questions. >> She's also >> No, I'm good. We're done. >> All right. Uh, first one is from the board of health. Dear planning board, I am writing regarding the proposed project by Commonwealth Construction and
Utilities, Inc. regarding a three lot def definitive subdivision. This project calls for construction of a new roadway and associated infrastructure to serve as frontage for three new industrial zone lots. This proposed project is located in the town water resources high aquifer protection zone 2 and the state
water resource protection zone 2 wellhead protection area. Therefore, this project would require approval from the board of health pursuant to town of chumps general provisions chapter 2011 board of health article 7 groundwater protection zone respectfully Donna Greenwa Greenwood
from uh fire. Dear members of the board regarding the definitive subdivision approval request at 191 and 195 Riverneck Road. This office offers the following comments. Site access truck turning plans submitted to this office are sufficient for access to the subdivision. Any alterations to the roadway configuration will require
resubmitt of truck turning plans. Street naming applicant to submit to the town's E911 committee for street naming purposes. Future construction. This office has no comment regarding future construction on the proposed three lots during the building permitting process. This office will be given ample
opportunity to weigh in on project requirements. We ask this letter be incorporated into the public record and be made part of your decision-making process. With the requirements outlined, this office has no objections objections to the request as made. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns. Respectfully, Josh Abbott,
Captain Fire Prevention from the building commissioner. Dear applicant, should the above subject definitive subdivision project be approved by the planning board, be advised that all yard requirement as per 195 attachment to table of dimensional requirements shall be met under the town of Chumpsford zoning bylaws. Do not
hesitate to contact me with questions, comments, and or concerns. Thank you. respectfully Jose Negron and then uh there's now we have that letter there are no concerns from the treasurer collector and there's no concerns from police and
chumpford police department and then there is a DPW letter that I didn't see so I have it up here just bring it up here we are uh the engineering department has performed a review of the site plan
review and special permit application submitted for applicant. The following contents of the submission were reviewed for appropriateness of method and accuracy as well as for compliance with town of Chumps storm water bylaw, town of Chumpsford storm water management regulations division 3 sewer capacity
and connection restriction and then it lists the various uh products that they used. Site plan review outstanding DPW engineering issues not addressed. Uh the first one is the one that we've read many times. They don't need to read again about separation of water and
sewer service. Uh if applicable, areas on site with slopes which exceed 3 to1 must have stabilization. Appropriate signage should be included in proximity to infiltration pond prohibiting snow storage. Confirm number of trees to be removed from the right of way. Replacement of new trees within the
ride ofway should be indicated on planet and the applicant will coordinate the tree replacement with the tree warden. Road opening permits are required for curb cuts for driveways. Once lots are being developed, adherence to town standards is required. Trash removal and the long-term and perpetual care of the
enclosed dumpster and dumpster pad, including the emptying, will be the responsible of the property owners. Locations of enclosed dumpster and dumpster pad to be determined upon development. Sewer comments. The existing properties at 191 and 195 Riverneck Road have a
combined 10-year historical sewer flow average of 120 gallons per day. The maximum allowable increase in sewer flow per sewer stub is 500 gallons per day and there are three stubs on property totaling totaling 1500 gallons per day. Sewer fees to be determined upon
development of lots based on submitted title 5 calculations. Emergency power required for commercial grinder pumps confirm backup power and its location. And then uh recommended storm water management conditions ownership as well as on 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 associate 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 complete annual compliance records to the engineering department at 9 alpha road. And then it lists goes through the storm water standards um pretty much saying that they are met
and recommend recommended general conditions of approval uh are generally this the number of uh conditions that they normally ask us to put on. I don't think there's anything unusual there and I believe that's the correspondence.
>> Okay. >> So, those outstanding DPAW items, I'm assuming you guys can easily do for next meeting. >> Yeah. So, a couple of them are like one of them snow storage within the infiltration pond. There's not going to be any snow storage near the
infiltration pond, so we won't have to put any signage there. I did want to clarify one of their comments has trees within the right of way to be removed. I want to clarify that that's within the existing Riverneck Road right ofway. Um it is not within the proposed right of way. So um we don't have to replace
trees that you know we're going to demolish within the private property during the construction. Uh just if any are within the Riverneck Road and I do not believe any exist in that section of the Riverneck Road rightway for the construction, but we'll confirm that and add that to the plan. >> Okay. Thanks. And then they also asked
about the emergency power for grinder pumps. >> Yep. So, we will connect that to the uh the National Grid that'll come through uh and we'll have a standby generator that will provide standby power to the to the pump and we'll locate that right next to the the pump station.
>> And I'm assuming that'll be on the plans as well. >> We will add that to the plans. Yeah. >> All right. Um that's all I had for questions. Um >> one more if that's okay. >> Um just another thing. Who determines low salt or no salt use on the roads
that are within the act for protection zone? >> Believe it's conservation commission. Believe it's conservation commission will issue if they have a resource area that they believe will be impacted by solid use. Um but we can confirm that
with the town departments and there yes there are no resource areas in this area but um I'm not sure ultimately who would issue it but I believe it would be conservation. Is it just just for being like a recharge area and stuff? Just curious on that.
>> And I had a question about the This is for Evan actually. So with the subdivision then uh I assume that's because the roadway is more than 15% of the total lot that that is why the storm water is that's
what triggers the aquifer protection. So then the lots that are that are created when anything is done on those then it's 15% of that lot >> that needs to be triggered. Okay. So that's >> I guess I have that understanding right. >> Um also the board of health re is going
to review this under the GPZ but you haven't been before the board of health yet I presume. >> Not yet. >> Okay. So for the purpose of our acquer aquifer protection uh permit we're basing that on essentially the 15% which means have to
meet storm water conditions right so even though there is a interest in terms of what the board of health is doing that is not something that we can necessarily use as a it would be nice to have the board of
health stuff before we decide on a protection on a permit fractal protection, but it's not something that is we require is or or even would be reasonable for us to require to do. So, so we're in a position where we can
issue that if we feel like storm water conditions are met, notwithstanding the fact that there's still the GPZ to be determined. Okay. I think that's the only other question I had was actually because because this is
this is an application concerning the same site and from the same applicant on with whom we are currently in litigation. Is there any question with regards to any actions that we take that might have any impact on that litigation? Is that something town
council needs to like should town council review what decisions we would make to have them say that's fine? there would be no no um relevancy between one issue and another issue. >> So town council doesn't feel like >> we can ask council but uh I'm almost
certain that there's no there's no relevancy between the two. >> Let's ask them. >> I think that would be a good idea to ask them. >> There hasn't been in the past for other projects, but it would be good to just double check. I'm not sure we've had this happen on other projects, have we?
>> Where you get the same you get the same applicant for the same property proposing something different where you're in litigation on the first one and you're entertaining or deciding on the second one. >> That seems very unusual and I I just would like to make sure that we aren't
>> messing up. Good point. >> That's all I have. Okay. Any other questions? All right. At this time, I'll open it up to the public for public comment if there's anyone
online? >> No. >> Okay. All right. So, at this point, we'll probably continue it to the next meeting. Um, so I will take a motion. I move that we continue uh this public hearing to the next meeting. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Marcy. I saw
>> February 25th. >> 25th. >> Um Sera >> I >> Marcy >> I >> Deardra >> I >> John >> I >> Joel >> I >> Mike >> I >> and I am an I. Thank you everyone. >> See you then. >> Have a good night guys. >> You too.
>> Thanks. All right. Next item on the agenda is community development director report. >> Okay. Good evening. Um I gave you hard copies of the this year's um annual citizen trainer planning collaborative
conference. forget the date on that. Um, Saturday, March 21st. So, encourage you to uh to register. Um, next item >> and the town will pay for that, right? >> Yes. Yeah. To submit the reimbursement
to to me. >> It's free. >> Uh, >> there is a free lunch. >> Reminders on February 17th is the next managed growth strategy meeting. February 26, the Senate village master plan uh along with Nimcog has a uh
public presentation input session on the uh Chelture Street uh transportation uh improvement concepts. >> Has notice gone out on the town website or via Facebook? >> Going to do that probably on Friday. I wanted to meet with the committee first.
>> All right. No, just asking. >> That's the 25th. 26th >> 26th >> 26th and the 17th >> manage growth strategy. >> Okay, >> that'll be their second their second meeting with Nimcog. Then final item um the following projects are uh proceeding
with to either temporary um certificate of occupancy or or full occupancy 133 Princeton Street. Uh the select board approved the um alcohol license uh
Monday evening. 255 Princeton Street, three meeting house, 270 Bill Reco, and 41 Central Square. >> No mention of the Lemon Tree. >> I haven't heard of a Lemon Tree. >> Well, it's interesting because I
actually attended that meeting. I can give you an update after if you want. As I said, those are all those projects are proceeding towards either a tempo or a full CO. >> The restaurant on there. >> Yeah. 41 Central Street. >> That's what I thought. That's what was
getting closer to an opening date. >> That's all I have. Okay. Um leazison updates. I can give you an update on the select board meeting um where this came up. Um in the application packet it said that
the use there was no determined use yet for that top floor. Um even though they did say it was >> a staff break room and that >> it was going to be a tasting area then a break room area. Um their their official
position now is that it is not going to be used >> at all. Um, >> no lemon trees. >> No lemon trees. Um, >> I know disappointed. >> Aaron did ask to make sure Aaron um
Cunningham did um mention he had some concerns about things not getting done and some of the issues that have uh they've had in the past. Um, so he did ask uh as a followup to all of the departments and and the
planning board to make sure that um we let him know when all of the punch list items are done. Um I keep driving by and I've noticed the the design changes that we've asked for are not yet done. Um so
it'd be good Evan to keep an eye on that. >> Yeah. In fact, um I've had conversations with the contractor who's appeared before you about uh provisions that would be necessary in order to issue a tempo.
>> Okay. >> And those design elements are part of that. >> Yeah. So, um I'm looking for um uh contractual obligations through him
uh that he's legally responsible for completing uh the planning board project. I think we've discussed a uh a final deadline of May 15th. He believes that um most of the building uh stuff
will be done before then. Uh there's landscaping that remains and the awning remains. The awning is currently being custom fabricated. So um
you know within the context of this project and the um kind of the guarantees that we'll require as part of a a tempco um I think that's that's fairly reasonable. >> Okay. All right. Um,
Concom had their meeting yesterday. Um, not much happening. They did, um, vote to not go forward with their 100 foot buffer uh, zone right now for flooding
uh, for flood 100-year flood plane. Uh, it was three against and four in favor. Um, I think they were a little bit concerned about how much time it would take to prepare their material. Um, it
wasn't in the draft article anyway. >> It was four against, three in favor. >> That's what I meant. Sorry. >> Um, and so they uh I think they may revisit it for the next town meeting. I'm not sure, but there were some
concerns. They I don't think they had enough data to be able to take it to town meeting yet. Um all right. Any other lay reports? >> Historical commission didn't make quum again.
>> Okay. >> Board of health uh really not not too much to report. They did finish and vote on their uh new regulations for on article 19 site wastewater system maintenance and inspection for that's
for basically getting septic systems inspected and and uh pumped out uh with increasing over overtime in a higher level within a aquifer area. Um and then otherwise their next meeting is March 3rd.
>> Okay. something quick for the vinyl square committee. Yeah. Um they're meeting and talking about the clock that they're still trying to get put up which should hopefully be done before their spring festival that they're planning for May 2nd I believe is the date. Um which was
going to be in the center and then they were going to block off roads. Well, now it's being moved to the park and also part of it is going to be at the library. That's what they're planning for. So not much more than that. There's a lot of other stuff going on for projects,
but um we don't have details yet from um engineering on what they're doing with the state. They're waiting for a lot of stuff to go through. >> Okay. Anything else from leazison? >> Senate village meets tomorrow. So, >> all right.
>> Housing advisory board didn't meet. Um, low impact development has an upcoming meeting and some materials for us to review before that, but I haven't gotten to them yet. >> I'm going to be interested to hear uh Benita's report on the ZBA and the Ledge
Road thing. >> Yeah, that must have been >> that was fascinating to say. >> So, what does it all mean? I I didn't watch that meeting. Well, they I mean uh Jose sec has put out a second enforcement order with regards to Ledge
Road. And I think the basic claim is that it's a non-residential use of a residential road. And the applicant was saying, "Hey, it's not fair to single us out. There's other people up there that are doing stuff." um you know not pointing out the fact that you know he could identify what
their level of traffic is to the zone to the ZBA to quantify that they actually are not but they aren't doing that. Uh but I don't know if ZBA's asked them either and uh it was a vote of 4 to one but in the discussion before the vote it almost sounded like it might have been a
32. So I think that that question in particular is weighing in on the ZBA members. So >> yeah, and I think they had an associate member who was one of the voters as well during that because they had people that were sick. >> Yeah.
>> Fascinating. Just got to be over for a while. >> Just add to that. So the board voted to uphold >> the commissioner's um >> uh letter of zoning violation. >> So at this point um
the applicant's expected to appeal back to the to the court. And in the meantime, can they keep driving on the road? >> Yeah. >> Yep. Yep. Um to play this forward, um if the if the town prevails in any form
or fashion, part of that could be um a special permit to the planning board uh to um expand a pre-existing non-conforming use, which is the town's position. uh that the judge may come up with other
determinations that don't necessarily require an application to the planning board >> or may give instructions for it to come back to the planning board with with parameters, >> right? What scope you could Yeah, you have jurisdiction over.
>> Wasn't Wasn't the original decision appealed? the first the first enforce uh zoning enforcement was appealed. Um that was as I understand it that was essentially um
uh postponed or stayed um because it what council explained at this ZBA meeting uh was that initial indications from the judge uh did not seem favorable.
Um, so council transitioned and worked with Jose to issue a second supplemental uh, zoning enforcement letter. Newport asked the judge to
decline that, but the judge allowed it to take place, which is what brought us to that that appeal. If they appeal the second one >> goes back to the same judge. >> But did the two appeals essentially get combined into one? >> Yeah. Essentially >> decision. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> I think the the the second the second letter supersedes the first letter. So I think the first proceeding is is essentially over and done with. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Interesting case. It >> is interesting.
>> All right. Uh next item, the attorney general's decision. Um I we attached the letter. Um essentially all of the zoning bylaws went through. Um the attorney general uh did opine on the
ADUs again uh just to make sure that we are doing our due diligence. Um but no changes are needed on that bylaw. Um they did flag the fact that not related to CBLT specifically u but they did
notice we had um home uh child care um in the use table um as a special permit >> use that's a do use >> and it's a do use um so we will need to update that table um next town meeting
>> um we'll essentially just strike the two child care um uses from the use table. So, um, other than that, everything else went through and, uh, no issues. >> How come we didn't catch that?
>> Well, the So, that puzzled me. So, I I asked council. It turns out that, um, in 2024, there were amendments to the zoning act that removed a local option to regulate homebased daycarees and family
daycarees. So, up until 2024, it was perfectly legal for towns to require special permits. >> Huh. >> The last time this was looked at was in 1998 with the um I'm sorry uh no
uh 200 2010 with the zoning boiler review committee. So, at that at that time, you know, we did we went through all all the itemized uh uses
And it was it was fine until until now. So, we'll fix it in the next town uh town meeting. >> That's why we're here. >> Yep. >> All right. Um any updates on the managed growth strategy? >> We have a meeting coming up.
>> Yep. Tuesday. >> Tuesday. And uh and I think we're going to start perhaps getting into some of the scenario thought. um for this. >> That's still a scoping. >> Yeah, we're still >> scoping exercise. >> Okay. What time is that?
>> I believe that's a 6 pm meeting. >> Where is it? >> Where is it? >> Um >> in here somewhere. I think >> 205. >> We met first time in 205. >> Yeah, it's right over there. Yeah,
that's where it is. >> So somewhere in this neighborhood. >> Yep. Right next the next room. >> It is 6 p.m. >> Is that where where it will be again? >> Evan, you plan on doing the same room or >> Yeah, because it's a big group. >> Yeah. >> All right.
Uh we have no meeting minutes. Um now the next meeting date is February 25th. However, I also wanted to talk about April meetings. Um because as I was looking at the calendar, voting day is on the 7th.
Then we have a meeting on the 8th. Um the next meeting after that is on the 22nd of April, which is also going to be the manager's prep meeting uh for town meeting.
Um if the scheduling holds like he usually does, usually does the Wednesday before, right? >> Oh, the pre-Town meeting. >> Yeah, the pre-Town meeting. Yeah, we we may need one. >> When does town meetings start? I thought it was Monday the 20th.
>> Uh, no, usually the it's that' be the 27th. >> The 27th. >> Yes. >> We may want to check with the town manager because I believe last time um that you're right that is the traditional it's one week, you know, preceding Wednesday. I believe last time
tele media brought an issue up that they might need more time to um you know more a longer lead time before a town meeting to make it happen. But maybe >> so so let's get let's let's talk to the manager and get confirmation for the next meeting.
>> But if we if we if he does have it on that day I would like to not have planning board that same night. Um, >> the 22nd we're talking about. Sorry. >> Now, if we do not have the 22nd, I'm wondering if we
want to add a meeting on the 15th. Um, >> I won't be able to do that day if that comes up. >> Okay. >> Just >> What about the >> We have an archery banquet. >> What do you want to have it before, Tom? >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Well, we don't have to. Um, I mean because the 29th it'll still be then two
weeks after that as I would be our next meeting, right? Because we're the second. >> I won't be available the 29th. >> Okay. >> Um, >> you may be able to meet just once in April. >> Maybe. >> Yeah, >> we would be doing our reorg on that night. Um,
>> that would be the 8th and the day after the election. >> Day after the election. >> Well, it doesn't look like we're going to get that reorg. Not unless something happened late this afternoon that I hadn't noticed on the town website. So, >> well, the deadline's tomorrow. So, >> tomorrow or tomorrow.
>> Well, I mean, probably won't have new members on the board, but we will need to revote for chair and vice chair. So, >> and clerk. So, um, so just keep that in mind that if the town meeting preptown
meeting is on the 22nd, we might >> potentially need a uh a second night that month. >> Hopefully not, but >> yeah, we'll see. >> All right, I will entertain a motion.
>> You've got it to >> to >> motion by Mike. All in favor? >> I I >> I >> All right. Thank you everyone. >> Yeah. >> Have a good night. >> No, this isn't a this isn't a record. The record is held by Anne Mcwigan and I
think