7 o'clock on Wednesday, January 28th, and I'm calling the meeting of the Chsford Planning Board to order. My name is Chris Lilly, and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight, we will be following the posted agenda. Uh this meeting tonight is both in person and Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point in the meeting, we
will continue in person. Uh we have all of our members here present in the room. Uh this meeting is being televised live and recorded via Chomsford Teledia and will be available on their website and YouTube for later viewing. So first up on the agenda is public
input that shall be limited to statements from the public relating to any issues within our jurisdiction that are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing tonight or in uh continued. Uh public comment on any public hearings shall only be heard
during those public hearings. So do any members of the public in the room or on Zoom wish to speak during public input? >> Nothing on Zoom. >> Okay. There being none, we will continue. Uh the agenda next up is 50
Orleans Street uh continued public hearing for the Chumsford Water District, the Riverneck Water Treatment Facility. Uh looking for site plan review and special permit for the aquifer protection lot coverage.
>> Excuse me. >> Somebody's trying to get in on Zoom. I just got a text. >> I don't see anyone waiting. You know who it is? Frank precoordinated with >> I did email him
about 5 about 6:15 >> the link. >> So do you check for the ask him if he checked for the link in his email. We'll give him another minute or so. He >> is. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yep. All right. Um if you could just
review um kind of at a high level where we're at, what changes since the last time we met? >> Absolutely. Um so again, this is for the uh the River Knock uh treatment plant PAS project at 50 Orleans Street. Of course, last week I uh provided a presentation uh giving a high level
overview of the project. Um where we left off last week, there were um I think a whole bunch of different questions from both planning board uh several departments in town and members of the public. So what we've done for uh preparation for this meeting is we reviewed the entire meeting um that was
posted online. Uh took down the questions that were posed by all the different uh entities involved and we drafted responses to each one of those questions. Um some of those questions led to us providing additional information which is also included um as attachments to this letter. So I hope um
all of you had a chance to review that. Um so for uh for the sake of this meeting I think it'd be prudent to just kind of run through those questions and our responses for those if that's okay. >> Yep. Perfect. >> And thank you very much for providing that >> Yeah. No that response in detail. >> I think it was the easiest way to address make sure everyone's questions
are addressed. >> Okay. So, um, if it's okay, I I'm not going to read verbatim everything. I'll just provide kind of like a summary. Thank you. Okay. >> All right. Um, so this first section is responses to, uh, questions from planning board and the public. Uh, so we
had a question about deicing of the new and existing access roads. Um, as Brandon stated at the at the meeting, the district will handle snow and ice removal during the project. Um, and uh, the district limits their use of salt due to the obviously the proximity to the existing wellfield.
Uh question two was one of the ones that uh we provided more information on as an attachment. Um there was a question from DPW about uh compliance with all these storm water standards for Massachusetts. Um so what we had done is we had provided a revised storm water report.
Um and as the response to this indicates, we had actually uh increased the in the width of the stone infiltration trenches from 2 feet to 4 feet, thereby meeting that second uh storm water standard of peak rate uh peak flow rate attenuation. So all the storm water standards are now fully met.
We're in fully compliance with uh both state and town storm water regulations now. Okay. Uh we had a question about um providing information uh for anyone working on the project about uh wood
turtle and box turtle. Um so as uh an attachment to this letter, we had uh provided the information that we're going to include in the uh approved turtle protection plan kind of as a supplement that will also be provided as a contract document uh for anyone bidding on the project. So, not only
will they uh have information on the Blandings turtle, which is of course the state listed species, they will also have information on the wood turtle and the box turtle as well. All right, we had a question about uh slope stabilization for those steep slopes. So our design uh calls for rip
wrap stabilization on slopes with two or one or steeper slope and then allaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa all other locations with a slope of 301 or less will be lomemed and seated. We had a question about uh when the turtle protection plan identifies the
start of construction. So construction for this project uh is expected to begin in August of 2026. And of course, the uh active season for Blandings turtles is between April 15th and November 1st. And the turtle protection plan specifies that the inspections for the turtles
occur during construction in the turtle's active season. Um and as board member Luna pointed out last week, they hibernate outside of the uh construction area during the winter months. So there's not an issue of impacting turtles hibernating in the area of construction during the winter time.
>> All right. Uh will this will we had a question about snow storage location in the plant operation and maintenance manual. Um yes that will be provided uh and that snow storage area was indicated at the end of the new access road kind of on the far side of the PAS building you know in relation to the existing
building. So that will be provided for uh plan operation and maintenance uh with questions about uh the height of the existing building and the and the new building. Um, so based off of uh the record drawings, we have the height of the existing building is approximately
33 feet above finish grade. And so that peak uh the peak of the existing treatment plant building roof is at about elevation 149. Uh there's if you've ever been out to the site, there's also an existing um aeration tower as part of the existing treatment plant process that has a height of about
uh 37 feet above finish grade, which translates to an elevation of approximately 153. Right. We had another question about the of course the height of the new PAS building and uh will it be visible from 233 Riverneck Road? Um as I said last
week, so in in compliance with Chsford max building height requirements, the peak of the new PAS building roof is 33 about 33.7 ft um above finish grade and that means that the peak of the new PAS building is about approximately elevation 148.5.
Um there was some other questions about clear cheuring and what I'll say on that is that um cleur tree clearing excuse me is going to be limited to the the minimum extent possible um as shown on those site plans. So you know tree clearing has to occur in the areas of
the access road and the new building but everywhere else uh any areas that are currently wooded that are not going to be where the obviously the new POS building is are going to remain wooded. So we try to limit the amount of woods that have to be cleared for this project.
Um there was a question about if the new building and access road can be located west of the proposed location. I think as we said uh last meeting um the building cannot be relocated because we're right up against that 100 foot wetland buffer. We do not want to impact
uh that resource area. Um so that is the reason that uh it cannot be moved. We did look at other places around the site as well and um the place that the location that we show it on the drawings is really the optimal location in terms of disturbance and proximity to the
existing process. Okay. Uh there was a question about uh how many trees will be cut down as part of this project. Um, so although you know not required uh technically by conservation commission because we're
outside of the jurisdictional areas. Actually my colleague Steve and I took a trip down to the site a couple weeks ago before all this snow. Uh we did a walkthrough of the approximate area of construction and we had identified about uh 35 trees with an average diameter of
breast at breast height about 4 and 1/2 ft up uh about 8 to 16 in that will be cut. So, 35 trees from about 8 to 16 in in diameter. Uh, most of those trees are red maple and eastern white pine. Um, and I think it was another question
about doing plantings. Um, the district's property is almost entirely wooded and so there's not really an opportunity to to do new plantings because the area that we're disturbing is where a road and and the new building will be. All right. So we had a question from
again the abuter at 233 riverneck uh that the town GIS depiction of the distance between the proposed PAS building and their property line is incorrectly identified as 185 ft. Um so we had received a a more detailed survey plan of that property. Um and the
proposed building PAS building is approximately 130 ft actually from the Abutters property line. But that's I'm sure you know is I think over three feet three times the required setback by uh town zoning. We had a question about additional site
lighting as part of as part of this project and if there's any lights can they be motion activated? Uh so no new overhead lighting poles or up lighting will be installed. Um we do have some small downward-f facing lights at the exterior doors of the PAS building for safety reasons for the safety of the district staff. And these small lights
can be motion activated. We had a question about uh noise generation from the existing building and any other addition uh additional noise generated. So I want to be clear that the the noise from the existing treatment plant building is from an existing process. It's actually that
that aeration tower, those blowers, that's the noise that you can hear. Um, we won't have any additional noise from the P5 building. There's no blowers. So, uh, there was a question about, um, if the project will impact the rights of a butters. Um, and I think Mr. Chair, you
you answer that as well. Um, this project should not and will not impact the rights of a Butters to develop on their properties. Um, another question about any new wells. We're not installing any new wells as part of this project. Um a question about if Chumsford Water
District was required to perform a a turtle migration uh study of turtle migration patterns, excuse me. Um Chsford Water District, as we've previously discussed, is required to prepare and implement an NHSP approved turtle protection plan, which again was provided in the application package.
Um we had a question about uh expected start and completion time frames for the project. So right now it's expected that the project will be awarded this coming June uh with construction anticipated to start in August as I said and then the completion date uh is is right now June
2028. So about a two-year construction time frame. All right. So that's the last of the uh planning board and members of the public comments. And now on to uh town DPW. A question from DPW on uh an enclosed
dumpster pad and dumpster depicted on the sets. Um I guess with the idea that the POS building will be generating new waste. Um so the answer to that is that we're going to use the existing treatment plant dumpster for any refu during you know treatment plant
operations. POS building is not going to generate any any ref use. It's not even really a permanently occupied space. Um there's no refuge generated from this and during construction the contractor brings their own dumpster and handles all of the refuge disposal during construction and then that dumpster is
taken off site. So no new dumpsters, no new refuge as part of uh the POS building. Uh had a comment about uh sewer separation between new sewer and uh water manes per mass D standards from
the DPW. uh clearances between water and sewer will be met either 10 ft horizontal or those 18 in uh vertical where practical. Uh there was a suggestion about signage for no snow snow storage in the detention basin. Uh that signage will be
posted. Uh there was a comment about a construction entrance with 3 to six inches of rip wrap. So on one of the drawings that I believe we had provided as part of the storm water report revised stormwater report uh we do show a riprack construction entrance
uh cut and filled it was a comment about cut and fill calculations um I believe those were provided with the original application. So, um, we pointed to those as part of our, uh, response. Um, and they made a comment about, uh, slope stabilization on slopes steeper than
3:1. And as I said, greater two and one or greater will be rip wrap. Three in one or less, uh, laned and seated. And then just a comment from the DPW that the project will not shall not interfere with easements. This project does not interfere with any easements.
Another comment about uh backup power for uh for backup power to the um new sewage pump station on site. It's a very small little uh submersible pump station in like a almost like a plastic uh pipe
almost and that's really only carrying um condensate water. So really just drips and from the from the piping. There's actually there's no bathrooms in this facility. So it's not even sewage. So per backup power to that, there's an existing generator on site. Backup power to that little submersible pump station
will be provided by the existing generator. So that's taken care of. Um another comment on uh O andM of all storm water systems and BMPPS um for you know future maintenance of those facilities. So all that information on
on any new storm water systems and BMPPS like the infiltration trenches again that will be included in the uh plant on&m manual that be that will be uh incorporated with the POS building. Uh another comment that the project uh the storm water management for the
project shall comply with D stormwater management policy. Um and as I said we've submitted that revised stormwater report. All those standards are met. Um so that report is available for uh reference. Okay. So, we had a couple questions as well from the town fire department.
Again, just a uh seems like a general comment to apply with all building codes, mass, you know, general law, NFPA, cher town bylaws. Um the project complies, you know, with all applicable codes and regulations is our response. uh another comment to provide uh what's
called a NOX box to the outside of the uh PAS building so the fire department can access the facility if if there was ever an emergency. So we have added a uh a Knox box to the uh closest door on the new access road so they'll have and it'll be keyed to Chster Fire Department
specification so they can have access to the building in the event of an emergency. All right. And then a last question um that we had received uh was about truck access using uh Chelmsford ladder one as kind of the the basis for site access.
So last year actually we had reviewed the proposed site access with the Chelmsford fire department. I had provided as part of this letter the drawing that was shared with them at the time and the the access road um as currently designed has more than sufficient space for that firetruck
access. >> Okay. So, that's the last of the questions and and the responses. >> All right. Do you have anything else to provide before I have the board to ask questions? >> Evan, do you have anything else? >> No, not at this time. >> All right. Um, I'll take it around the
board for questions. Mike, >> I'm fine. >> Joel? Yeah, I do have a question about the infiltration basin. um because the response didn't really address the issue that I didn't
articulate very well, but I'll try to articulate it a little bit better. Um, in on page four of the original storm water report that was part of the entire package, it says, and this is the source
of my question, it reads, "This infiltration basin retains and infiltrate storm water runoff and is of adequate size to intake increased runoff from the proposed imperous service surface. Because there are no records as
to the construction or presence of the basin's under drain, full compliance with the Massachusetts stormwater design handbook would necessitate a complete excavation and reconstruction of the basin. In weighing the benefits and environmental costs of reconstructing
the basin to comply with the Massachusetts storm water design handbook, it is instead proposed the existing infiltration basin will be used in situ. a two-foot riser will be added to the basin's outlook outlet pipe to decrease peak flow rates out of the basin during the hundred-year storm. So
the way that I read that is that you uh don't know whether in fact it actually has an under drain. Uh and that raises the question then of well what function was is the under drain
supposed to be performing and how is that being mitigated by the fact that you're not actually going to confirm whether it is there or not. I I do understand the issue of what it would take in order to confirm there's an under under drain. You'd essentially have to dig the whole thing out and then you'd have to replace it. So yeah,
>> I would assume so. So that's my question is what what function is the under drain supposed to be performing and how is what you're doing mitigating that because that was not addressed in your response. >> Yeah. I mean so I'd say that that sentence from the original storm water report was an error. Um to any to our
knowledge there is no under drain here. Um the >> the existing outlets that are shown there those are the only sources of conveyance out of out of the uh infiltration basin. And like I said, we're adding um to gain, you know, advantage of some additional storage capacity in that infiltration basin.
That riser is going to give you that elevation to allow for uh for greater storage than was uh was previously, you know, having was previously provided on site. And I'll say this, I mean, you know, Steve could probably address this too is I think we've been out site multiple times during, you know, spring,
summer, fall, different times of the year. We've never seen any issues with, you know, conveyance out of the infiltration. It's it's always as dry, you know, it's dry as a bone. >> Right. Right. Okay. So, basically the the thinking was well the under drain was providing you some sort of outlet in
order so that it doesn't fill up too high. >> Right. >> And so you're essentially compensating for what possibly might need to be mitigated with this twoft riser to account for >> Right. Exactly. And so that and and what the stormwater report shows is that you know with this riser and you know no
under drain is is what our assumption is um we're able to meet the the storm water regulations just with the existing basin. >> Yep. >> And doubling >> and doubling the >> and doubling the infiltration trenches as well. The width of those as well gives you more >> uh you know peak runoff attenuation. Right. So
>> Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. >> And then the other only other thing I wanted to say was thank you for adding the >> the box in the wood. uh that's very much appreciated and and just in general appreciate the Chumsford Water District support of uh over time of efforts that
have gone on to document that species. So that's very much appreciated. >> Absolutely. >> Chad, thank you for your efforts on walk, you know, reviewing the site, walking the site before the heavy snowfall. Um one question I I understand this the area
around there is is heavily wooded. um you know before the construction takes place in your site visit. Is there any opportunity you know is there areas where there's like small growth or scrub trees or anything that may be able to be repl you know in in certain areas with
with replaced with um are planted with um a few larger shade trees to try to um you know address the abut's concerns about it being closer than um you know what first appeared. >> Yeah, I I understand the concern. Um,
unfortunately, just from what from what we're seeing on the on the site, there's really not going to be a lot of opportunity to do that. I mean, just from the perimeter of what's remaining wooded to the building, you really don't have that much opportunity. And and we wouldn't want to introduce something, you know, now you have a a risk of a
tree falling on the building or undermining the new road or affecting the, you know, the process there. So, um, or or, you know, you and affecting the infiltration basins, you have now storm water BMPs that have to be maintained. Um, and having a tree next to that would be uh detrimental to the
the long-term uh lifespan of that of that BMP. So, I mean, if it were possible to do so, I you know, again, it wouldn't be the worst idea, but I just don't think there's there's room on site to do that. And I, you know, again, I'll point out that the whole, you know, to
the to the right and to the, you know, up from that building, again, that is all dense dense woods that is remaining untouched as part of this project. So I just want to stress that we are really trying to limit the amount of trees that are cut. >> Thank you. Anita,
>> is from an elevation perspective, is this lower than like does this go down because I know that area does have >> Yes, absolutely. So as you you know you come down Riverneck Road and you take a left on Oran Street. Yeah, you're down pro, you know, you'd have to look at the
contour up here. Let's see. >> So just moving up to here, we're probably up to 150 155 up by the road and our finished floor here is about 114. So this this drops significantly. It's kind of like a bowl if you can think about it by the
wall sides there. >> So I'm just trying to think again. This kind of goes back to my request of having >> Yeah, I was looking at the GIS and looking at the contours and I think Riverneck is about at 141ish
and the peak of the building you said is at 148 and a half. >> Yeah, I'm just looking. Sorry, I just want to make sure that I state the correct thing. >> I think that's what I saw. >> New new PAS building. Yeah, 148 and a
half approximately. So, it's only 8 ft above the road. >> Okay. >> And um the smart property is at about 139.5. So, about 140. So, it's 8 ft above
what the road and the smart properties at. So, but from the smart park property, they will see it like I'm like this is where I I kind of like I want to try to get >> I wish we would ask for this when the comparison from the street so we can have a visual of how things actually
like heightwise. >> Well, for this one it would be difficult also because you've got the wooded trees at different times and if they're pine trees it's going to be denser up top than the bottom. So if he's looking down,
it might be a little bit more visible because all you've got are trunks of pine trees. If it's if it's dense pine, >> I can give you some feedback that I >> Yeah, we'll get we'll get there in a minute. So any other questions?
>> I'm good. I'm good. >> I just have a quick one. Can you go to this drawing, this picture in their other packet, >> most recent submission? The last one, the >> one that you submitted. >> I didn't see a new one because I thought
we had asked for some additional pictures of the orientation because it was hard to see. So, can you uh go up? It was in their original packet in the blue >> here. >> Yeah, that one. It's like not that far down. Just looking at the GIS map because I
I'm still just want to understand where of the plans. >> It's like on page it's way down. >> It's on page 35. While they're looking for that in the new plans, did you guys adjust any of
the distances based on the the new distance from the property lines that >> Well, the so the actual design, you know, hasn't changed. I just I think we wanted just to clarify that distance from the the property line because it it, you know, admittedly is different on the GIS than what the uh the sort of,
you know, the the surveyor's plot shows. >> Yeah. because you guys didn't adjust your um submitted slides, right, to show any of the new info? >> No, not No, not the slides. No. >> Okay. So, can you step up again to the screen and just point out again that area where the trees are going to be
removed? >> So, again, obviously not scaled exactly, you know, but roughly around here you have, so this is Orleans Street. This is the existing treatment plant building. Here's the aation tower with the concrete pad over here. Um, your PAS
building comes off of it's about right here. We have the new access road coming down from the existing Orleans Street right about here. And your POS building, I think, was about >> 80 about 80 feet off the corner of this building here. >> And why can't where's the where's the
the road that goes to the existing building? >> Like where's the drive? Yep. But where's how do how do you get from there? >> Existing building. >> Yep. And >> all the way down. But where do you get that from? I or is it Orlean Street? Like how do you get there? Where's the driveway? I guess to that building.
>> If you zoom in a little bit, you can see there's like a green. If you go in a little bit closer to it, you see that area. You can see the edge of that green right next to that dark middle line. So, they do have some open green space around the building right now. Both in the top and the bottom.
>> I guess why we because you already have Okay, I see. I can see the street. Why can't you go from there to the PAS building as opposed to go like creating a new driveway to it and cutting down those trees? I guess my question. >> I'm sorry. I guess I'm not following where you're suggesting. >> So, you just said that there's going to
be a new road to go. >> There's the the new access road comes off of Orleans Street and goes along kind of this side of the existing treatment plant building and then the POS building that >> So, but I see cars parked on the other side of that building. Right. Mhm.
>> So there's a road coming from the street right there. Why can't we go from like just can why I guess why are you adding another entrance way and cutting more trees? >> I can answer that. >> Yeah, >> Steve D. Franchesco a com if we were to go around back would need a very wide
sweep. The fire department was concerned about getting in there. So in order for us to get a fire truck all the way around that building would start getting into the wet would would need to expand into the wetlands on that side. So, by staying on this side, we stay away from the wetlands and we provide the fire
department the access that they need. >> And why can't you go closer to the building in that already open area to the right? >> The infiltration basin is >> That's the basin. >> Yeah. So, it's it's hard it's obviously hard to see with the with the tree cover, but if you kind of go back up to
maybe the one of the grading plans that you've got basically, you know, treatment plant building here, the existing infiltration basin here, and we're basically just putting the PE bus building as close as we can on the other side of that without impacting the basin.
>> Yeah, kind of. Yeah, this one's not bad. It's You see this shadowed area around here? That's about where that infiltration basin is. So, we're trying to we're keeping that P the new PAS building on the other side of that infiltration basin. So, that's why we can't put it right up against the building because that basin is already
there. >> No, but where are you running the road? >> Right along. >> Right along this shadowed. >> Okay. >> And the access road really isn't impacting the tree removal. It's the building. >> The building. I mean, probably a couple
part of the road, but the building is the majority of it. >> Oh, yeah. There was very few trees taken down because of the access road. >> No, this this along here is mostly grass anyway. There's a couple trees here, but yeah, the access road is not a majority of the tree. It is really the building
>> into the other open areas that you have. There's no way to put some trees in there. >> There's there's a a whole slew of yard piping in this facility. So, we try to keep trees away from yard because you don't want roots intruding in the pipes causing leaks, especially with how cold
it is this time of year. >> We would not recommend that. >> And putting trees there isn't going to provide any screening from any a butter to the new building. >> No, I was just thinking about wildlife, but thanks. >> Any other questions, okay? Um,
I just had one quick question. The turtle protection plan, >> is that only for during construction or does is that in place for every year >> even after construction? >> Yeah, I mean it's it's in place year round. There's there's reporting that has to be done. Um I think the majority
of the actual relocation of any turtles, you know, encountered during construction is going to be of course during the the turtles active season. So I mean the the amount of you know actually moving of turtles is probably going to ramp down in in the winter months. Um the you know our our biologist is required to make
inspections weekly whenever there's construction. >> No, I was just wondering after construction's done when the the facility is up and running, is the turtle protection plan still in effect or is it just for construction? >> Just for construction. >> Okay. >> I was just curious.
>> Yep. Absolutely. I have one one addition thing like uh I'd like to I forgot to mention this when I was asking before >> if you could add or I'd like to request that you add to the instructions to the uh the people who are basically not the
biologist but the instructions that are for the construction workers what have you is if you could add in there not to if you do pick up a turtle not to turn it on its back. So it's often people's natural reaction is to pick it up and then if they want to take a picture of
the underside they turn it upside down or sometimes you you know you because they scratch and so you you're tempted to like leave it on the ground upside down. >> It that tends to esphyxiate the turtle. So >> Okay. All right. >> So if you could just add that not to turn the turtle on its back.
>> Yeah. Absolutely. Any you know anyone that's going to come on site to actually do the work will be trained by our biologist and and he's well verssed in how to handle this. So that will be absolutely taken care of. >> Okay. Yeah. Learn something new every day. I did not know that.
>> Well, how would you like it, you know? >> Right. Um, so at this point, I think we'll take uh public comments. >> Can I speak? >> Yes. >> All right. Frank Smart, 223 Ribbonneck
Road. Could one of the gentlemen show me where the slope of the land will be modified? I understand the slope is probably going to start from Orle Street and proceed down the length of the new
road. Could I see on the map how far the slope will be modified? >> I think it would be best to look at the existing conditions plan. I believe that's in there. And then the um grading
plan for the new work. I think that's it. >> So as part of this project for slope stabilization, we're putting in um you know rip wrap swale, which again is part of your swim water. be great to see. So the extent of this new work is probably
about 20 feet up. I mean it'll be if we could, you know. >> So that'll be that'll be a 2:1 area slope. >> This is a one and a half to one. >> One and a half to one. Very steep. >> Yep. And that's why we have the rip wrap stabilization. >> Okay.
further down where the PAS building will be located going up the slope. What is that? Is that a 3:1? Is that a 2:1? >> Believe it's a threeon one which is loed and seated. >> I'm sorry I can't hear you. >> You go back to the mic.
>> The existing the existing or the new >> Are you referring to the ex the existing or the or the new work? >> Well, both. So the new work I mean for the new work those slopes are are are much much less than what you see up by the new access road. So those ones because they're so
shallow are going to be lommed and seated. Okay. Where the new PAS building is going up the slope from where it is. Is it 3 one 2 one?
>> Higher than 3 one >> 3 one or less? >> 31. Okay. Yeah. I just want to be sure that at a grade of 3 to one in that area that which you're going to lom and seed. >> Yeah. 3 3:1 or or or less steep is lomemed and seated. And there's
provisions in the docu in the contract documents for um slope stabilization while that grass is is established. So there'll never be a time in the growing season where you just have bare soil. >> Okay. in that area of where it's 3:1
all the way up to level plateau. Could there be trees planted in that area? >> I would say no because we have storm water BMPs all along that area with um in you know stone infiltration trenches as I mentioned and you do not want uh
roots of mature trees impacting those uh those stormwater BMPs. They reduce the efficiency of them and they won't work as intended. really even if it's fairly close to the top of the plateau of the land. >> So that's that
>> he's talking about >> is he talking about right here talking about up here? >> Oh well there trees >> there that that whole area is wooded already. So okay because it's it's very difficult to
understand where the PAS building is what trees will come down. I understand where the footprint of the building they'll be removed, but usually you go around the building
and trim trees, cut down trees to prevent anything from falling onto the building. Some of the trees in that area are fairly tall and I'm just curious which ones of those you might be cutting.
>> Yeah. So if I don't know if we can go back to uh the grading plan >> Oh, there you go. >> That's right. >> So even if you zoom So if you can zoom out even I can show you. >> So you can you can see the canopies the canopy outline.
>> Yeah. So this this kind of clouded >> scallop line >> scallop line is is the extent of the tree clearing because we do have to you know establish these storm water BMP. So it is you know beyond the building but you have that storm water BMP you have to put in. So if I'm looking
>> you will not selectively trim any of the trees in that canopy area >> in the in we will not cut any trees outside of of this clearing area shown on the plans and that that area ups slope of the PAS building. None of that
is going to be cleared. >> Okay. So from the building it looks like the the road in front of the building is about 20 feet >> and then roughly another 20 ft with the BMPs. >> I'd say about at the maximum. Yeah,
that's about right. >> Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Smart? >> No, that's about it, Chris. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the public? Yeah, if I could just emphasize what was just
facilitate I think transparency here. >> Uh Jeff Smart um if you could bring up the picture just so I can uh emphasize what uh Mrs. Smart was saying. Any of them will do >> working a little confused
>> document. Mhm. >> So, while he's bringing that up, the the concern is we can like from the property, you can currently see the existing facility, the new one being built is closer to the house and the
access road coming in is taking down the camouflage, if you will, from seeing the existing facility. So the property after the new uh facility is built, you will see more of the existing facility and the new facility. I hope that I'm
just trying to bring you know some uh clarity to what was just being discussed. So I don't think we need a response as much as was just articulated. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments from the public?
Any other questions, comments from the board? Are there any before we vote on this, are there any uh special conditions that people would like to see on this project? >> Chris, one one other quick question.
>> Yes. >> What is the time frame daywise? 7 to 4, 7 to 5, 8 to 5? Are there any time limits on construction? >> Construction is typically we put in there 7 to 3. That's the that's the
typical union working hours. >> That's fine. >> And one other piece of information is I I noticed that um there were some additional letters back from fire department and DPW that had some
questions before and they they okayed everything. Just >> yeah, we did get clean uh letters of approval from DPW and fire. Thank you for reminding me about that. >> I think you have someone else who wants to speak. >> Yes.
>> Danggeles 217 Rivven X. So my property above the waterworks on the other side. So Smarts are on one side, we're on the other. >> So you've seen our pool and some of that things. My question is, is there an opportunity to mark out the 35 trees that you're saying you're going to cut
down so we can visually see what you're going to be cutting down? Is there any way to mark them? >> My guess at this point, >> you might I mean, we could you might not be able to see them. >> I mean, I can see I've lived there 47 years. Actually, I've been there all my
life, but across the street, but as we come down is you're coming around the corner, you're coming down the hill. It's down there on the left. >> Correct. So all in the bottom. >> Yes. Down slope. >> Okay. Not up. >> That correct. >> Okay. Thank you. If there's a way at
some point, whatever. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Any special conditions that people would like to see in this before we close everything out? one of them that I think the motion
activated lights on the buildings would be a good one. Um, I would like to also see if we can I'm surprised you didn't ask for this one, Joel. The annual turtle reports >> copies to the planning board and
>> he asked for that last times assuming con last time two weeks ago. >> Yeah, we want to see those turtle reports. Um the other thing I would like to see in the O andM is um the maintenance of the snow storage signs uh just to make sure
that those stay up and stay maintained. Um and then the DPW had erosion and sediment control plan and storm water pollution prevention plan submitted prior to preconstruction meeting.
So I think those are the only ones that I can think of. If people don't have others those good for the uh applicant >> easy >> okay all right um so at this point I think I
would entertain >> motion to close the public hearing >> yes >> second >> motion by Mike second by Anita all in favor >> I >> All right now we'll vote first on the special permit 19574 lot coverage and I will take a motion
>> all right I'll move that we grant the special permit for 19574 on 50 Orleans Street. >> Second >> motion by Mike, second by Anita. Um with those special conditions. >> Yes, with with the special conditions as as >> all in favor.
>> I >> unanimous and site plan. >> Okay. Okay, then I will uh move that uh we uh approve the site plan per 195104 450 Orleans Street. >> I'll second.
>> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? >> I >> All right. Thank you. >> Bing. >> All right. Next up on the agenda are the zoning amendments for town meeting.
I think the way that we're going to handle these is I'm not going to present them again. >> Thank you. >> Um we will go through we will not go through the presentations
uh but we will go through the articles if anyone has any questions if there are any clarifications that need to happen. Um and then we will do a public comment option and then we will vote on a
recommendation. Um we'll go through one by one, see if we've closed them all out. If we've closed them all out, we can close the public hearing. If not, we can continue the public hearing for those remaining open until next meeting and
then close them out then. So, the first one uh the SEAD overlay. Um there were a couple open questions from last meeting and Joel had some homework.
>> I sent in a SL. Oh, you do have it. >> He does. As long as the thumb drive doesn't misbehave. >> Is that Is that what you're looking for? >> Yes. Yes, Joel. This is like >> I think the slide speaks for itself.
Kevin, >> the other thing I was thinking of is that if we have so in addition to the top issue, even if that one floor is the
height of one floor, we could have that scenario too. So the one floor with the height of two floors >> or the one floor with the height of one floor. >> Yeah. So there are two possible configurations
in the current bylaw if you're only looking at >> the gross >> footprint >> foot floor area without the footprint. >> If you add the footprint in >> then they then the building h like stays
the same size. >> So this is an effort to make it consider the three-dimensional aspect. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Well, we just Yeah. This is so when we say we don't look at gross floor area. >> Yeah. >> They can actually build something like that wide.
>> Mhm. >> And I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent is >> so does that make it clear >> much? >> Yes. >> Are you going to use this in your slides? >> I will absolutely add this to the slides. Thank you.
>> Talk to her. Joel, can you send me the I'm assuming you did that in PowerPoint? >> I did. >> Okay. Did you send the PDF or the PowerPoint? >> I sent the PowerPoint. >> Okay, great. Thanks. Um, all right. The other piece of it, the applicability,
that's what we just covered. Uh, use regulations, performance standards. We had questions on and Joel, you were going to >> Yeah. So Evan raised the question because performance standards also includes water quality, air quality
as well and those things are difficult and so would we in you know what what should we do about that and um so when I went back and looked at the section on in 1953 uh it basically says um a is no activity
shall be permitted in any district unless it shall be in conformity with the standards for environment environmental protection included herein. And then part B is the inspector of buildings may require an applicant for a building or occupancy permit to supply at the applicant's expense such technical evidence as is necessary in
support of the application and may in connection there with and at the applicant's expense obtain expert advice as necessary blah blah blah. Basically, we currently have it encoded that the building inspector can ask for this. and
so pertaining to all of the standards. So it it didn't so it didn't make sense to me that we would only restrict ourselves or even not give ourselves that same latitude particularly because we're reviewing the plans themselves as
opposed to by the time it gets to the building inspector everything's already been sort of set in stone. So So I I'm thinking that we should keep it. And I do agree though that just in general both the building inspector and we would acknowledge that for example water
quality would be the way it's read the way it's written that really there really isn't much sort of lo local jurisdiction you can do for water quality other than what we currently do through the storm water standards the air quality however there was u there
are studies that you can do for air quality the one that I was um looked up was the one that was done for uh Newport aggregate um in terms of there were two there was an air quality study done there with concerns about you know the kinds of
activities and how that would impact people in Chelford actually. So I think that actually requiring or asking for an air quality study is reasonable and then certainly the noise is reasonable I think as well. So I think in general it's a reasonable thing for us to ask is
what the conclusion I came to uh after looking at the what our bios currently are. So >> okay >> um I would caution the board on this one. Um the air quality as I understand it is regulated uh at the local level
through board of health and even when it comes to asphalt plants which I think is the example you gave. >> Yeah. >> Um my understanding is chumps had to rely on the uh state um approval of air quality. So there's certain there's
certain uses that the local board of health doesn't even have um control over. Um my my my general comments are you're only applying it to seoid
>> uh which only captures a portion of projects. Um and the air quality and the water quality are they're very technical in nature. And so,
you know, it's not even clear to what extent the uh the special permit 19510 provides currently provides um you know that that extent of authority
and then once you get into um you know real applicability if the planning board were to go down a a peer review of an air quality or water quality to what extent does it quickly become a
state or a federal, you know, regulation? My final comment is the way this is currently handled is with a an affidavit. Every project that comes before you, you usually see that that um affidavit that's um signed and attested by the
project engineer. Um, I think it it goes without saying while the building commissioner is ultimately tasked with um verifying compliance with air quality and water quality, we we rely on the affidavit.
>> Um, and as you guys know in your your planning board permits and in concomments, there's usually a boilerplate standard that any and all fa federal, state, regional permits that are required, licenses shall be obtained. So, it kind of falls in one of these areas where historically the town
has um used the affidavit, relied heavily on the affidavit um and then um in incorporates a boilerplate condition basically putting the applicant on notice that where there
are again federal state uh permits and licenses that they shall obtain them. So I I would just I would caution you in the s in the context of you know of all the projects that you've reviewed um you know how how and when would you
apply uh doing a technical review peer review on water quality and air quality as part of an approval once you get beyond traffic drainage all the other typical >> um uh reviews that that you do
>> and I don't think looking back of the projects. I can't think of any offhand that we would have needed this. >> Right. That was >> but it doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Um >> can you think of any with the benefit of
the retrospective scope where we approved a project >> I could see all of the projects >> I could see um based upon your current review where they're becoming more and more technical in nature. I could I
could see where a boards would want to de dive deeper into water quality and air quality to truck traffic, >> you know, speaks directly to air quality, right? But I I just don't know how you apply that to truck traffic.
It's on the roads. They're allowed to be on the roads. Um and then water quality, you know, this this provision extends much further than than storm water. It talks about temperature. So you can quickly see how
you can current you can you can quickly apply um new regulatory aspects that we've never applied. >> It doesn't mean we would for every project. It just means we could if >> you may not but remember
>> remember remember that once something becomes part of the planning board regulatory authority and a butter may ask for the board. So the board may not have an intent but once again you're you're you're you're inviting that as part of your authority.
So if I were in a butter I I would read right from here saying well you know storm water doesn't talk about um temperature. what what's the impact to to temperature of the of the the water resource >> and for purposes of storm water I'm not
sure it even regulates temperature. >> Yeah. >> So it's just it's it it it broadens your authority tremendously. And I think it's the question for the board is if you found yourself needing or wanting to go
down that path, to what extent would you actually do it? And then if you do it, similar to what council has said like with definitive subdivision, you're putting the applicant on notice that you can make you can ask for the information, >> right? >> But then what do you actually do with
the information as it as it applies specifically to your review and approval criteria? I'm not sure the water and air quality align um very nicely with your current uh special permit approval criteria.
Yeah, >> I mean you could you could make an argument. I could see that for example if you had a use you know a skunk taming factory or something like that where it could be objectionable you know that you would want to establish that no in fact
you know it's not going to that is something could have an adverse effect on the neighbors and that you would just want to ascertain that no you can show there's some quantifiable you know reason why we think that's going to be okay >> or may you know what the other the one
thing that we've tossed around at town meeting a couple of times is marijuana um not the selling but the manufacturing facilities that has an order we've we've known like that does have an odor would that like that might be an example of
when we might want to >> yeah but already we already for special permits look into the adverse impact I mean I don't think it has to be measured as a certain number of microns per
milliliter of air or something. >> But I think it does I think that gives us if it does if it can be measured >> quantifiable it gives you a quantifiable basis. I mean we we ran into that with um with 191 195 right which is uh if we
were going to take a position basically they were saying well where's your basis for that? Where is your basis for that opinion? You know what on on what facts on what quantifiable facts are you basing that? That's and it's really more
this gives us the again this isn't saying we are going to ask for it. It just gives us the ability to ask for it. If we felt like there was a concern that we had that we felt like we needed to back up in some quantifiable way that would be the reason for doing >> and it also could give the applicant a
little bit more protection if there isn't a if there isn't an impact. they can easily quantify it using this this bylaw. >> But I think I think Evan's point that this is pertains to say and it's
something that if we want it we probably want to apply it more generally uh I think is a good point. So I don't know if you want to start here and >> but I think the key is >> really
around the criteria and the project uses commercial or industrial abuing residential. >> Okay. >> I think that's why it's really just focused on the overlay here. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Because that's where we could have that
>> that uh conflict between the two uses. Yeah. >> And that's it's it's very granular. I mean, it it's part of um >> you mentioned Riverneck Road. Um even even without getting into
um those granular conflicts, your special permit criteria, which the board relies on and many boards do, is you know, neighborhood character and and social structure, which has little or nothing to do with any technical um quantitative
standards. It's a it's a it's a discretionary >> determination. But but at the end of the day, >> these do have standards. No, they they do. But but if if you're concerned about
the context of of applying this, just bear in mind that that would mean that neighborhood character and social structure
is neutralized. Mhm. >> And you're you're then relying on very technical data >> of which it may turn out and very likely turns out that an attorney either your town attorney or the or an applicant's attorney tells you that you don't have
authority under air quality. >> But why would it neutralize the other criteria? No, I'm saying if you if you come to the determination that you're not concerned about neighborhood character and social structure, that means you're relying you're going to a a
more quantitative data driven reason for determining impacts. >> I'm not saying we would do this at the detriment of those others. This gives us another tool. I would say we still want to look at all three. >> Right. I I mean I just again thinking
about like what an example that's come through is manufacturer of man marijuana. People have discussed allowing that in town, right? That's been and there's you know a distinct odor to it. When that come like if that were to come in front of the planning board, you would say no that doesn't
that doesn't fit the social character of the neighborhood. >> Understood. >> And then you would maybe also use the odor, right? like you know the air quality of that as >> or it may show that the air quality is not impacted. >> Okay.
>> But but again again like I don't think it's bad to have the ability to have these. I'm not saying we would use them but there may be to your point a case and point. And I also think that sometimes um attorneys tend to frighten people on or try to intimidate people on
the planning board to not use just those things as reasons for not approving um a project. And I think having you know additional mechanisms for those who come after us
is a plus at their option. I mean, also, if we ever had a situation where we were concerned and wanted to quantify something and we said, "We want you to do study X," then the applicant would say, "Well, I think it's overreach
because you don't ask it of anybody else and it's not in your regulations. It's not in your bylaw, so it's not fair of you to ask that of me." >> Well, agreed. This would provide at a minimum would provide notice. >> Yeah. which would give you the the ability to ask for the information >> and that's really what I wanted wanted
to do because I think that right now as it stands you know our protection our environmental protection standards aren't really you know anything that we can really do anything about per se you know it I mean we we we can to some
degree but we're limited we're constrained because of the fact that we don't specifically say we also in addition to the building inspector have the right to ask for these things at your expense. So, it's already exists. It just doesn't include us for the
review process as opposed to the building inspector and his approval process. Any other thoughts? Okay. Are there any other I don't think that there were any other updates or changes since the last
meeting. So are people comfortable voting on this one tonight? >> All right. I will take before we take a motion to vote on that. Um are there any
members of the public who wish to speak on the this part of the zoning? Okay, there are none. >> So this >> can you come up to the microphone? >> I don't even know if this is why I'm see
the man 70 middle sex street. Um what is COID? >> Is this the reasoning of industrial? >> No, that's the next uh item on the agenda. But to answer your question, SEAOD is the community enhancement and
investment overlay district. >> All right. Um, so at that point, we don't have any public comments. Um, if people are comfortable voting, I will actually I don't Yeah, we do need a motion to
>> uh to close the hearing. No, because it's a full >> hearing. So, I'll take a motion to recommend this zoning article to town meeting. >> We'll move that we recommend and may maybe make sure I know which one
it is. Is this the 195 one? >> These are all of the changes to the sead. >> All right. Then I I move that we approve all of the changes to the sead to the >> recommend to town meeting. >> Recommend for town meeting. Yeah. I'll second
>> motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? >> I >> I unanimous. Okay, next one. This is the use the zoning bylaw to adjust the use table for the
parking garage structure. And there are no changes since the last meeting. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this one? By the way, Evan, is there anyone on Zoom? >> No. >> Okay. >> All right. So, if people are comfortable
voting on this one, I will take a motion and I will then move that we recommend the zoning articles concerning uh the parking uh to town meeting. >> I'll second.
>> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? I >> unanimous. Next one is adjusting the dimensional requirements uh to change the minimum depth from zero to NA in all of those tables
and I don't think we had any changes. Anyone from the public wish to speak? Seeing none, I will take a motion. I will move that we recommend uh the articles concerning uh replacing the zero
frontage with NA. >> I'll second >> motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? >> I >> unanimous. Next one. Amend the town code to revise the definition of boarding house.
meeting and there were no changes since the last meeting. Um, so I'll take a motion. >> I will move that we recommend to the town meeting the articles concerning changing the definition of boarding house. >> I'll second.
>> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? >> I. Unanimous. >> If only a town meeting could be this issue. >> I was just thinking the exact same thing. Yeah, >> it's not going to go that smooth.
>> All right. Uh, the bed and breakfast. >> Yes. >> Definition and addition to the use table. >> No changes. So, I'll take a motion. >> I would move that we recommend to town meeting uh the changes to the definition
of bed and breakfast or the addition of the definition of bed and breakfast and its entrance into the use tables. Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? >> I. >> Unanimous. >> Whoa. >> All right. Now we get to the lighting
bylaw. And for this one, I will ask Kelly to come up to the podium. Kelly be 117 Park Road. Uh should I say something like there are no changes? >> There are no changes but we did add some
clarifying slides if people would like to review those. >> Right. And these are along the lines of what is different this time around than there was last spring. And I would say there's probably three main areas. Uh
one is that we have disentangled what was for commercial versus what was for residential. Uh and they now each have their own section. Um and in fact the uh >> Keep going Evan. One more. Yeah.
>> Yep. There you go. Um and in particular the residential uh requirements have essentially been removed and replaced with a set of recommendations. Uh this will remain an a a complaint
driven by bylaw. So um one of the things that did not exist does not exist in the existing bylaw is any real uh teeth to enforce it because it is complaint driven. Um what we have has
what what has happened is that we've had 25 years of basically people except for the projects that come before you uh anything that was installed and nonconforming remains non-conforming.
So we um we separated these two out. The commercial is exactly as it was last spring and it remains the case that the Chster Business Association is not opposed to this bylaw. Uh the commer as the residential I
mentioned uh we've changed what were requirements last spring to recommendations. I would hope that going forward people who uh watch this or watch town meeting or or uh otherwise
pay attention would take a look at what they've got and see where they might make changes uh voluntarily. where we do have the one place where we do have a backs stop, if you will, for residential uh lighting is that if somebody is
egregiously overlighting their property to the detriment of a neighboring property, there is a nuisance component to this where you can bring that to the town um building inspector. And there was some question raised about whether the building inspector would be able to
go at night uh to check this out. There are ways to approximate whether the a given light is going to be in violation or not based on what direction it's pointed and how strong it is. And these are things that you can determine on a daytime visit. Uh and I actually had
just as a side I had a couple of excellent conversations and demonstration walks with Jose Negron, our building inspector, and uh he he saw the light. I can't resist. Um and he's I think I
think if you asked him he would say this is tractable. >> And then the last thing that we have changed since the last time the third thing is that we have scrubbed the municipal requirements. Uh there had been um my intent had been
to and that was part of the intent of why have why to have a general bylaw in the first place. uh to try to undo some of the wrongs that were done when we had the lighting installed as a result of the Johnson Controls Energy Services contract roughly uh 13 years ago. Um,
interestingly enough, the the street lights that we ended up with are actually pretty good and would have satisfied the uh the requirements that I put forth last year that we put forth last year except for color temperature. Mhm.
>> And so what we did this time was that uh first of all there's there's no specific mention of municipal um uh uh adherence to requirements. That's gone except for the lighting along the public
right away which is where the street lights are. And what's different this time than last time is that we removed the requirement for a lower color temperature. And with that small change, although it it provides a loophole for
future install installations by others, utility companies and such, it means that the existing street light plant that we have doesn't need to be changed at all. So, uh, one of the things that became apparent a year ago is that
even though on paper it would be within it would be reasonable that within 10 years, which is the sort of grace period that we've set up here, uh, that we might be replacing the town street lights with new ones. It remains the case that it would be a
it would be a multi-million dollar project to do that. and this was not the right time to ask the town to even look forward to something like that. So, we've removed that. I guess that's it. Thank you. >> Um, this slide
we're probably only going to include for the board presentations and not town meeting because it never got to town meeting last year. Um, so they would be really confused if we included this slide in there since they weren't presented anything last time. Um, so
this will only be included for us, the fincom and select board presentations. Um, the other thing I wanted to um mention, um, Kelly, you said you won't be able to make it for the second meeting,
>> at least not in person. >> Okay. And they don't often do a remote option. Um, because of the technical nature of this uh, article, I don't feel comfortable presenting without Kelly. I think that's really I have to say I have to say that's that wrong after seeing
those tables and tables and more tables and setbacks and all that stuff and you find this technical. >> Yes, I know but lighting is not my thing. Um so Evan, do you think we would be able to get this into the first night?
>> We could make the request. >> Okay. >> And uh potentially have a conversation with the manager and the moderator. >> Okay. Because if we're not able to, my recommendation would be to push it to um next town meeting
>> or I could teach you about lighting. >> Knowing town meeting questions, no matter how much you teach me, there's going to be something I'm not going to be able to answer. >> So, I would feel comfortable with you there presenting this. >> Sure, that's fine. Um, so we can, if
people are okay, we can vote to recommend it. Um, I can work with Evan, Kelly, and the town manager to see if we can get in the first night. If not, we uh move it to the next town meeting. >> I do have a question. >> Yeah.
>> The question I asked last time was, what is the difference between this bylaw and the original bylaw? >> I do have that slide, too. >> You do? Okay. >> Yes. Can you show that slide? >> Yeah. The the existing bylaw there there are a couple things about it. The
existing bylaw >> has some sections in there about illuminated signs. >> Yeah. >> Which are have now been replaced by wording in the sign bylaw. So even if this were never to have come forward, you have a discrepancy between the
existing lighting bylaw and your signed bylaw right now. um the uh >> slide. So, it's kind of a mix between this one and the second. >> So, let me address this one. So, as I mentioned, the existing bylaw
uh holds that any new lighting fixture, whoever puts it up, if it exceeds 2,000 lumens and it's not fully shielded, is non-conforming. private, residential, commercial,
municipal. No, not municipal because it's a zoning bylaw. We've removed that. Um, >> I think that's the only thing from there. >> Yep. And then the next slide. Um
yeah, the I think we're really talking about the last two bullets there. Um that the existing bylaw has no specifics at all about enforcement. What I brought forward, we brought forward last spring was a fairly
involved enforcement mechanism, which seemed like overkill. And so there's still an enforcement mechanism. There's still the notion that the town would have a lighting enforcement officer who would be the building building inspector unless you wanted somebody else to be that or
unless you wanted the the benefit of of outside expertise. Uh and then and then finally uh uh this notion of of handling residential different from commercial and actually having different sets of standards for each one. The original
bylaw doesn't make that distinction. >> Okay. I' I'd like to recommend that you um I don't know who to look at here. >> I'm already taking I know what you're going and I'm already taking those notes. >> Okay. Separate slide. I'd like to recommend that you include for example
that one difference is technology has changed. Lighting technology has changed since then. So this current bylaw incorporates color temperature for example which the original bylaw does not. Um, it I would say instead of
saying it lacks an enforcement process, it doesn't specify an enforcement process. I mean, all bylaws have an enforcement process. It's just that this particular bylaw specifies one specifically for it. And I think that's a difference. Uh, it makes it better.
And then also I think >> if I may >> um although the existing bylaw has someone who's responsible for enforcement there was no process in this one there is a process. >> Okay. Okay. I think that's good. Uh and
then also you mentioned something about I don't know if you want to have something that says that basically there are things that have happened since the bylaw that the bylaw didn't address. You mentioned Johnson controls and so forth and so on. Is that something that the existing bylaw would have prevented if
it had been enacted or is it just something that happened because the bylaw didn't address it? >> Yeah. So when Johnson Controls came and they um suggested changing out all the lighting in town, interior and exterior,
um outdoor lighting was like a 100 page 169 of 170 page document and truly an afterthought. And there it didn't come before the planning board as as best I know. I was involved a little bit. It was in front of the energy and
sustainability committee or whatever it was called at that time. There was some demonstrations, fixtures put up by the town engineer to judge. For example, I I got into the process late and we were
going to have 5700 Kelvin lighting and there was a 4,000 Kelvin option available and I said, "Can you please put in one of each and we can judge which one we liked better?" and we ended up going with a lower color temperature. >> But I don't think I don't think at that
time there even with the existing bylaw because all of that lighting was municipal and what we had on on as I understand we had a zoning bylaw and and that didn't really apply to municipal lighting. There was nothing really that we could have done and what we done I
I'm grateful that we got done what we did. >> Okay. So, I mean, I think I think you just said what I think I said, which was that the existing bylaw would not have prevented or or encouraged Johnson
Controls to do the >> because it's a zoning bylaw. >> Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Right. As opposed to a general bylaw. Okay. I will say the the one piece that is in my mind still uh really need of remediation is
not the street lights but the municipal area lights the lighting around this building or at schools and so forth. And that's off the table too in this version but I hope to work with u the DPW Christine Clansancy uh to over time find
ways to make that better. >> Right. Okay. So, I mean, just overall, I think just to counter the question, I'm sure people are going to think is like, well, why do I need it, right? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why do I need a new bylaw? And so, I think we want to have specific reasons why you really do
need a new bylaw. Okay. Thank you for those suggestions. All right. Um, so, is there anyone who would like to speak from the public on this one? There being none, I will take a motion to recommend to
town meeting the uh lighting uh bylaw as proposed. >> Adoption of >> and also do do we also need to recommend that we remove our existing zoning bylaw? >> That's a good point. Yes, that is the
the um article is to amend the town code and delete in conjunction with >> and to uh delete the the lighting bylaw. >> So, it's to add the general bylaw and delete zone bylaw. >> Good. >> So, moved.
>> I'll second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? >> I >> I'm going to abstain. >> And Anita abstains. 601. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Next item on the agenda. Changing the map. >> Next item on the agenda is the zoning. So, this is actually to open the public hearing um for amending the town uh
bylaw section 195-3 to amend the zoning map. And this is to reszone the existing uh parcels in the Middle Sex Street uh mills area um as indicated in the article.
And so this I will go through since this is the opening of the public hearing. Um all right, Evan, if you could go to the first slide. Perfect. So, back in 2022,
um we uh worked with NEMCOG to identify a number of zoning conflicts identified in town. Um and pro they provided us some options to mitigate those zoning conflicts. Uh there are a number of options available to us including overlays, changing the map, changing the
use table, combination of both, and creating new zones. Um there are benefits and negatives to all of those options. Um but we didn't want to negatively impact zones in other parts of town. So we really wanted to stay
away from changing current zones um and changing the use table for those current zones. Uh so what we did is um we looked at conflicting uh conf conflict areas using Kate's corner as a model and we
did decide to create a new zone that we passed at the last town meeting um and that is the CB light zone. You can go to the next slide. This is a solution uh that we've developed for at least some zoning conflicts in town related to IIA zones
where we can use this as a transition zone between IIA and other zones like residential um or to replace an IIA zone uh a smaller IIA zone. We did apply it to Kate's Corner in the fall of 2025 town
meeting. Um, and while we did develop this new zone, uh, in addition to using Kate's Corner as the model, we also used it, uh, in this area in Middle Sex Street near the landing at Chelmsford Mills as a stress test for that area.
Um, and for the new zone. Um, so this proposal is taking the work we did during that stress test and, uh, codifying it. So the summary of the new zone is that we uh create this new zoning district
called the CBLT uh commercial business light. Uh we defined a new use called ultralight manufacturing. We clarified the light manufacturing uh use. We updated the use tables um for
that CBLT zone. Um, and we do have a handout attached to the uh to the agenda as well that provides some u some uh information about the uh
acronyms for the zoning as well as the use table comparison. So pulling in uh some some of those uses, it allows for more commercial uses and fewer industrial uses that might be uh negatively impacting um
neighborhoods. We also changed uh all of the related um parts of zoning for a new district dimensional requirements the overlay uh property lines landscaping and street frontage and made them more analogous to
the uh commercial business district. This is the example of the ultralight manufacturing definition. Um I've highlighted in uh the the bold the um parts of the definition that make it uh distinct from the light manufacturing
that we updated. So this is really about high value production processes like precision manufacturing, intricate assembly, controlled treatment, packaging and distribution. It provides examples like artisal food production, clothing apparel production,
prototyping, 3D printing, precision instrument manufacturing, medical device manufacturing, and smallcale wood metal fabrication and a bunch of other examples. Compare that to the uh updated light
manufacturing. um a little bit more uh size and distribution. Um and you can see the examples are a little bit uh less um on the ultralight side and more on the
light side. The next slide is the areas of the parcels that we are proposing to reszone. Um the uh CD is the general commercial district. This is primarily
retail commercial offices, uh restaurants, commercial uses, things like that. RM is the residential multif family. IA is the industrial area. RC is the medium density uh residence.
The CD is general commercial. Um, I actually covered that already. RC is the medium density general residences and CB is the roadside commercial. Uh, things like hightra generators,
um, retail offices, wholesale businesses, things like that. So, what we wanted to do is take a look at those IIA parcels and really look at um, changing those over to the this CB light. We also looked at uh the
residential areas that are uh zoned in other ways and look to change them back to the types of residential that are actually used in the properties. So, this is the proposed map um that you
can see here. And then the next slide is a listing of all of the zone uh parcels that are proposed to be uh reszoned, what they currently are and what they're proposed to be reszoned to.
So, that is the presentation. Any questions, comments from the board? >> All right, so I will open it up to the public since I know someone is here to speak. >> Good evening. I'm Steve from 70 Middle Sex. Um, just trying to understand what
it what I've even been living with. Thank you. Yeah. right there. Um, and what's going to change? Um, and so I guess, um, can you guys boil that down for me? Sort of what, uh, is anything changing regarding like how far my shed
needs to be from a property line or um, what color I can paint my house or if I can do that or anything. Um, I don't think so. But I just I wanted to know any sort of potential major impact that could um mean for my future or selling
the property at some point. >> What's your address? >> 70. It's uh >> right going from IIA to RC. >> So yeah, I'm going from industrial to residential, >> right? >> And you have you have a home there, right? >> Yes.
>> So that would make more sense. >> Didn't know it was industrial. >> Okay. But I but that being said, maybe I've been living with some cool stuff that I won't be able to afterward. So I just wanted to kind of know what rules change. >> Well, first of all, you're covered cuz
you're grandfathered. >> Okay. >> So whatever you've got there now doesn't have to change. >> Yeah. >> Okay, that's good. >> That's the big piece. >> One difference is if you're going to RC, RC allows you to uh go to um two um two units.
>> Two family. >> Two family. >> Okay. But is that mandate? I mean, he's not required to do that. It >> allows it. No, no, it allows it. It allows it. >> But if I wanted to put an addition and split it into two units, you're saying that would >> If you wanted to do that, you could do that under RC. You could not do that under IIIA. >> Okay.
>> Um, and then your neighbor next door. >> Yes. >> That is IA. And is it going to RC? RC. Yeah. So, the good thing is now he can't build a distribution center next door to you. >> Okay. Oh. Does that mean they can't develop any more of the lot? They Well,
>> because I've always kind of been curious. >> They can put a house, but they can't put like, you know, a truck that, you know, distribution center that has that's operating 24 hours and you hear trucks going in and out and stuff like that. >> Would it change anyone's ability to develop this part? >> That's Isn't that piece kind of
undevelopable anyway? >> I think Yeah. >> Isn't that Is that We talked about that last That's a bunch of >> I love looking at the green. No, we talked about the one on the other side of Harbor last week. >> I don't I've talked to them. They don't think they have any plans to do that or
would, but um >> again, they could sell it and someone else could. So, um >> how many >> Yeah, I don't I don't think it would change with regards to clearing that or anything like that, but it was just that what the use that somebody has there. >> Okay.
>> The only house, >> right? They they could put industrial uses there. >> Okay. under the current zoning under the zoning change they would not be able to. So you're actually go to a less potentially less risky as far as what impacts you could suffer from whatever
they do on their property because it's going residential now as postindustrial. >> Okay. >> Um and I don't know if this is a conflict of interest to answer this question but I guess what how would the resoning affect property value?
Probably not much. >> Probably not much. >> That question comes up like many many many times and we usually don't I mean and occasionally need we'll dabble into that but most most often we don't because it's so speculative. >> You're likely referring to your assessed
value your tax bill. >> Yeah. >> It's not going to change your tax. >> Not going to change your Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um let me see if I had anything. This has nothing to do with like a historic zone or anything. I won't have to. Okay, cool. >> Um,
>> I mean, it will limit um here that microphone. >> That was really weird. Who's over there? >> Um, it will limit you from putting a warehouse on your property if you wanted to do that. >> It's not enough room anyway. So, but okay, >> you won't be able to do that anymore if
you had any inkling of doing that. >> Okay, good to know. >> Or operation or whatever. >> Cool. Geez. I guess >> yeah, our our overall intent here is to
reszone it to meet what's actually on the ground and in use in these properties >> and to protect the federal. >> Yeah. And to protect the homeowner homeowners, right? Because what we've run into in the past is things are we've
gotten into is a lot of things going up in residential neighborhoods that we didn't really want or expect >> or that the residents didn't realize they were in IA and so the lot behind them could be >> So I guess another question how how come
those two h like my house and my neighbor like how did that even get left out originally? >> A hell of a good question. >> Yeah. There there are places all over town you can >> This is your Yeah, this is you know this is number area number two that we're working on. We've got whole other areas
in town that we're trying to fix. >> Seven things identified by >> Okay. >> Well, thank you for trying to answer my really broad questions. I appreciate that. >> Well, thank you for coming to ask them. >> Yes. Um and I guess you're going to have
more meetings about this as well. This that you said was the first one or >> So this is the first one. I do like to keep it open for two meetings um just in case uh people can't make it for the first one. So um we will likely continue this to the next one next uh planning
board meeting. Um, and then that's February 11th. And then we will probably close the public hearing at that point, vote on a recommendation, and then it will still need to go before the finance committee and select board for their
recommendations. Um, and then it will go to town meeting um, in April >> um, the end of April for a final vote, townwide vote. >> Okay. >> And you can speak at any of those meetings, too. There's public comment. So if you have any questions and they're
all televised so you can watch them. >> Okay. So if I learn something new in between >> if you really want them on back and do that. >> Yes, you can. >> Sweet. >> Well, Gez, thank you very much. Have a great >> You should think about running for town. There are open spots. You can still pull
papers. Only 10 signatures, right? 10 signatures. >> 10 signatures. Yep. And then you can vote on it. >> Wait. So what is this? >> And there's still time to pull papers. >> Yep. Town meeting. >> Town meeting reps. >> What's it? What is what are the duties? >> So when we you go to and vote on these
articles twice a year and twice a year. >> How do I read about what that >> call the town clerk? >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Just go to the website >> or go pay her a visit. We'll fill you. >> Yeah. It's real easy. My son's my son's a town meeting rep. >> Okay. And you're all town meeting. >> We're all town reps. There we are.
>> You can also go to the town website and information now about um how to pull the papers and >> oh, >> but I highly recommend it because there's a lot of like not just zoning comes up, you know, like there's a new school project coming up. Um I don't know if you have kids in the system,
>> you do more environmental stuff. I love all the stuff you're talking about, Joel, about making sure they treat the turtles right and even care about them in the first place. So I guess >> conservation commission would be close closest to that. >> Okay. >> But if you're a town meeting event, you
can vote on things that >> that come up that would be more in favor of that or not in favor of that. So and it's really not a big commit. It's literally two nights in the spring, two nights in the fall, maybe an occasional special meeting. >> U but it's it's an easy way to get
involved in town and know what's going on. >> Um highly recommend it. >> I appreciate you bringing that up to me. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Hope to see you there. >> Yeah, that'd be cool. >> Depending on what precinct you could get your friends to write you in.
>> What precinct is that, by the way? >> One. >> Like he's That's precinct one. >> You check. >> Did you guys need >> No, North Street. >> Oh, there. >> All right. >> All right. Moving on. Um, so I will take
a motion to um continue this >> view the public hearing until >> February 11th. >> February 11th. >> I'll second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? >> I >> continued. >> Great. >> Hey, we're really ripping along here.
>> All right, next item. >> I wouldn't describe that as a ripping. All right. Next item is the citizens petition to overturn article 29 as adopted in the fall town meeting um and to uh revert it to the original
definition. We did invite um Brian Latina who is the author of the citiz citizens petition to present tonight. Um he is not able to make it. I would I did offer a number of dates. Um,
>> how about we move to table this until further? >> Yes. Um, I don't know when. Um, so let's let's continue it till the 11th. I will reach out to him again and see if he can
come on the 11th. Um, or if he's got another date available, >> but >> or another representative available. That's a good speaker. >> Yeah. Um, I would like to give them the opportunity to present this to us before
we vote on it. Um, I checked with Evan and we don't have to vote on this before the articles need to be submitted. So, this one would just be a recommend or not. Um, but it's all of the uh language
is already approved by town council and stuff like that independent of our vote. So >> there's no urgency on this one. So this could continue until uh town meeting if we absolutely needed to. >> Very good. >> So I will reach out again to
>> I move that we can the we uh continue the consideration of the citizens petition October article 29 uh to the next meeting. >> Motion by Mike >> table it until a representative to present it is available. >> We can deal with it again next.
>> Yeah. We'll put it on the agenda and then I'll reach back out to Brian and see when he can present and then either next meeting or I'll hopefully have a date. >> So motion by Mike, >> second
>> second by Deedra. All in favor? I >> I >> All right. Continued. All right. Next item is the development director's report. Okay, good evening. Uh just four quick items. Uh first one is uh last week I
appeared on uh Sam Chase's uh Chasing the Facts uh show. Um it was obviously related to uh uh planning and zoning matters and managed growth strategy. Um second item is, >> by the way, Evan, it was a good
interview. I saw it. >> Oh, good. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Uh second item is uh this year's citizen trainers planning collaborative annual uh conference comes up in March. Um I will send you an email but some of you
may be getting those emails. Um so strongly encourage you to take advantage of that training. If you're interested uh just pay and then submit for reimbursement uh through my office. >> Who went last year? I thought it was very help very >> Yeah, that's I strongly recommend it.
I've done a bunch of them. >> It's usually St. Patty's Day, Saturday in March. >> Is it always in Worcester or just? >> Yeah, it's always at Holy Cross. Yes. >> Uh, next item is an update. >> They give you lunch.
>> That's a right. We got to go. >> I like any professional that gives me lunch. >> Next update is uh the gap analysis. So, uh, internally, staff is scheduled to, um, review a final draft on February 4th
that will set the stage for the, uh, likely the town manager, um, requesting a, uh, multi- uh, board and committee meeting uh, to hear the consultants uh, presentation and ask questions and uh, engage in that
process. Um, a couple items. Uh, February 5th at the senior center, the zoning board is opening the u second administrative appeal for alleged road truck traffic.
And then on um Thursday, February 26th, the center village master planning committee uh in coordination with NIMCOG will be conducting a second public uh presentation input session on um
Chumpshire Street and Center of Village uh conceptual transportation and streetscape uh modifications. the um for some >> I'm sorry, >> where's that library? >> The library at 6:30 just for for some
context because you'll likely begin to hear about this. This initially started with um a focus on Chra Street uh related to streetscape streetscape improvements uh multimmoal, bicycle, pedestrian uh and trees, things of that
nature. As part of the committee's process, uh they identified um what's internally being referred to as a one-way bow tie um traffic layout. So, if you if you're
familiar with the one-way circulation around the library, that's one side of the bow tie. The second the conceptually the second part of that bow tie would be Chumpshire Street to Fletcher. make Chumpshire
Street outbound one way and Fletcher inbound one way, which would create the the full bow tie. So that is being um uh presented to the traffic advisory
committee on February 4th. Uh and then the center village master planning committee meets on February 12th in anticipation of the public input session on February 26th. I thought it was the 24th. >> We initially uh scheduled but the
library is not available. >> Oh, okay. I'm going to say because I have the date. It's the 24th. >> Yeah. >> So, it's at what time? >> 6:30. >> February 4th one is 6:30. >> Uh the February 4th is a is an internal meeting. >> Oh, >> yep. The center village master planning
committee meets on February 12th. Um at usually >> internal meeting of who? >> Seven. Yeah. >> Traffic advisory committee. as a staff meeting. Um the committee wanted wanted the bow tie concept to be presented to
police, fire, DPW, the traffic advisory committee just uh to see if it was um if there were any fatal fatal flaws. Um as I mentioned, the center village mass planning committee meets on February 12th. That's their regular
monthly meeting in preparation for their special uh public presentation at the library at 6:30. >> That is and the library presentation is when? >> February >> 26th. >> February 26th. Yep. >> At 6:30. So between now and then
there'll be um there'll be Facebook posts, there'll be um town website posts, and if the bow tie concept uh moves forward, there'll be um direct mailings to property owners, interested parties.
>> Okay, that's all I have. >> Are they bringing up the bow tie thing at the February 26th meeting? My understanding is that the committee is going to kind of decide that on the 12th likely with with the input from the
traffic advisory committee. >> Okay. Um for the Oh, never mind. I'll get to that later. Um All right. Anything else? Not for me.
>> Okay. leazison updates. >> I'll piggy back off Evan. So um as he said most um we talked about at the last Senate village meeting is the um Neog came in with the six different potential drawings of ideas and plans for uh
Chumsford Street. Um we brought it down from six to three that they're still going to look at. um these potentially would qualify um to get the grant to help fund it um based on bike lanes um
sidewalks widths. Um and we're going to continue to look at that on the 12th. Um and I know Nco says they're still reaching out to businesses along Chumps Street to get their input because for the when they sent out that big public survey, they didn't really receive
anything from the businesses on Chsford Street. Okay. >> CPC met um there was a couple presentations of kind of smaller requests for funding. Um Bill Vines presented a request for some
fence work funding for Kulis Farm. He's a he's the um Kulis farm liaison on the concom and they're looking for 13,000 almost $14,000 for building some fences
at Kulis um and guard rails and I don't know um there was some talk about whether that they should get multiple quotes and it was
recommended by DPW that a specific company that has done this kind of work for DPW in the past be used. So, it was it was approved by the committee and then the garden advisory committee requested um
money. The community garden advisory committee requested $3,500 to do some upgrading of the water system for the community garden at Watton Street. Um and that also was approved. Um then those funds will come out of open space both of them the open space component of
the CPC funding right >> yes the uh capital maintenance accounts >> cap oh is that doesn't it is like housing historical and open space >> yeah and then the CPC has two um
administrative accounts one is for cap uh capital projects related to open space and the other one is capital related related to recreation. >> Okay. And so the the um coolest will come out of the open space, >> correct?
>> Or not the recreational one? >> No, the open space. >> Got it. >> Okay, that was it. >> Anita, >> John. >> Yes. So, I attended um a NIMCOG council meeting last Wednesday, the 21st. There were two topics that took up a
significant amount of the agenda. Uh the first was a discussion about a homelessness summit that Nimco had held back in December and all of us were asked to watch it if we didn't attend. Um I will say it was um was well attended by communities in the region.
Town manager Cohen attended. I saw at least one I did not have the opportunity to attend but there was at least one or more select board members there the other NIMCOG reps and uh was really um I think it's a folk it it was brought about that it's really um there are a number of issues involved in this and it
really needs to be a regional solution. I think the old way of thinking was that, you know, um certainly there were greater numbers of homeless people in an urban area like LOL, but I think we've all seen around this table in recent years. Um you know, we're not immune here in Trumpsford as a suburb. We've se
I know I personally have seen a greater number of homeless people. Uh we've had in the last few years >> um instances of at least two that um have been here around the town offices property or out back um at the athletic fields things like that. So um I think
it's something that we all the communities in the greater Alol area need to you know work on. If anyone um on planning board wants to learn more about it there is a video recording of that summit on the NIMCOD website and you can you can watch it there. Um the
other thing was there was a gentleman named Kurt Gardner from the um office of energy and environmental affairs that uh had a discussion on um a program called Mileus. I love acronyms mus and it's the
mass Massachusetts integrated uh land use strategy. And without getting too complicated um there's a there's a website that you can go to for the state if you want to learn more. Um it basically they're trying to reconcile
competing issues with the state. So for example, we all know there are various goals. Um the state wants to develop um a a great number of acreage for solar um photovoltaic energy sites, but at the same time the state wants to protect
farmland in certain areas. So those two goals may conflict with each other in certain parts of the state. Um, that's just one example. They basically want to develop a GIS tool that can be used statewide to help award grants. Um, so
that was that took up a a good part of the agenda. >> Can you tell what the what was the acronym again? >> It's MI LUS. So it's connect to is that is there a link to that on the number? you do like a Google search um with the Commonwealth
of Mass and then M I LUS um there's a little fact sheet that we'll you can find on there. >> Okay. >> And it just talks about some of the goals of it and um so it's just to try to have better coordination between state agencies and other things. >> Sounds like a great plan.
>> Yeah. So and then on the next night >> gap analysis for the state >> and then on the next night on the 22nd was the kickoff meeting of the um managed growth uh task force and so co-chair Mike Risbrook was there Evan
Balansky was there our select leazison as was a member Aaron Cunningham was there um was a great turnout um my as memory there was we had attendance from everyone except one person was unable to make it But it was a it was a good kickoff meeting and again Nimco's going
to be very busy in Chumsford. Um Mike Oyola and Chris Hayes were there and they was they gave a presentation. They took a lot of um you know they were there to listen and they made a lot of notes and things. I'm sure Mike and Evan could add more on that. But it was a
great kickoff meeting for the you know for the first one. >> Yeah, I'd agree. It was a good kickoff and uh we're going to the next step uh and we'll be looking at among other things various uh manage growth scenarios. Uh I think that's probably
going to occupy the next meeting. This looks pretty good. I was a little surprised. There are a lot of people on that committee and sometimes with too many people things can get away from you but but if we seem to manage it well. >> Good. >> And is that are those meetings recorded?
Uh this one wasn't not >> they're not recorded. The next meeting is February 17th at 6 PM and we'll be uh usually meeting in room 205. >> Yeah, >> we'll be there. >> And are those open to the public? >> Yes,
>> absolutely. >> You guys are taking notes though, right? >> We will be taking minutes. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right, Joel. >> Nothing. >> Lake. Uh no, the uh the last uh
historical commission meeting uh couldn't make a quorum due to flu. So >> all right. Um for conservation, their meeting yesterday was pretty uh light meeting. They did discuss um
possible wetland bylaw reg uh regulation changes. Uh their main thing is looking at a wetlands uh bylaw change to add a 100 foot buffer zone to bordering land subject to
flooding. Uh so aka the 100red-year flood plane. Um adding a buff 100 foot buffer to that. Um town council is drafting the wording. Uh they'll probably be discussing it their next meeting. Uh >> what's the current buffer?
>> There is no buffer. There is no buffer. Oh, okay. >> So, >> that's good. >> People can build right up to the flood plane porter. >> The problem with that is that as Peter pointed out, the data that uh FEMA uses is old data. So, it's not always
accurate >> and it especially for the uh the storms are getting bigger and bigger. So, um the impacts are going to start to be felt. >> Uh the example um they did say that other towns are doing it. They're looking at what other towns it is a
recommended bylaw. Um, whatever conservation group, state conservation groups, they do recommend uh the 100 foot buffer, >> MACCC. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> So, would it have to be approved by town meeting? >> Yes. Um, so they're looking at getting
it um they're not as far along on their bylaws as we are for town meeting. Um they just started discussing it um inside uh the full group. >> Um they're looking to see
if they could get the town engineer to take a look at it and see if it if they can make a recommendation as to whether um they would uh recommend it. They're looking at what other towns currently uh do something like that.
um one member of the group didn't seem to be too in favor of it. Um they do want to look at the positives and negatives and they want to also take a look at how many projects might have been impacted by this. Um, one example
they can they came up with is if someone builds a retaining wall um in that non-existent buffer, they could build it right up to the flood plane boundary >> and if it does flood, it's going to change >> the course
>> the course of the flood. >> Um, so they're looking at um enacting that so that they can at least start looking at that that area. Um there would be uh exemptions for things like
sheds and fences and things like that that are already exemptions from the buffer zones >> uh for different things, but that's what they're looking at. also as a review from
the riverneck project. I was looking at that that again and what I realized is that one of the things I'd like to start doing for some of these larger projects is especially when we have um traffic
mitigation measures either recommended by the traffic engineers or that we want to put as conditions having both DPW and the traffic committee review them. Um, so if there's something recommended by the traffic engineers in the in the
traffic study, have them look at it and see if it makes sense for this town. And then before we make a um a special condition, really have them review it to see if it's really feasible uh to implement
>> and see it. Yeah, especially thinking about one of the projects like the Hildworth project and >> yeah, there are a bunch of them that would we probably could have done that with already. So, um I reached out to Christine and Paul already. They both are on board.
>> Um so, we will uh >> if we do get those again, I'll make sure to reach out to Christine and she can leers with the traffic committee. All right. Um any other we've no more lay on updates? We've already
talked to the managed growth strategy 187 Chelmsford Street uh the hotel shelter topic. Do you want to give some a quick update on this one? >> Yeah. um start by saying um I think as
you know uh this has not gone in front of the planning board. Um to date it has not been a planning board matter. Uh and moving forward it likely remains
not a planning board matter. Um there's a lot of kind of nuance and context associated with that, but uh essentially um the the town through the building uh inspector
uh when formally requested uh recently uh for a zoning determination, issued a zoning determination indicating that uh it's a it's a state use or an extension of a state use. Uh that shouldn't come as a surprise to
anybody. Uh the state zoning act exempts the state as well as state um extensions of the state meaning via initiatives or programs. The shelter program normally uh starts with an RFP or an RFQ that the state issues
>> and very often community- based nonprofits such as CTI um submit a proposal and receive an award as part of an state award. there's usually a contract signed uh and that's exactly what transpired
um for this uh location. It may date back to 2015. Uh and then there's some question as to whether since 2015 to what extent was there a contract? How did the contract take place? To what extent was a town
aware? What town officials were aware? Um I can't really uh explain to you the past. >> Yeah. Is what what is CT? >> Community teamwork incorporator. >> Okay. >> Uh what I can tell you is that um the
building commissioner has has reviewed the material uh has uh from from a zoning perspective and has made a determination u that it is an exempt use. Um the other document that uh I uploaded
uh was something that the uh building inspector was provided. Uh that is a document uh provided from the sources the Massachusetts um American Planning Association chapter. Uh so they have uh
research and reference materials. Um, but again, the notion that it's um that it's a uh an exempt use as a state as a state use again shouldn't come as a as a surprise. Um, so that's really all I have to say
about it. Um, again, the reason it didn't come to the the planning board is that it um it wasn't any new construction. They moved into an existing hotel. Um, so it was it was unlike um 150 North Road where there was new construction even though that was a
a Doverex exempt use. Um, we do have other similar stateex exempt uses and federal exempt uses uh in Chelmsford. The immigration shelter was deemed an exempt use. It was fairly self-evident. I think this one is also
self-evident. >> You mean the immigration court? >> Immigration court. Yep. >> Is there a shelter in here? >> Sorry. uh the immigration uh the immigration court um and uh other examples of um I'm not sure if we have any other state well we have some state
property um the fire tower is is a good example um we have state uh DPW yards off of um off the uh Drum Hill Rotary >> um this one obviously is a is a bit uh
different uh character um but that's that's really the uh the update as far as I see it. >> So when Go ahead. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> I was just going to say the the question I had was it's it's not it's not what is
zoned. it's a use that's not what is zoned that it's uh just what the origin of what the state exemption is or not so much the origin but what I was more interested in what is the what is the um timeline the scope of of
of that use in the sense that was it a an was it an emergency an acute thing that was not intended to be chronic or Does can the state pretty much decide at any location within
Chelmsford I'm going to have a stateex exempt use here. I'm going to have a homeless shelter here and that there is no recourse local municipality has. I mean that that's my question because my thinking was if there is something if
they're operating if they're currently operating under a use that was allowed um you know as as a sort of a temporary kind of condition then I would want to be sure that the uh and I'm not saying that we have jurisdiction to do this but
I would want to be sure that the landowner understood that we would be looking that they would be complying with zoning once it was complete Right. So that that's my question is how is this an ongoing thing that forever Chelmsford in can be a homeless shelter
or is there some time limit associated with that? >> Yes, good question. So so the information we have uh CTI has provided a letter indicating that um their contract with the state expires uh June of this year. Simultaneously, they're in
the process of building um a shelter in Lel uh and their letter indicates that uh they expect to adhere to those those time frames. So, so this is an on So, back to my question, is this is this a temporary
thing? In other words, is this like it it is the state able to at any point uh decide that any hotel that if it wants to do it again at Chumsford in it can do that just uh or or was it only
for a certain period of time like >> you know for some two or five year period that >> my understanding is that is that CTI initially showed up back in 2015 and they've uh they've continued continued operating a a shelter of some
form since 2015 via various state contracts and extensions. So the so the vehicle here is not some some uh like act legislative act or or a an
executive >> no thing. It's just simply >> it doesn't need to be. Um, so for any any any sort of uh any so so am I correct that any structure in town anybody that could submit you know the
state could submit an RFP for that somebody like CTI could respond to. >> Yeah. So the state the state's RFPs are not uh geographic specific. >> Okay. So they they uh for shelters they normally will send out an RFP or an RFQ
um um without specific geographic locations. So the state did not propose 187. >> Okay. >> The local community- based organization did. >> Okay. >> Their contract requires um that the that
the um facility meet certain standards. >> Right. Then as you as you as you're aware, the board of health adopted emergency regulation. My understanding is the reason the board of health did that is because they either knew or came to the conclusion that the state wasn't
going to do inspections for habitability. >> That was my understanding too. >> So the board of health stepped in and and did that >> which was good on them. >> Yeah. Um, some people believe that that that served as a as a action of the town
facilitating um I think I think you and I are of the opinion that it served for protection of people who were residing there. Um, but this there's as far as I can tell, I
mean, there's there's nothing preventing the state from again if they have a compelling public interest and it's related to homelessness or solar um or uh building certain facilities and they issue RFPs and private property owners or community- based organizations
respond. uh it's essentially an extension of a of a state operations, state initiative, state services or programs. >> Yeah. In other words, no. >> And that's as simple as that. >> Now, I think though there there is a
case to be made that when the contract does run out, then the town should probably say, "Look, this needs to return to >> compliance." That makes sense. But that's not what we're facing here. Not yet. >> We don't think so. It could be.
>> It could be in June when if if the contract ends and >> the L facility is not ready yet. >> Um or the L facility falls through or something happens. That could be the
case. But even then, I don't think it's in our jurisdiction. Because I mean the CTI or whoever it was would still presumably have a contract. >> Well, not if the contract's up. >> Well, the contract, but then at that point you have people under Nope.
>> If the contract needs to be extended because the facility in Leel is not complete, I would expect that that's the case. I would be extended. Good. >> But I think if there's ever a case where the contract does end and the use continues, that may be a case where the
town maybe through the select board >> or through the zoning >> that that's almost impossible to imagine because if the contract were to run out, they'd stop paying the operation to run it. >> Well, I think in this case, >> nobody's going to do this for free. >> In this case, probably, but in other
cases, there may be some mechanism. >> I don't know. You might you might be able to dream up a >> So you're saying that this is going to always be a show? No. No. It's just going to end when these people when they move to the the other facility >> until such a time that the state issues another RFP. >> Right. Right.
>> And people respond to it and if they have the same site then >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So >> but I don't think it's anything that planning board can do. >> Yeah. Um >> particularly with this this >> I think the reason it end up it ended up
here is at a board of health meeting months ago council stated uh to a interested party that it was a land use and zoning matter so that normally a resident hears that they think planning board. Um, in between that board of health
meeting and tonight, uh, the resident engaged, uh, you know, via email with, uh, the building commissioner and the town manager, received this information and then eventually received a formal, uh, zoning letter of determination of
which um, uh, any agreved party can appeal to the zoning board. So, it's not a traditional planning board matter. >> Yeah. Is there any way we can be notified? I mean, because this is essentially a change of use on an existing property and it would be good
to be aware that that this is covered under some state, you know, use or something like that. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't see moving forward uh um I don't see a problem with notifying the uh the board. Um ideally, there would
be, you know, notification from >> Well, that's what I was going to say. Does Chumsford get notified at all like when this when this happens? >> Yeah. So, I don't >> it doesn't sound like the municipality is necessarily even considered or notified? >> I don't have the answer to that. I know that the uh the interest interested
party has repeatedly asked that question. Um my sense is that um the town had to have known because the board of health adopted emergency regulation. >> That's true. Uh and I'll also assume
that as part of that there was likely a discussion with the manager and police and fire. So I think there was general awareness. >> Okay. >> Um to what extent there was a formal zoning um question asked in 2015 and to what
extent the building commissioner at the time issued a formal uh determination. There's no evidence of any of that. >> Okay. Yeah, that would be nice to uh to be aware if >> I mean similar similar um similar uh
exemptions under do a group homes if you recall a couple years ago um that came to uh that came to light and it I think it ended up at the select board for a discussion. So, it's an example where group homes come in come into neighborhoods. There's no formal
notification. Uh they're exempt from zoning. Um and sometimes the town uh is made aware and other times we we kind of find out after the fact through a building permit application. So, it depends on the scope and scale and type
of type of exemption where the town, you know, may or may not receive formal notification. >> Yeah. I mean certainly in a case where they're building something that's easy to see but if they're going into an existing structure then there is no trigger >> you know for us to find the the zoning
wise for us to find out. >> Correct. There's usually provisions on the contract that speak to uh uh building and fire and and health codes. >> Right. Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It would be it would be just nice to know when
things like that are happening. Anything else on this topic? All right, we will move on to meeting minutes. Has everyone looked it over? >> Yes. >> I would give you a motion to approve the
meeting minutes of 114 2026 >> and everyone can vote on this since everyone was present. >> Second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? >> I unanimous. >> And I will take next meeting is February 11th. Um, Evan, what do we have? We have
um a new uh public hearing for definitive subdivision for uh 191 195 Riverneck Road. I'll email that package out to you tomorrow so you can begin reviewing it. It's gone out to departmental for departmental comment.
That, as you uh likely recall, is primarily to serve for freezing the zoning. Um however uh in this case probably worth asking the the applicant um during the hearing you know to what extent if any would this be a if
approved would this be a viable um option to advance development the proposals for three industrial lots on a um fully compliant uh new roadway. So there's no waiverss being requested. Now
there was a preliminary subdivision for this property when it was part of 191201. So what happened with >> So was I think the if if I recall the board approved it. >> Yes. >> Primarily without any major um
involvement primarily because the board knew that uh the preliminary plan in and of itself didn't serve any purpose and that it'd have to be followed up by the definitive subdivision. >> Right. that at that time he did the attorney did indicate it was pretty much
>> to freeze the zoning. >> Yeah. No, so the sec the >> So was there ever definitive? >> No. >> No. This is it. This is it. This is it. So the as I said the primary purpose is likely to freeze zoning. However, if approved, there's nothing preventing them from
building the roadway and creating three industrial. >> So this is a this is a definitive. This is not a preliminary. No, this is this is a definitive full full fully engineered storm water. >> Okay. >> Grading, utilities, roadway profile. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. So, that opens um February 11th. >> That's the only only new public hearing. >> And if I remember correctly, that this is the subdivision for just those two river >> includes the includes the single family.
>> Yeah. >> And >> and the five acre industrial. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> So, it's a proposal for three uh industrial lots. Okay. >> All right. Um so, I will take a motion
to adjurnn. >> I journ. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Good night, everyone. Thank you.