Good evening. It is 6:30 on December 10th, Wednesday. Uh, and I'm calling this meeting of the Chumpsford Planning Board to order. My name is Chris Lavali and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight, we will be following the posted agenda. The meeting tonight is both in person and via Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point
in the meeting, we will continue the meeting in person. The meeting is being televised live and being recorded by Chumsford Teledia for uh to be available on their website and on YouTube um for the future. We do have SHA on Zoom
tonight um and the rest of the board is in person. So all of our votes tonight will be roll call votes um because we do have one person on Zoom. So, first item on the agenda is public input, and that shall be limited to
statements from the public related to any issues within the jurisdiction of our board, but are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing before us. Public comment on any public hearing shall only be heard during those public hearings. Is there any from anyone from the public who wishes to
speak? Okay, there being none, we'll move on to the next agenda item. Uh the next agenda item is an administrative review item to review and ratify the decision for 1919 195 Riverneck Road uh that we voted on
last week. Um after reviewing the decision and the recording, um we're advised by town council that we also uh need to be a little bit more specific on our votes. Um we missed a couple last
meeting. Uh so we'll continue um those motions and votes tonight. First we'll be voting on the um aquafer lot coverage special permit 19574. We will be voting second on the major
business complex special permit and then third on the site plan review. Um, and going forward, I'll be a little bit more careful and deliberate with which um what the order of the votes are and um what the specific votes are that we need
to to manage for each of the hearings. >> All right. Um so Joel, would you like to make a motion for the first one? >> I move to grant the special permit for section 19574 acquirer lot coverage for 191 195 Reneck Road.
And I do want to allow board members to ask any questions of each other if we need to uh have any clarification on any of these votes. Um for this vote and special permit um it was really straightforward. Um
>> motion's been made but not seconded yet. >> I know. >> Okay, >> I'm getting there. Um so, uh do we have a second on this affirmative vote? >> I'll second. >> Okay, >> Anita. Motion by Joel, second by Anita.
Any discussion? >> So I I'm not going to vote. >> Correct. You're not voting, >> right? I'm just >> Yep. >> articulating that. >> Yep. >> All right. Um, all in favor of this motion, uh, I will take do roll call.
Mike, I >> Joel, I John, >> Anita, I >> Marcy, I sa I >> and I am an I. So that is a unanimous vote. Okay.
Um the second motion. >> I move to grant the special permit for section 19557 major business complex for 1911 195 Riverneck Road. >> And this is for the major business complex special permit. Do I hear a
second? >> I'll second. >> Motion by Joel. Second by Mike. Any discussion? Um I did want to point out on this one um there are two additional uh criteria for this special permit uh
for in the decision criteria in 1951 157. Um based on the first one, the traffic level within one mile increasing and being injurious to public safety
based on our discussion and our findings from the last meeting. Um I do think that this w this should be a uh a negative vote in my opinion because of that requirement
on this special condition. Any other comments? >> Okay, I'll take a roll call. Mike, >> well, I was an I originally, so I'll stay there. >> Mike is an I. Joel, >> I'm actually going to vote yes. >> Joel's a yes. >> John,
>> no. >> John's a no. >> No. >> Anita's a no. >> No. >> Marcy's a no. Sera >> no >> and I am a no as well. So that is was that four
five against? >> Five against. Thank you. >> All right. And then the last one is the site plan review. I move to deny the section 195104 site plan review for 191 195 Riverneck Road based on the denial
of the special permit for outdoor contractor's yard use >> and also for the denial based on the denial of the second special >> based on the also based on the denial of the major business complex. >> I'm sorry. Can you speak up? >> Yep. Uh I'll reread it. I move to deny
the section 195104 site plan review for 1919 195 Riverneck Road based on the denial of the special permit for outdoor contractor's yard use and the denial of the major business complex. >> And just to keep in mind that this is a
motion to deny. So if you want to deny, it's a vote in the affirmative. Uh motion from Joel, >> second. >> Second from John Mike. >> I'll stay consistent. So I will say no. >> Joel,
>> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Anita, >> this is a negative. So I'm a yes. >> Marcy is a yes. Sertha, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. All right. Six to one.
So the denial is upheld. Okay. Um the decision for this is attached to the meeting that the agenda um that Evan passed out.
Joel had a few edits. So it is slightly different from the version Evan sent out earlier. If you could take a look And Evan, you will add in the additional text for the votes we took tonight,
right? >> Yeah. What I've heard so far is the um site plan deny based upon the denials of the two special permits. >> Correct. channeling the board of health here. Are people okay with the edits? There was one question that I had that
had to do with fact number nine. >> Yep. And I think that had to do just with the general concept of the upper portion of the site being considered indoor or outdoor. And I presume it's outdoor because it has outdoor storage and indoor use prohibits outdoor
storage. >> Um Chris and I did have uh an email exchange on that. Um I don't recall the specifics of what the applicant presented. My recollection
uh was that the applicant intended and presented it as uh indoor and indicated that the plan that the plan shows um some outdoor areas but that was intended for like short-term temporary outdoor
storage related to deliveries and day-to-day operations. Um I think what's clear in the definition is that it refers to um indoor all heavy
heavy uh storage is to be indoors and then the the last sentence of the definition does have a a prohibition on on outdoor storage. All I can tell you is that um historically
in Shelmsford indoor contractor yards and we have several in town have been allowed to have temporary outdoor storage. So if you were to drive through any of them uh Gav KD Road Steedman I
think has one on any given day you'll see some outdoor storage. Um, and I think that's that's a from my perspective, I think that's a reasonable um operation and interpretation of of an
indoor contractor's yard. But as I said, I don't recall the specifics as to what the applicant presented. Um, as I said, my recollection was that I think there was some specific uh mention of accommodating deliveries uh during
the day. Um, an example that comes to my mind would be if you have a a plumber and they're going to be installing, let's say, you know, three, four, five water heaters in one day. Maybe they get a delivery uh or there's a small uh HVAC
contractor and they get delivery a couple pallets and those go into these these outdoor storage areas until they can be uh you know utilized during the day or within several days. Mhm. >> Um but the definition is probably one that um
needs to be cleaned up. Mhm. >> Um but the way I would interpret it is that the definition specifically uses you know it mentions heavy and for both outdoor and indoor the definition seems to be keying on uh the heavy
characteristics heavy utilization um uh heavy amounts of quantity and um in intensification. My only other comment on that is um as I indicated the applicant uh did present
it as as indoor um setting aside the whether the upper portion is indoor or outdoor. It still requires the major business complex special permit. >> Right. I think well particularly number nine was in rel I assume that you are putting
in number nine to establish that the why an outdoor contractor's yard permit was required. >> Yeah nine refers to the back >> right. No, I understand that. Yeah, but I assume that the reason you have it there at all >> is like for example,
>> if we struck it entirely, then we would essentially assume be removing the hook that says that this is a use that requires a special permit. Is that true? >> I I haven't read it carefully enough to
>> if you deem if you deem the front as outdoor, then both both buildings the entire the entirety of the project would be you'd be classifying as as >> outdoor. What I'm what I'm suggesting is that
unless unless the unless the testimony provided by the applicant was crystal clear to leave the board um to leave the board with an understanding that it was intended to be similar to uh
outdoor storage related to an outdoor contractor. My suggestion would be leave the upper building as a major business complex special permit >> and not necessarily make a definitive determination
on whether um the upper building >> transitions from indoor to outdoor. >> Yeah, that would be my preference is just to make no determination with respect to the upper building. >> That's how it was originally drafted. >> Okay. >> That it was simply major business complex because it was over 20,000
square feet. Mhm. >> And I don't think we need to deal with that issue in this decision, but I did add it to the list of things for us to clean up down the road >> for definitions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> any other questions? People okay with
the edits? can take a vote on ratifying the decision with these edits and the decisions added. We'll take a motion. >> Move to ratify the decision as written and corrected.
>> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Marcy. Mike, >> it's I. It reflects what we did. >> Joel, yes. John >> I >> Anita >> I >> uh Marcy
>> I >> Serita >> I >> and I am an I so the decision is ratified. All right. Thank you everyone. All right. Moving on to the next agenda
item. We have no new public hearings tonight. Um the Chunford Mall property um has submitted an request for withdrawal
uh without prejudice. So take a motion. >> Well, I would move that we uh grant the request to withdraw without pre uh prejudice on the Chumsford moment. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Deardra. Um,
Mike, >> I >> Joel, >> I >> John, >> I >> Anita, >> I >> dearra, >> hi. >> Marcy, >> I >> um and I am an I. Okay, next up on the agenda is the 295 Actton
Road Fire Station 5. >> Hello. >> So, just for the record, my name is Sarah. I'm an engineer with GPI. I'm here tonight on behalf of the town of Chumsford for fire station number five at 295
Actton Road. You may have remembered my colleague Christopher Broyals last time, so it's me today in case anybody's confused. Um, I just figured that I would give an update to our response to comments. I do
have the plans with me, but we did have no design changes at all associated with any of our responses. Um, but I'm happy to show those if if anybody would like to see those. Um, I'll just go through our list here. We did receive, address,
and respond to the land disturbance comments. Um, and we anticipate that will be issued shortly. We also received responded to and addressed the comments from the DPW and
from fire and we did receive letters from both departments indicating they have no further comments or questions after our responses. Um like I mentioned there are no major or any design changes associated with
any of these comments. Um, so everything that you heard at the last hearing is still the same. Um, and with that, I'm happy to take any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Evan, do you have anything to add? >> I do not. Thank you.
>> Okay. We do have updated letters from DPW and fire. >> Yeah, but they both state basically that all things have been satisfied and they're no concerns. >> Yep. All right. Um,
any questions, comments from the board? Okay, this is a public hearing, so I will give the public an opportunity to ask or comment if there are anyone wishing to speak on this. Okay.
Um so if that's the case then we can um close the public hearing. So >> I will move to close the public hearing on the uh fire station 5. >> Motion by Mike >> second. >> Second by John. >> Mike >> I >> Joel
>> I John >> I >> Anita >> I >> Dera >> I >> Marcy >> I >> and I am an I as well. So we're closing the public hearing. Um, all right. We have, I believe on
this one, we have four special permits and one sidewalk waiver to vote on. Correct. Looks like three special permits. Did I miss 21 A, 44 C, and 45?
Okay. Yeah. Yeah. The fourth one was the waiver. Um, I'm assuming we could just vote on them as a package. Okay. So, I'll
entertain a motion to vote on the special permits and the one sidewalk waiver. >> Okay. And I would move to grant the special permits under this is uh uh
19521A >> and 44 C. 44 C and 45 and to grant the sidewalk waiver. >> All right. Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by John. Mike >> I. >> Joel. >> Hi. >> John. >> I. >> Anita. >> I. >> Dearra.
>> Hi. >> Marcy. >> I. >> And I am an I. So those are approved. Uh next is the uh I will entertain a motion for approval of the site plan. I would move that we approve the site
plan for fire station 5. >> All right. Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Deerra. Mike >> I. >> Joel. >> Hi. >> John. >> I. >> Anita. >> I. >> Deerra. >> I. >> Marcy. >> I.
>> And I am an I. So site plan is approved. And so that >> that's that >> concludes that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll stay up here for the next >> next item on the agenda. 260 Old Westford Road, Fire Station 3.
>> All right. So, similar to fire station number five, we did receive comments from the land disturbance um DPW and fire and we have addressed and responded to all of those comments. We do anticipate
the land use permit will be issued shortly and similar to station 5, we received no additional comment letters from DPW and fire. And I also do want to note that we received DOH approval on
December 2nd and also approval from conservation on the notice of intent filing for work within the wetland buffer on November 25th. And additionally, we had no design changes associated with any of the
comments we received. >> To take questions. >> Do you have any addition? Okay. >> I have one question. You mentioned DO. Is that Do you mean the board of health? >> Yes. Sorry. Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions from the
board? >> All right. So, this is a public hearing. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this special this um public hearing? >> All right, there being none, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. >> I move we close the public hearing on
fire station 3. >> Motion from Mike. >> Second by Deerra. Mike >> I. >> Joel >> I. >> John >> I. >> Anita >> I. >> Deerra >> I. >> Marcy >> I. >> And I am an I. >> All right. Now for this one we have one
special permit. the lot coverage under the aquifer protection and then site plan review. >> So, I'll entertain a motion for the special permit. >> Okay. This is the 19574. >> Yep. >> Okay. I move that we grant the special permit
for fire station 5 uh per section 19574. >> Fire station three. >> Fire I'm sorry, three, excuse me. >> Second >> motion by Mike, second by Dera. I >> Mike's an I Joel >> I
>> John >> I >> Anita >> I >> Deerra >> I >> Marcy >> I >> and I am an I. >> So that is approved. >> I will entertain a motion for the site plan review. >> Yes. I move that we accept the site plan for fire station 3.
>> A second >> motion by Mike, second by Deedra. >> I >> Joel >> I. >> John >> I. >> Anita >> I. >> Deerra. >> Hi. >> Marcy >> I. and I am an I. And that is approved. >> We got two new. >> Thank you all. >> Congratulations.
>> Thank you. >> Hey chief. >> Good evening everybody. I just wanted Mr. Chairman, members of the board, just uh want to thank you on behalf of the Charleston Fire Department for your time and thoughtful consideration of these projects. I know you have a lot of stuff on your agenda, but truly thankful for
the support that we got. >> Happy holidays. >> Thank you. >> You too. Please, too. >> All right. Next up on the agenda, 133 Princeton Street. >> Good morning, M. Oh, good morning.
Been a long day. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Douglas Duchaine from Finner and Nicholson representing the applicant here. Um, we're not a new face to this board, nor is this project. However, I think after the last meeting, we really went back
and went through the project with a fine tooth comb. We made all of the changes to the site plan that needed to be done to address signage and the you recall we had um added some gas tanks in the back. I'm happy to report and Casey will give
you a rundown, but it turns out that the National Grid is in fact going to be able to provide us gas sooner than later, so we're not going to have to put the temporary tanks. And so there those are one of the changes. Um we also uh spent significant time making sure that
um all of the signage um the lettering that we had showed on our renderings, I can assure you right now that it meets every aspect of your zoning. We're not exceeding it. It's all by right signage. You'll see in case Casey will explain how things have turned out. Uh we did
put in the additional uh windows uh f some of the faux some real windows. We've adjusted doors um essentially so that the plans that we've shown to you and that we're asking you to approve are
100% reflected in the renderings. So that now we have a great idea of the exact idea of what this will look like from all angles. So uh with that I would like um Casey to uh run through it with
you. We do have our architect, we do have our uh our our engineer, our developer and um uh and the applicant is here as well. So if the board has any questions, we wanted to make sure that everybody was here to answer your questions. But I do hope that we have um
really put a bow on this. So with that, I'd like to let Casey uh show you exactly what we've done. >> All right. Uh good evening. Casey Ferrer with Hard Hudson. >> Plan do you want? >> You can go to the rendering. Just stick with the rendering.
>> Um as far as the site plan goes, I think we actually didn't touch on it at the last meeting, but the the propane tanks were gone for the last meeting. Um, we actually got notified by National Grid that they would be able to connect within the the state's moratorum. Um, so we removed the the propane tanks from
the rear and removed the landbank parking spaces. They will just go back to what they were originally intended to be, which is just uh full-time parking spaces. Um, since the last meeting, um, I know uh, one of the or you know, the big item was the,
uh, top floor there and and how it ties in and how it looks. Um the rendering has been revised to reflect the actual intention for the final construction. Um you'll see if you drive by there now there is steel that goes up to the top of the elevator shaft, but that is to
come down. Um so that was a little bit of the confusion in the first place. Um so what's reflected here is that there will be an elevation difference between the top of the elevator shaft and then the top of what we'll call that top floor there. Um, additionally, we have um included in the renderings how the
canopy over the front and then over the front doors uh will look um including with columns coming down and the support columns um we've also included that on the site plan. That's a little more detail than we usually show, but just in an effort to give you guys everything about how it will look, uh we've
provided that. Uh as Doug mentioned, we did provide signage. Now, keep in mind signage is going to be permitted separately through the ZBA if necessary. Um, we just wanted to give you all the information that we had at this time. Um, so the signage out front, there will
be one monument sign set greater than 15 ft back from the front property line. Um, that sign will be less than 40 square ft in totality. Um, additionally, there will be two signs building mounted um, in a configuration like this with
one sign on the front and one sign on the side. We are allowed a total cumulative square feet of 80 square feet of signage. Uh, this is just below that. Um, so the signage that you see on these plans um, and what you saw as a submitt for the monument sign because that
didn't go on the rendering. um is meeting your your bylaws as far as size goes and as far as setbacks go. Um I will note one change in the site plan from the last time was that this front door that you see um let me just walk in
point. So we'll call that the utility door. um just due to the configuration of the inside that utility door actually is going to act as a second means of egress for the building and as such we wanted to provide it with ADA accommodations.
So we've added a ramp that goes uh adjacent to the building up there just to get it back out to the sidewalk and out to the parking lot. Um so it's a minor change has handrails with it with a step that goes adjacent to it in case you don't need the ramp. Um but that covers the changes. Uh Chris, I wanted
to address one of your questions from last time. the landscaping. All the landscaping is there. We moved a tree from the location of the monument sign just to the other side of the driveway. >> Okay. >> And that should be it. >> All right. Evan, do you have any
>> I do not add >> any questions from the board comments? >> How tall are the um go in? I believe when they're purchased they're
six to eight feet. >> Scrolling. >> The landscape plan should show. >> And what's the purpose of the up back? So it goes up there. It's covered. Is the covered area where you're doing
the wine tasting? >> That will allow uh B, do you want to come up and answer? >> Yeah, the outside deck area. >> You can see it on the bottom one there. Nothing is planned right now, nor have we sought to modify our liquor permits
to allow that to even happen. So, if if we do intend to utilize that space and we will have to come back to the uh board of selectment to make sure that the uh legal license is allows us to do
that. They do have discretion on whether or not they want >> Yeah. So why do we have that? I guess like why would you build back there when you can't utilize it until you get this liquor license and that would be the plan
>> because right now it also acts as a means of egress for the elevator that has to get up to the top as well. So rather than having a doghouse they have to come up with built a structure over it to provide accommodation up at the top >> with the elevator. Say that again. >> The elevator has access to the top. Um,
so what we're doing essentially is building a shelter around the elevator up there rather than having a staircase with the doghouse at the top, which would be basically doors that open horizontally over and you climb up and out. Um, so it's just building a structure around that to create that kind of sheltered structure up there for
that. Now, this would be a secondary use if the board of selectman were to modify their license. I know one of the things you want. >> Yeah. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. Jim Jokus, the architect. Um, we started this back in 2017 and the intent was always to have because it's a family-owned business and husband and wife are there all day and
then they sometimes flip-flop. The wife has a lemon tree. She wants a lemon tree to stay there. So, they spend time away from the work but still on site. And there's a lot of um space up there
for her plants and for them to just chill out, a place to go and just chill out. That was always the original intent of it. And per code, you're not allowed to have more than 29 people up there.
um and whatever future use. Yes, there was always talk about tastings, but once again, that's not a permitted thing. So, >> that's the employee. That was the original intent because it's a family-owned business. They spend a lot
of time there, 14 hours a day. >> Um, and that's all I can really elaborate on that. Okay. Okay. That's the first time. That's a new one. >> It's really not. I mean, I've done tons
of restaurants and tons and there's always a chair in the back where they just chill out and >> relax. That's fine, but like it's new to us from all the other meetings. >> Yeah. That it was going to be used for a tasting, >> right? And now >> And the question like was that on the original plans that you came to the
board with upper >> deck? Yeah. He literally had drawings of the lemon tree and the other plants that were going to be up there >> on the upper deck for the original plants that were approved. >> Um, >> they weren't approved. >> They weren't approved. Those
>> No, no, no. I'm talking I reiteration. >> I don't want to get this into a tangent where we don't um >> want to go. But to answer her question, >> yes, I do not
>> original plan that was approved. This was not up there. >> I'm going to have to check. >> Not not the planning board approval. Correct. >> Correct. Not the what the planning board approved. >> Correct. >> This third floor was not there. >> Correct. The third floor was not there.
>> Was there another area for these plants? >> No, there was no there was no >> there was no talk about employee break rooms or anything. >> The original plans were approved. No. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. I just want to make sure because this is again something totally new.
>> Yeah. You >> I I I'm not going to speak to whether it was on the original plans because I don't believe it was. Um but rather um as you know it has come into the fold first in the in the consequence of you
know putting the elevator shaft and finding out that the elevator shaft had to go all the way up and we put the elevator shaft worked with um Jose on that to make sure that we weren't violating any any vi uh height reg uh regulations. So
then um again as it was stated earlier yeah I you know when you when you have an elevator come up to the a third floor like that a roof you you you generally don't have you know you step out into the world you know there's usually an enclosure to step out. Correct. >> Correct.
>> So that's where we put the original steel frame was intended to be but as has been shown and we are taking it down. that steel went up to the same height as the top of the elevator and and was
therefore too high. Although the elevator shaft could be that additional few feet, the the steel structure of the building could not. So, um we are intending right to be taking down the steel frame that you see up there today
so that it's reduced down to the level um that you see here. I know another concern that we've talked about over the last few months was the visual impact of this birdhouse, dog house, >> deck, tasting room.
>> Um, and so we, you know, I we've been working with our architect and our renderer to make sure that what this picture shows you is representative of me driving by the site.
and his term of driving, you know, towards um the Rotary. Um and this is where our um our neighbor, the auto dealer, is I just want to point out that
this is actually on that back side of the building. So, it's not on his side of the building. rather you can see it here more prominently as you're coming from Drum Hill and by um the restaurant.
This is what faces their side. So really from the side view they can see this. Our auto dealer um neighbor cannot. The angle's just too much and it's set too far
from the front. Um, yeah, this one, you know, given the setback and the angles, you you can't see it from the front. The most prominent view, obviously, is from the rear, and this is what you can see. And
now, this deck faces the rear parking lot and whatever's back there behind us. So, while the genesis of this has been questionable and uh I do apologize for that, um we have backpedal to try and
not only show that it meets all of your dimensional requirements, it's going to satisfy our our need for the elevator exit. And as I'm hearing tonight, um you know, our clients originally um wanted to use that more so as a a rest area,
but I do believe in their business plan in the last over the last six months. It came became obvious, you know, that might be a great place for some um tastings in the spring. But again, we're not asking you to permit that or to allow it. We would have to
get other permits to do that. We're asking you to consider this structural proposal while it meets the um your bylaws does not, you know, was not the approved plan, which is why we're in here for a modification.
>> Sorry we didn't go about it very well. But I I think we really in the last couple weeks have spent a lot of time trying to make this look good. I mean, personally, can I go to the front view again? I think with the addition of the the you
know the windows that we had eliminated and these these um 20s I'm believing this is starting to look pretty nice. Um certainly doesn't look like a warehouse. Certainly doesn't look like a
you know a block building with with no windows. Um, and I hope you guys agree we we've tried to enhance, you know, make sure that we're meeting all our requirements on the landscaping and in the parking lot and and despite putting these, we made sure that we had plenty
of room for plants that would grow and and, you know, thrive in that area. And I just I honestly think it it makes for a um attractive building. Um, and I don't think the physical changes we've made, um, you know, like the adding the a
handicap here and making sure we had a I know we added, um, a little, uh, little step off the back door up the back. So, again, we we've really gone through every aspect to make sure that we're consistent with fire and safety, egress,
handicap, and everything else. and my client will obviously uh we are committed to um delivering this building to the time ch um as proposed. So I appreciate your time and energy. I apologize this has been a a long one. Um
but I think we're there or I hope we're there. Thank you. So you said you >> can you pull the mic >> say this doesn't get approved for the entertainment license
and this is a break area you're saying >> private private >> okay we can't >> my mother has a lemon tree can't grow a lemon tree so this is going to be enclosed >> no no no it's open deck >> open deck >> open deck >> so we're talking summer season Okay.
>> Non- enclosed, no heat, no windows. I have a question on the sign rendering, the um facade sign rendering. >> I'm assuming that this rendering is not intended to be accurate other than for
the sign. signed sign accuracy only. Okay, because this is not what I'm seeing in the rendering on the other page. It's missing some windows. The columns are
not here. So, this is just for the sign. >> Oh, right. Yes. >> The Yeah. So, this is the building that the sign guy has been working on for >> a couple months. So, this is just an old elevation that you guys have seen in the past, but this is just what he's been working on to produce the signage. So,
the signage is the only thing, you know, height, length, everything's accurate on >> Okay. Thank you. >> I did want to also point out that while that back structure is not visible from the street level at the neighbors, it is
extremely visible from the road in either direction. because the road is higher and it dips. So, it is extremely visible from both directions because it towers over the neighbors. So,
>> we we did keep it under 35 ft. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yes. >> Um, what is the proposed lighting for that upper deck area that you have? because I'm curious how the lighting is going to be blocked from the neighbors
and everything else around there to be disturbing them if they're on at night for the roof. >> Yeah, they they'll they would be ceiling mount ceiling mounted lights, you know, like can lights. They would likely be mounted in the upper.
>> Sorry, I can't see what you're pointing at, but >> I can see the pointer. If you can see the um you know the deck the open deck with the roof >> the lights would be in the roof you know in the ceiling
>> other than what's the >> cans coming straight down there wouldn't be any wall mounted no no spotlights no anything >> is that the is that the only spot that the tasting would be with be within that little fenced in area that I see there >> the only area we have up there yes
>> okay so the rest is a regular roof it's just because I I don't see any pictures of the top portion So >> yeah, the rest of it's just roof flat roof. >> Yeah. >> So how big how big is that decking? square footage.
>> Oh yeah, just in >> in the um the structure for the um elevator square. >> Members of the board, my name is Bob France. some with MTL construction. So
the enclosure at the elevator vestibule and at the stair um egress enclosure is approximately 900 square ft. The balcony is an addition to that and that's approximately 400 ft.
>> And the balcony portion is outside of that enclosed area is what you're saying. I'm trying to understand how much >> it's not. Do you guys have any view looking down of what the upper portion looks like? >> Uh from the roof from >> drone >> up drone level. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Um we do have a plan but it's not it's part of the building plan. The um approved building construction plans. >> Does it show that at top? >> I'm sorry. >> Does it show the top?
>> It does show the top from a a um elevated um plan view. So what you see basically is just uh squares and rectangles um that are representing you know the structures. >> Okay. I guess I'm I'm just not it's not
clear to me how much space up there is that's going to be for the deck. I understand what the square footage is, but I'm trying to understand what it looks like. >> Just to give you a little scale, um the entirety of the building is about 12,000 square feet uh in footprint. So the addition of the 900 for the elevator
vestibule plus 400 for the um for the deck area would be about 1300. So a 12th of the of the roof area. A little more than a 12 there. Yeah. >> And the elevator vestibule isn't big enough for any event to happen inside.
It would all be outside. >> Have a family picnic. the as Bob France entail construction. So the answer to your question is there is room for people to be inside but you know the intent is to you know have these events
primarily in that balcony area. >> Okay. >> And the vestibule of the elevator and and the stairwell is is there primarily for access. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. It's not just me hearing that.
>> I don't know. It happens all the time. Um, all right. Any other questions or comments from the board? Okay. This is a public hearing, so um, are there any members of the public who wish to speak?
Come right up to the microphone. Please state your name and address. I don't know this somebody's paper. >> Oh, sorry. >> It's okay. Um, Linda Jet, 217 Princeton Street, North Chid. Um, nice pictures, but to me, I'm sorry
it doesn't give me a clear view of what we're looking at. I was down there today in in the um Princeton station parking lot looking at all this, and you're right. You drive on the street, you can see it. I'm not sure. This is just the signage up here.
>> Could you come to the microphone? We can use the pointer over here. >> Okay. So, he answered my question. That's just a sign. >> Yeah. >> So, these pictures don't even show what we're looking at. The little doghouse and the balcony. Nice pictures. Very confusing
to me. They're very hiding. Um, so I've been told that the second floor is for storage. So when you have your little wine tasting thing, how would that work? They get their wine down on the first floor and they go up the elevator with their
little cup. This just doesn't seem like it's I don't know. I don't know what to say about this. It's just, you know, when I tell people what's going on, I report back to them, "Oh, they change the windows." And people look at me like, "Yeah, that's
it." I said, "Yeah, that's supposed to look, I guess, make it look, I mean, might look make it look prettier, but it doesn't make it look smaller or anything. I know that ship has sailed, but um I'm just very concerned of what's going to go on that second floor. Like, are
they um going to be distributing beer and wine to other places?" No, >> they don't have a license for that. >> So, >> so Mr. V and I talked on the phone. Was that yesterday or yesterday? And he said
he wanted it to be like the establishment, right? You said you wanted this to be like the establishment. >> No, I said the building is the same size as small. >> It's smaller than >> the school. >> It's smaller than the establishment. Is that what you were saying? Okay.
>> We were on the phone so it was kind of hard to Um, so your beer and wine and all that is just for your usage. You're not going to be spreading it out. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And
so they have to have another license if they're going to start like having drinking parties and all that stuff, you know, entertaining. Yeah. Okay. >> They have to go. They I'm up here. >> Whoops. I know >> I know the speakers often confuse it. Um they would have to go before the uh
select board to adjust or amend their liquor license um in order to do any of that or to distribute or anything like that. >> Okay. >> Yes, it would be a public hearing as well. >> Okay.
>> For that license change. >> I'll tell you what I'm really afraid of. I'm afraid of that turning into something like that with the lick license and and um and I'm mostly afraid of, you know, there's four liquor stores in
the area if he doesn't do well there, which, you know, that's a big building to support. If he doesn't do well there is he he probably come back and ask for other licenses. Um, hey, I'm, you know, maybe I'm crazy, but
I'm just nervous about what is the biggest money-making thing in this town right now that people want is cannabis place. We've already voted it no in Chumsford. I'm afraid that that's going to turn into the second floor. That's my biggest fear. >> Well, it can't because it's not allowed
in Chry. >> But if they went to the select board, we've already voted it down once in CH. It would have to go. It would have to go before a town meeting. >> Tell me. But what if it passed? >> Yeah. >> And it passed. >> It's a Just tell me. Is it a possibility? >> Yes.
>> That's all. That's my biggest fear. >> Because that's where the money is right now. And everybody gets so greedy. That's where the money is. And we And I can't believe Cha even put it on a ballot to to have a cannabis store in this town.
People don't pay attention to this. stick to this project because the this is not a cannabis store. >> I know. Is there any way to make them say that that will never happen? No. That's what my question is. >> No. >> No. Okay. That's where my fears are and
that's what my question was. So they can come back to the board and have that passed. Okay. Well, I put it out there. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak? All right.
>> I have a question. >> Yeah. >> So, if they decide to distribute, does it come back in front of the planning board? Different use >> because they would have to get a license for that.
>> Likely it would have to come back. >> I I mean, I don't I don't I don't I'm not just not familiar with the scope and scale of what the options are for distribution license. >> I don't even know what that means. Are they distributing to other businesses they own or to any any liquor store?
Um, I would say that if the scope and scale changes the substantially materially changes the traffic study or the physical approved layout that that would require a modification. >> But I mean from retail sales to to
wholesale sales is a different it's a change of use, right? We don't, you know, strangely enough, our bylaw doesn't mention wholesale at all. Um, it's treated just it's treated like retail, but I'm referring to the kind of the operations and functionality.
So, if they're if they're if they're wholesaling permit is going to trigger a new loading dock or a second loading dock or a fleet of a fleet of vans or trucks. In my in my estimation, that'd be a
material change to what the planning board approved. >> But if the use changed without them needing to change any structure, >> I don't think this would I don't think I I don't think this would be a use change if they were if they were able to get a
a license through ABCC for distribution. From a zoning perspective, what we would normally do, the methodology would be what percentage of the building, what what square footage of the building is dedicated to distribution compared to retail.
>> So that's what that's what I'm saying. >> So distribution storage distribution storage as opposed to retail storage. >> Yes. Yeah. >> So can we put it as a condition? >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean you can certainly put as a condition of this approval
um I if if and when there's any uh changes uh changes or permits issued through the ABCC process related to distribution that that has to come back to the
planning board for for review. Um I I just don't have a good feel for what the what the options are. >> Yeah, I that makes sense. I'm not even sure of the legality. I just don't just not familiar with it. >> It would make it would make a little bit of sense to me
>> if the law allowed for distribution to other stores that the proprietor owned. >> I'm not sure if the law allows for based on my >> review it doesn't. Right.
But this is really large and this lot of storage and I just want to make sure even I don't want it to be a hub that's distributing to other stores that they're owning like this like I want to make sure we put a condition in there that
says that or it has to come back in front of the planning board. >> Good evening. David Keel. I'm an attorney in Chumsford. V's personal attorney and I was involved in the licensing that he have. Um I I guess the discussion is somewhat kind of caught me
off guard because when we initially applied for the license, one of the advantages that any um retail store has is bulk rate purchasing and the size of the store is just simply designed so that V can buy in volume to offer a
lower price for the consumer. >> That is the whole purpose of that. with respect to um the this license or or somehow he being allowed to sell wholesale complete violation of the liquor license that V has. He has a retail liquor license. Um you would you
would be completely changing the entire stroke uh um scope rather of the liquor license. We'd have to go before the uh uh selectman. We'd have to go before the ABCCC there. it would completely change the structure and that has never been the
intent. Um the intent from day one when we uh came before the board of selectman was to provide a large liquor store which allowed him to have as much storage as possible to provide the best prices for the consumer. >> So this this discussion kind of turn >> so you wouldn't have a problem then with
us putting in that in as a condition. >> We have we well first off we have no intent of doing that but it's a condition anyways. We we would we would have to for us to change it, we would have to go before all the boards that are applicable. >> Okay. Well, then then that's the answer.
Then yes, we'll put that in as a condition. And >> but I mean it probably is redundant, but >> but I just want to make sure because they were also not supposed to add a third floor based off of >> what was approved. >> What was approved and they still did that. So I just want to make sure. I don't want any loopholes. I don't want
any changes. Okay. It's all right. You know, I'm going off of history. You can accept that. >> Yeah. You No, you have to. We have to do that anyways. So, if that's what you'd like to throw in, we would have no objection because we'd have to do that anyways. >> Okay. Fine. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions or comments from the board? >> Anything else from the applicant? >> Okay. At this point, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. >> Motion for Mike. >> Second.
>> Second by DeRra. Um Mike >> I. >> Joel >> I. >> John >> I. >> Anita >> I. >> Dearra >> I. >> Marcy >> I. >> All right. Public hearing is and I'm an I. Public hearing is closed.
Um at this point I will take a motion and then we will discuss that motion. Okay. Now what what we have here we have a site plan. >> It would be a major it would be a motion
to accept the major modification of the sead special permit and site plan. >> Correct. >> Was it a modification to the sead special permit or just a modification of the site plan? >> Both. >> Both.
>> Okay. In that case, I would uh move to uh approve the sead special permit >> major modification >> for maj for major modification. >> Okay.
For the sead special permit and the site plan. >> You want a separate motion for that or the same? >> Together. >> Together. >> Okay. And uh to approve the site plan as modified. >> Okay. Motion for Mike.
>> Second by DeRo. >> Yes. >> With the condition of the distribution. >> No. No wholesaling. >> No wholesaling. No distribution. >> No distribution. >> Period. Like even to other >> I think even owned like even if they own
the other liquor stores no distribution >> and any that triggered an APC or what is it called? >> The LPC. >> Okay. Um would also trigger a requirement to return to us.
>> So it would be a major modification with those two special conditions. >> First one is no distribution. >> What's the second one? >> That any changes to the liquor license would also come before us to determine impact. use.
>> Change of use. >> Are we including the uh tasting room as part of that or is it assumed that? >> Well, that's the question. Right now, it's we've been told it's going to be a tasting room. We've also been told it's a staff break room. So, >> but the staff break room wouldn't require any permanent
>> rights. But what is it going to be? Because we've been told >> a tasting room. They have to go back to the select board but not probably to the >> my question is let's assume does this second condition contemplate that if the select board approves it that it has to
now come back to the plan >> no because I think that that was the intent of this understood understood >> all right so any any future ABC changes >> ABCC future changes future modifications
>> any discussion on this thoughts. I just want to mention that I'm probably going to be a no on this. Um because the sheer scale of this change
is huge. And to me, it's an unreasonable departure from the character scale and materials of buildings in the vicinity as viewed from public ways. As I mentioned, this
thing towers over the neighbors. Um, and that third floor makes it even worse. >> Yeah, I was just in the neighborhood over the weekend at the Mahonies and you can see that third floor coming from both directions. It is very noticeable
from the street. Um, and to me it's just you came, you got a plan approved and now we've changed it without the permission. I'm not want to be like, oh, I'm sorry I did it just to prove it anyways. Like, you know, it's going backwards and it's just sets a precedence of it's going to be we do it
for you. We everyone else is going to start to think the same way. So, that's just my thinking on that. Any other thoughts? >> That third floor is a big big deal.
>> Not and again, I don't there's not a lot of trust here. >> Well, if I could, Mr. Chairman, >> we close the public hearing. You mention something. >> No, I was just agreeing with you.
>> All right. Um All right. At this point, we will take that vote. Mike >> I >> Joel >> I >> John >> I. >> Anita >> no. >> Deerra >> I. >> Marcy >> no. >> And I am an O. So it does pass. Um
needed a simple majority. Um, so thank you everyone. >> Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. >> Okay, the next item on the agenda is 152 Steedman.
>> Good evening. Um Bruce Asco with Langden Environmental and um I just want to give you a quick update about what's happened since last time I was here a month ago or so. Uh there are sort of three items that we're trying to um to to address and come back to the board. First one is
oh I'm sorry I'm joined by Anthony Shaw from Progeneration um out there. So, uh, tonight if you have any questions for him, uh, the three questions were, uh, a fire a hydrant test with the fire department and submitting some plans to them. Uh, those plans were submitted a
couple weeks ago and the fire department wrote back that and and Evan, correct me if I'm wrong, they they wrote back that everything was was uh, fine with that uh, out there. The second the second item was we went to the conservation commission and last night they closed their hearing uh and voted to issue an
order of conditions uh along with a and the only special condition that's probably uh relevant to you is that they they voted to incorporate a third-party review by a you know consultant hired by the town and paid for by the proponent
during construction. Um you obviously for the conservation commission will primarily focus on erosion controls and storm water type issues but I think that you know we would certainly expect that same consultant um and Weston Samson's been working uh for the town on this
already. The same consultant to you look at the same issues the site plan and sort of the technical issues that are out there. Um and then the third issue was we uh addressed all of Weston Samson's comments. They had two sets of comments. one on storm water um which would you know sort of more for the
conservation commission and the planning board but also the site plan um approval. So we've addressed all their comments. We've given an updated set of plans um and have you know moved everything forward and and uh out there
um Evan did provide a draft of a um some conditions potential conditions for the board's consideration. Uh we did mark that up. Um we it did include things like the uh the payment of the back taxes and um a couple other things that
discussed during prior uh hearings, but it also included um a condition where we have an you know we have a the project team has an environmental monitor that reports weekly to the planning board and the conservation commission. Um and then
it had a condition um proposed that about a sort of another person who's going to report on a daily basis out there. I think that the uh that the only change I would suggest is to incorporate that idea of hiring the third party
consultant into that um into you know into that rewritten condition out there to cover both the uh planning board and the conservation commission's requirements there. So with that, I can answer any other qu any questions or discuss anything further.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um what he was referring to last night at Concom was that um they mentioned a potential third-party monitor um that Concom will likely be adding into their conditions.
Um trying to get I think Weston and Samson to be that monitor. um to work with the environmental monitor from the applicant to make sure that everything is being followed. So it would be the town's town's monitor. Um so we can add
that to our conditions essentially referring to the concomitor hired by the town. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? comments. Evan, do you have anything else? >> I do not. >> Okay. Um,
>> what is the HCC? >> Oh, >> that is probably a typo because I stole that from the Haveral Conservation Commission. So, I probably I need to do a little bit of word searching and changing out here. So,
>> so obviously we'll want to change that. >> Yeah. Second line of a 12A >> occurs at least two different. >> Oh, does it? >> I apologize. I thought I caught all those up there. So, >> I only saw one. It's also at the Yeah.
Well, you're right. It is a just in multiple places. >> Yeah. No, I probably did. I I probably didn't get the, you know, the track changes. >> Evan, do you have that change? >> I'm looking for it somewhere in 12. You said >> 12. 12 A. It occurs twice. Once at the
beginning and once at the end. >> Okay. Any other questions? Evan, members of the public, this is a public hearing. So, are there any members of the public who wish to speak? None. Okay.
All right. Um, so at this point I will take a motion to close the public >> public hearing. So moved. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Marcy. Mike >> I. >> Joel. >> Hi. >> John. >> I. >> Anita. >> I.
>> Deerro. >> Hi. >> Marcy. >> I. >> And I am an I. So we've closed the public hearing >> and I will take a motion. Actually, there was there was one more thing I I forgot emailed it to Evan. I forgot to mention it that I wanted to
include that as a condition the well we state as a fact uh fact I think that there are no hazardous materials are going to be used or disposed of or whatever and that we also put that as a condition as well. So >> harmless enough.
>> Yeah. Fact number uh 11 11 >> 11. Okay. >> Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. I just removed that. >> Okay.
So, we'll add that in as a special condition as well. All right. Um, so I'll take a motion to approve this zoning permit. >> I would move that we approve the permit for uh 152 Sedman Street uh per article
13A uh commercial solar photovoltaic facility. >> Okay. >> Are there any other uh >> any others that need to be dealt with? Just that one. >> That's it. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. and subject to the to the
changes that have suggested >> special conditions. >> Second by Anita. Any discussion? >> I >> Mike is an I Joel >> Hi. >> John >> I >> Anita >> I >> Deardra >> I
>> Marcy >> I >> and I am an I. >> I have a quick question. This is maybe out of turn. I can't ask it, but I'm just curious how many homes this power generated basically power >> I do you have any I'll let Anthony try to answer that question a little bit
better than me. Thank you very much >> chairman board Anthony Shaw. Um a system of this size it's actually interesting. I was uh received an email from Mr. Cohen um today. Uh the city of Chelmsford currently purchases about six
megawatts of capacity. Our system is about 5.3. Um so it basically represents the same power that the city of Chelmsford uses for the city of Chelmsford's buildings. >> Thank you. No problem. >> It's a lot of juice.
>> We sent you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I was going to say something about it. >> It's a long night. >> Well, I'm already speaking out of turn. Might as well keep it up. >> All right. Community development
report. >> Okay. Thank you. I've got two items to update the board on tonight. First one is the aquafer gap analysis. Um several weeks ago, staff met uh for the second time uh with the consultant
uh to review his uh final draft memo. Um the next step in this process uh will be the uh what what we discussed was having a uh a group meeting of the planning board, conservation uh board of health.
Uh that meeting would be called by the town manager. Uh the consultant would be um available to present um and answer uh questions. Second uh item is uh related to the managed growth strategy.
>> Evan, before you move on to that, is that going to be a meeting in the new year, I'm assuming? >> Yeah, likely be in January. That's what we're targeting. on the mana's growth strategy. I had indicated uh at the last meeting that uh I was engaged with NIMCOG.
Uh so what has taken place um over the last uh 30 to 45 days is NIMCOG issued a a very specific uh request for uh grant assistance. uh we submitted an application
uh indicating um uh we'd like NIMCOG's request based upon the the failed attempt with the state grant. So NIMCOG, I met with them last week. uh they've allocated $6,500 uh between now and June uh to engage
with the uh likely the task force andor planning board uh to develop a detailed scope of services and associated budget. I've indicated to Nimcog that uh at this time the town's preference is to
contract directly with NIMCOG um to leverage their uh you know leverage their services. Um so they are preparing to uh meet with I think the task force um sometime in
January to kick that process off. They anticipate uh three meetings with the task force. Uh and again this is just for uh developing the scope uh and associated budget. Um as the board knows
the strategic plan calls for the managed growth strate strategy to be completed by the end of calendar year 28. So uh that provides ample time. >> Okay. >> That's all I have.
Yeah, and I think working through the task force would be perfect at this point. >> All right, speaking of task force, any updates from John and Mike? >> Just we'll talk after this, but um well,
we're targeting, you know, at right at the end of October when we was going to start kicking everything off. Um November was just an extremely hectic month into December uh for various reasons. Um I will verify soon with the clerk that everyone was sworn in and
then I think we would like to target as Evan said January it makes the most sense because with planning board we're trying to work around we need to work around the conservation commission meetings because we have a conservation member. So I think it would make sense to either do one of the Tuesdays that's
opposite Yeah. the conservation schedule. >> Okay. >> And I'll try to work with Mike and Evan to get that the kickoff meeting going in January. >> Sounds good. >> Yep. >> Thank you. And I I will note that a number of uh uh members of that group
have sworn in. I have sworn in. You've probably sworn in. I know Miss Arowway has sworn in. >> Okay. >> So, we're getting there. >> Excellent. Evan, do you have any updates on Jackson Road?
Um the work uh the work in which the planning board uh released the bond that work uh was successfully completed on time and um at the with the satisfaction of DPW.
Uh at this point um the items that remain uh to be completed are the asbuilts, the street acceptance plans, the associated legal documents.
Um once the developer submits those, DPW reviews them. If DPW determines that they're complete, they'll then DPW will then bring them to the planning board. ask the planning board um for their recommendation to go to town meeting to
ask town meeting to accept the roadway. They'll do the same with the slot board. We've been through this process before, some of you may may recall. Uh so it could be on the spring town meeting, but that will require the developer to uh you know make those submissions in a
timely manner. Okay. Thank you. So, it sounds like the work itself is done. It's just now paperwork and >> correct. >> Okay. Excellent. >> That's good news. >> All right. Um, also I just want to let
the board know that um we did get the updated plans from 10 Independence Drive. They were acceptable. Um they included the bus stop, the sidewalks, all of the no snow areas, the snow plans in the on&m and everything. So um I did
sign off on the decision. >> Yep. >> Um all right. Before we get to new business, any liaison updates? Uh well, I did go to
the uh uh historical commission uh last night. In fact, uh most of it's not wildly relevant to what we do, but what is interesting is apparently the state's getting to work now on uh doing some major work through Vinyl Square. Now
they're talking about bike lanes, uh increased uh uh sidewalk, etc., etc., etc. How the heck they're going to stuff all of that >> through the bottleneck of Vinyl Square
is a bit beyond me, but uh we're not at the point where there are any formal plans that I've seen. Have you seen anything? >> Um there's detailed conceptual plans. This effort is being uh presented through the vinyl square strategic plan committee.
Um DPW um is working with consultants. Uh in fact, I think it was the last town meeting where town meeting appropriated an additional I think it was $300,000 to bring this to 25% design. That's a
requirement for the mass dot uh public hearing to take place. um high level uh it's basically um existing curb to curb. >> Yeah. >> Uh there's no dedicated bike lanes.
They're basically on street bike lanes. Um there's some removal of of I think nine upwards of nine existing on street parking spaces. Um there's a couple I think there's one road maybe two roads that are proposed to be deadended
uh to improve circulation and traffic um signalization. Um and then there's some um uh bumpouts and green green areas that are introduced. Uh this is an effort that was identified in the vinyl square master plan from
2013. uh and the committee uh probably about five years ago submitted a a grant with NIMCOG to um kind of do the initial concept plans. Um so it's it's a major undertaking
uh but the town appears to be fully committed to it. Um and it is programmed uh I think in the 20 29 or 30 transportation yeah state transportation plan. Okay.
Any other leazison on updates? >> Um, board of health uh and um they considered fire station number three and they waved to the hydrog study because that was the case where it was a zone two but they were not doing any
infiltration. So it was very reasonable move on their part. Um they also considered both fire stations uh and um had a couple of other things but they had a hearing on Schumpsford in uh they had also addressed this in their
previous meeting and that was what I was going to address at our last planning board meeting but I deferred until this planning board meeting. Uh so they actually had a hearing on it. Basically the use of Chunford in not as a hotel but as a more longer term stay. uh
basically operating as a shelter or something like a shelter uh being operated by Community Teamwork Incorporated or CTI. And the way that the board of health got involved was that when this use first started, which was at the behest of the state to
provide um housing um that uh they were not simultaneously also ensuring that health regulations were being met. So, the Chumpsford uh Board of Health passed an emergency regulation in order to be able to or or agreed on exactly how it
came out and how it became agreed to and whether there's a hearing for it and so forth is in question. But nonetheless, there's a regulation they've been operating under uh in order to ensure that uh health regulations are being met. And in fact, there was a recent thing recently where they had to chford
had to get a couple of rooms uh fixed in order to comply. Uh so this was brought up as an issue uh with the board of health which is is really more I think it was generally agreed uh including town council was there supporting uh the
board of health that this is really more of a zoning issue and that's why I thought it was appropriate for this board to be aware of it. Now CTI is working on a building in Lel. They actually have it, but they're conditioning it for moving then their
population which is currently chumpsford in to Leel in June of 2026. Uh and so in my mind there's a question of you know does this board want to take any sort of action with respect to that? um whether we want to wait and see,
whether we just want to, you know, make sure that the owner of the hotel, which is who is Patel, I believe, um that we're aware of this and that we would want to see it conform to zoning. Um you know, any number of options or things that we could consider. So, I think it's
something that we want to discuss at some point. Uh but nonetheless, I wanted to make you aware that uh one that the board of health is is doesn't have any say about its use, but does uh at least is still ensuring that it's being operated in conformance with health
regulations and that CTI at least is planning to be out of that building in 2026. Of course, what happens after that, I don't know. So that's the board of health. >> So am I correct? Would it be a appropriate restatement of what you said that when they made the change from a
hotel use to a emergency transitional housing or whatever it is that that was a change of use and that should have come to us as a change of use and didn't and now we're just kind of finding out. Is that right? >> My my understanding and I I haven't
researched this personally myself but my understanding is that it was something that the state was specifically allowing by emergency regulation. >> Okay. But that has since expired. >> And so that's what I think makes it more of an issue in terms of now there isn't
that sort of justification for being in violation of what what is normally the zoning there. And so yeah. So >> so the um >> Evans Evan's aware of this as well. Um the building commissioners looked into this and this has been discussed at our Wednesday meetings for an extended
period of time uh because it it takes up a lot of town resources as you can imagine. Um and the uh the resident who petitioned the the board of health uh was al has also been engaged uh with the building commissioner
and it's my understanding that the building commissioner has informed uh the resident uh that uh it's an exempt use as a do use um and while the the planning board's experience with do uses is uh recently
been with um uh child daycarees is um the do use uh well first there's state uses are exempt. So above and beyond do uses state uses are exempt. Uh, and so
without doing a a full deep dive, as Joel's suggesting, what it what appears to have occurred is back in 2015, the state issued a an initial request for proposals. CTI
made an application to the state in response to this uh and was awarded in response to CTI getting an award to operate uh some sort of shelter there, the board of health adopted emergency regulations because they knew the state
wasn't going to uh guarantee the habitability. Uh so the fact that the that CTI initially operated there in 2015 via a state program
uh very likely qualifies as a as a stateex exempt use as a state licensed facility. >> Uh and I think that's likely where it begins and ends. the notion that CTI doesn't may not have a state license in
2025, you know, is the town really going to initiate zoning enforcement um on those under those circumstances. My understanding is that the town has essentially said it started the use
initiated uh as a as a state license use uh which is exempt from local zoning um and has continued uh in the same fashion uh up until you know today as we as we speak. So that's
my that's my understanding as to as to how this evolved and where the town's uh position is. Uh, as Joel me mentioned, the town is well aware in making its determination that CTI's indicated that their goal is to be out of there by June
or July of 26. >> So maybe that maybe that plays into some of the, >> you know, some of the uh discussion as to, you know, is this is this is this more of a long-term uh uh situation beyond uh 2025 2026.
Uh but all indications are that after 10 years it's likely going to um um dissolve from that location. >> And yeah, that that was my interest in in discussing it, you know, when it's on
the agenda. um is is because uh and not so much for what's existing there now, but what potentially could happen in the future. And to what degree we want to exercise our you know what whatever control we have over ensuring that the
state doesn't again without at least us finding finding ways in which we you know can exercise our own home rule as opposed to having the state overrule that uh with its own ideas of what we should be doing. uh I'm interested in uh
not continuing that without at least giving it some attention and some thought about what we would do. So let's just put it on the agenda for the January meeting if we could just >> Can I ask did you So you said a state use such as was um accepted from the
state for CTI is exempt but you also said is it do use is overuse now? >> So um many shelters um offer um support services.
So, it's not it's not out of the realm of possibility that those support services would qualify as as part of a do use, >> but in this case, the starting the starting and ending point for a zoning analysis is as a state license facility.
And when you go into, you know, some of the uh the state the state zoning act and some of the uh notations, there's not a lot of case law on it. Um but the literature essentially says that
uh where the state identifies a compelling public interest >> uh it is a it is an action of the state and so the state can then create programs and issue licenses to vendors to provide services that the
state deems as you know a compelling public interest. This is this is essentially what that what that is. Do they have a license? >> CTI initially had a license. There's there's been some discussion that may they may not have a license now. >> Yeah.
>> So, let's dig deeper into this and have that discussion in January. >> All right. Um, >> yeah. >> I was just going to mention u I have I'll be attending a NIMC card meeting next Wednesday on the 17th.
>> Okay. >> DBA was fairly late. All they had was um a couple of applications for additions and garage with um some setback. >> So, no more ADU. >> Yeah.
>> How many ADU applications? >> Uh I think uh we're at about 18, I believe. >> Oh, yeah. >> There was one last night at Concom. Um not an application per se, but Freeman Road, 16 Freeman Road is looking to add
an ADU. um and move the driveway from one side to the other. So they uh it's within a buffer zone. So they're going to concom with some requests there. >> What was it?
>> 16 Freeman Road. >> One that got continued. I was wondering if that was a >> Oh, no. There was another one that I'll talk about in a minute. Um, there was another one that was brought up in the meeting last night as
anformational bit that's probably going to come back in an official capacity to Concom. There was a lot of history on this property where there were two properties um with some setback issues and some um
they went before the ZBA and Concom. And what I learned is that I forget where it was. >> 180 Proctor >> sounds about right. >> Yeah, I think that's the one. Um, what I found out was something I did not know.
There was a merger doctrine um where if two lots are owned by the same owner and merging them makes the zoning less non-conforming and by law those merge automatically
into one property. >> However, that changed last year with the governor's housing bill. And if the lots have a I'm not sure what the square footage, but a minimum square footage and a minimum frontage,
those lots are now unmmerged. >> You take them apart. >> Yeah. >> Oh, wow. >> Because I'm assuming that that now creates more lots for housing. So that created some problems with this
property and some back and forth. So, but I thought that it was that little history was interesting from concom last night. >> That is interesting. >> It is interesting. >> Can What do we know what that where we can look that up? Do you do you know what that is? >> Um >> or how many properties?
>> I'll send you the um over a year ago, Copelman sent out a uh kind of advisory. >> Yeah, >> it was the same advisory where they had the initial ADU advisory. >> Um there isn't there's not a lot of case
law on this. Um, we had our first one on Bartlett, Bartlett Street, which is currently under construction. Um, there's likely there's likely, you know, a handful around town.
Um, a lot of them over the years, um, property owners kind of gave up. So they would they would build a garage, they would sell it to their abuter, uh they would go to tax title, the town would
take them. Um but there's a handful. >> There's a handful. Um and incrementally property owners are finding out about the new law. >> So it's I just looked it up and per AI on Google um it's with at least 10,000
square feet area and 75 ft of frontage. Correct. >> Right. So mo most of those lots will have significantly more than that. >> The reason that the state law has that minimum is that as I just mentioned over
the years someone may have had a double lot and let's assume the double lot was uh was 20,000 or 30,000. Very often they went to the zoning board for a variance. they were denied unbuildable lot and then incrementally
they would sell land off to a butters. So they may have started with 20 or 30 and now maybe they're at 15 now. So the state had kind of acknowledged that over 30 40 50 years those original size lots
are likely a lot smaller. >> But yeah it's it's a it's a production statute. >> Yeah. Fortunately for Chumpsshire, there probably won't be a tremendous amount of them, >> but in other communities, >> yeah, the places you tend to find this are uh for example over in Bill Ricka
where you've built up uh where something started out as a kind of a vacation thing like around the lake over there >> and then bit by bit became residential and you wind up with minuscule lots with various owners >> like a camp >> and uh yeah,
>> good rule of thumb if you want to keep it from happening is you >> buy buy a piece of property, get one other person on the deed. >> Now it doesn't merge. >> The original merge was not the same was a while ago, wasn't it? >> What's that? >> Original merge thing was back.
>> The the the merger the merger theory has been in place for a very long period of time. >> That's what I thought because I remember on the ZBA that there was a certain there was a certain we had >> certain lots where people came in and they didn't realize that they had been merged. Exactly.
>> And but you could have avoided that if you had >> don't forget done something to preserve each. >> It had to be it had to be beyond arms length. >> The common ownership had in order to avoid it through legal maneuvering have to have to be outside of arms length. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I remember
that. Okay. >> Okay. >> Any other >> Yeah. The CPC met and um >> I forgot we met. I was thinking it was before the last meeting. talked about it, but I just looked at the minutes and I didn't. So, there was two things. One
was um a grant was granted by to the cemetery commission to Can you help me, Evan? >> I think it was uh was it um walls was either was it was a preservation of gravestones? That's what it was called.
>> It was gravestones. Yeah. So, they were looking for more money. Um, so the CPC approved it to to they got a grant for some portion and then they're coming to the town asking for some other small amount of money. It was less than 40,000 I think.
>> Yeah. Yeah, definitely. >> Um, and it might have been more like 20. And then uh the other thing was there was a woman who came forth from the community who has a handicap child and
she runs a some kind of an organization that um donates money to help playgrounds have more inclusive um
playground apparati. Um and so she is giving money to the town. And then the DPW already had a plan in place. It's the Freeman Lake Park. They already had a plan in place to do some work there and to make it ADA
um more ADA compliant and to upgrade some of the equipment. And so that they're integrating this family inclusive piece of property that their gift won't cover the whole cost of it, but they're going to make up the difference out of their budget for doing
the work they're already planning on doing. >> Nice. >> Okay. >> And then we have a meeting tomorrow, kickoff meeting of the LI um >> y >> committee with the with Kleinfelter. Um,
and it's meant to kind of all agree and get on the same page about the scope and the users and what kind of materials we're looking to prod produce or we're looking for them to produce, I guess. Um, and also they proposed some
different properties for the, you know, for the different users. >> They had three categories of of stuff that they were going to look at. Uh, >> so there's there's um, >> what's L? uh low impact development. >> Sorry.
>> Okay. >> Center Village didn't meet in November. We are meeting tomorrow. >> All right. Sertha, anything from you? >> No, they didn't meet this month. >> Okay. But center village I noticed um I was looking for somebody's phone number
and I went through the I was looking at the appointed >> I think it still has Mike as the leazison >> which is why my neighbors getting you know spam messages from saying hi this is Mike Hayes back from the center village committee
>> all right um the only other thing um I'll mention on ish is There's a Chumsford Citizen Academy um that's going to be happening this >> starting in January I believe.
>> Is it January? >> January through March. >> Yeah, January through March. Uh the planning board is going to be in March on March 10th and I'll be presenting on the planning board at that time. Um I'm working I'll be working with um some
other folks Concom and on the presentation for that day. I was also asked and I did um speak to the Democratic Town Committee last week on they were doing kind of a Democratic town committee civics
night and wanted to know they asked Pat Wess was there and um one of the library commissioner people were there. They just wanted to know like what does it involve to run for office and what's that commitment to be on various community committees and if you were
trying to talk people into running what would you tell them and I was like well I wouldn't talk anyone into running if they didn't have a a compelling interest because anyway >> yeah that's probably the stuff we'll be going over um and then once we come up with the presentation I'll share it with the the planning board.
>> All right. Um, other new business, preliminary list of zoning articles for town meeting. Um, linked in the agenda. Um, I wanted to go through them to see which ones we want to bring forward and
start working on because our timeline is pretty compressed. We do have to get the um final articles to the select board for their
uh February 16th. I think it's February 16th date. They're signing the the warrant on that date. Um so what I did is I started pulling together the zoning articles that we've talked about
as part of the Kate's Corner um hearing. uh the SAD changes that we've reviewed in a prior meeting um started putting those together and they're all in that document. Um >> so yeah, can we go through the
commercial parking? >> Yep. That's what I wanted to do. Now I don't want to have too much of a discussion today. This is just the first drafting >> a list. >> Yeah. What's that? >> Generating a list. Yeah, this is generating the list and and just putting together some of the drafts based on the
discussions that we've had. >> And then my plan is to start the um for some of these easier ones, start the public hearing in the January 10th meeting.
>> We'll discuss, we'll have public input for two meetings and then vote on it in the second meeting. for some of the more complex things like if we go forward with the Middle Sex Street proposal. Um,
my proposal would be to present it again to the vinyl square committee on the 12th, have our informal meeting with property owners and the public on January 14th, and then have our official public
hearing January 28th and February 11th, and then vote on February 11th. >> That is a pretty tight deadline. >> It is extremely tight. Um, and what I will do is I'll if whichever ones we want to start
tackling, I'll start drafting them based on prior discussions we've had. So 1 through six is what I'm proposing we at least take up in a public hearing starting on the
10th. >> The four the 14th. >> January 14th. >> Yeah. the second Wednesday, right? >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. >> I'm thinking December 10th. >> Um, did we talk? So, on on these that
you have up here, um, they were changing BA to PB. I assume you reached out to the chair. >> Not yet. I will be. >> Why? Why change it? Why have it BA at all? >> I just want to make sure that they're they're fine with it.
It's currently uh what why did you why did you do BA? >> Those were they are BA >> I mean I I think as part of CB light you did make a couple transitions. >> We did and it's aligned that one's
aligned with the parking lot. So I figured the parking lot parking structure kind of the same thing. I would just make sure like like I don't know if they >> but but on the next but on um commercial you have it all PB >> so
>> oh I'm sorry that's the existing >> yeah existing is the first one for >> a moment I was confused too my apologies my apologies >> it's been a couple months since we've looked at zoning >> yeah the first line the first tables are the current second one is proposed
>> yeah that's a logical transition >> all right now that makes Yeah, I would just reach out to make sure they don't have any problem. They support it. I'm sure they will. My next one on number three, >> we the ones that have zero, we put to NA, but RH, which is in the CX 6 CX is
zero. We change that to NA. What about RH? >> So, anywhere where there was a depth of zero in our zoning is where I'm proposing we change to an NH, an NA, sorry. >> Mobile home. Oh,
>> so is it non- should we put non-applicable for there? >> It was blank. >> So I would assume it's non-applicable. >> Yeah, >> I would say that >> definitely for the mobile home park. Yeah, >> I wasn't sure what to put there because
it was blank. >> Let's say na. >> I say na. >> I can take a closer look at that property. Yeah, Vin, if you can look at that one. >> And number five, are we adding what are we at? What are we doing?
Number five. >> So, let's see. Five would be >> breakfast. >> Adding a bed and breakfast definition. >> Do we have any BMBBS in town? I >> was going to ask the same question. >> Not that I'm aware of. you know, uh,
>> and it very likely could start because we don't have a a use classification for it >> potentially. I'm just wondering if it's >> it came up in the discussion around the family units. >> Yeah. Yeah. I guess it did, didn't it?
>> And so not having it when we have boarding houses, hotels, motel, it >> seems a little weird that we don't have a point. That's a good point. Maybe maybe we should do something there. Doesn't look like it's a big >> and RC is
that's a lot of residential RC. Isn't that two family RC? >> Two families allowed in the RC. >> Yeah, that's like the center. Like that's a lot of resident. We have a lot of RC that is purely residential neighborhoods. I would put N for that.
>> Well, that's what we're we'll discuss. Okay, >> let's discuss that. Okay, >> she wants to start early. This is just the starting draft. >> I'd like to fix RC first then. So yeah, 1 through six is what we would start discussing in a public hearing
next meeting in January. And then four, sorry, one through five. And then one and then in number six, we've got a number of other things that we could start taking on uh but might be
a little bit more complicated. So for example 6A is changing the floor height from 11 foot in a fraction to 12 feet and then changing building heights in
according in accordance because right now it's a threetory is 35 ft. So if we do a 12 >> be 36 >> yeah it would be 36. Um, this would be more in line with standard building practices of a 12 foot
floor. >> You don't want to go any higher. >> I don't want to go any higher. If anything, I would um reverse that. >> Make it 33. >> Make it smaller. >> Yeah. >> I like I like tall ceilings.
>> I like tall ceilings, but I don't like I mean, if we had Mike Walsh here, he'd give us >> tall ceilings, fewer floors. >> Yeah. So, I mean, we don't have to take it up if people are not willing to go there right now. >> I think we should try and see where we
get to. I mean, we went I we kind you kind of created a template for us with Kate's Corner and I think it would be, you know, efficient maybe and effective of us to continue
moving through the process with the other zones that we've identified where that could be useful. So, I mean, if we don't get it for this town meeting, we'll get it for the next one. But >> Oh, no. there. That is one of the things, but there are a lot of other >> so each
letter under six is a different topic. >> No, I know. >> And there are a lot of them. So, I just want to make sure that we're not trying to do too much for this next. I think one through five are pretty simple, >> right? I think that
>> I think >> adopting to Kate to what we did with Kate's Corner to the Middle Sex Street is a lotable. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um endeavor. >> Yeah. >> We managed to get it done by this meeting. >> I think we can too.
>> I think we can because it's been pretty well drafted and >> supported by the vinyl square committee. Um, so I think that one's doable. Um,
I think the B updating general design guidelines might be a little bit too much and that might take a little bit more discussion. the accessory use parking lots. Didn't know if we wanted to see if we wanted to
extend that into other commercial or industrial zones by special permit other than CBLT or just leave that for now and see how it works in CBLT first. >> I think we leave it.
>> We don't go crazy. parking lots especially. >> Um E and F are other zoning conflicts we could tackle.
Riverneck Road C uh other CB locations. Those I think are a little bit more involved and would require a little bit more effort. So I would want to leave those for >> because you have the >> the other road that that come what's
that building that comes up is it Apollo >> Apollo drive the back yeah be the back of >> I think we need to I think we need to tackle riverneck road soon but I think >> for yeah for fall town meeting >> because that I think involved a lot >> yep
probably was on street as well >> y Um, >> yeah, that's part of it >> based on the last couple of weeks clarification of uh 104 procedures for special permits and site plans. Um, one of the things
the town council mentioned is we may not or maybe it was you Evan, we may not need to tackle this in a zoning change, zoning bylaw change. We may be able to do it under >> but at a minimum you'd have to take it out of the zone. Yeah, we'd have to take
it out of zoning. Um, so I'm thinking that that may be a good one for the fall. Um, lighting bylaw. Kelly Bey has reached out to me. He has made significant changes. Um, I do plan on
meeting with him starting in January. I don't think we'll be ready for this town meeting. Um, but that may be a fall town meeting one as well. Well, maybe he could come in in January if our if our docket's not too heavy and
give a quick update presentation of changes that he made. And >> yeah, I want to meet with him first to make sure that he's made the changes that the board has >> been very vocal about. >> Um, but then
if we have time in our agenda, we can have them present the updates. But I don't want to rush this for town meeting. >> No. >> Um, and then other things that we've talked about that we should start
tackling this coming year. Pilot formula formula update. >> Yeah. >> Um, refining the indoor outdoor contractor yard definitions I added based on the riverneck discussion um to clarify that. >> Can we do this for the spring? Is this a
clear definition or is that too >> It might require a little bit more discussion >> because if we really want to discuss it, we only have one meeting to discuss. >> Okay. You're right. Right. Y >> um and then other possible rules and
regulations updates that we've started talking about at various points. So, I will tackle one through five drafting. Um, >> the landscape plans might want to wait
till after the LI. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Yep. All right. So, I will start drafting one through five and 6D for this next town meeting. Um,
>> I would like to re refine our use of the clean energy and sustainability checklist in our processes as a as an item >> for this. I mean, I think we should keep moving in that direction. >> Yeah, definitely. Um, those rules and regulations will I'll keep adding to the
agenda. >> Um, but we don't have to go to town meeting for those, right? So, we'll just keep adding those to the agenda as we have space. And also the um procedures for the special permits and site plans. I'll add
to that list so we can prepare to refine the rules and regulations when we're ready to strike the zoning bylaw at town meeting. Okay.
So that will start in our next meeting in January. >> Good brainstorm there, Chris. >> Thank you. >> So just to clarify, did you say you wanted the zoning public hearing open on the 14th >> for 1 through 5?
>> 1 through 5. Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll uh we'll advertise that >> and I will get you more and based on experience. I want all of those as separate articles. >> Um, so I'll start drafting that and
working with you, Evan, to come up with the language and stuff. >> Anybody want a piece of chocolate? And then for for the zoning change for um the vinyl square area, we'll uh or for the Middle Sex Mills, we'll do the
informal discussion with the neighbors and stuff. Um and we'll work with the vinyl square committee and Evan. Um, Marcy, can you help? Is it No, >> Sartha is not sorry. >> Sertha, SHA, can you help uh coordinate
some of that PR? Um, I've been working with Virginia, but if you could take on some of that for me, I would appreciate it. >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. Thanks. I'll loop you into the email thread. >> Okay. >> Um, so we'll use them to advertise and
Facebook and things like that. Um so we can get the informal meeting done in our next meeting and then start the official um public hearing for those next two meetings. >> I actually yeah I have access to all
that. So >> awesome. Okay. All right. Any other discussions before we get to the meeting minutes? All right. Meeting minutes. There was a revision um posted to the agenda.
The one revision was that SHA was marked as present but she wasn't. Um so so that change was added. So I will take a motion and everyone can
vote except for STA. Then I would uh move that we accept the meeting minutes of 10:22 2025. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by John. >> Mike.
>> I. >> Joel. >> I. >> John. >> I. >> Anita. >> I. >> Dearra Marcy. >> And I'm an I. >> I will accept a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
Happy holiday.