Oh, for you like dealing with this. >> Ah, okay. Okay. With it being 7:00, um I am going to call this Wednesday, May 13th meeting of the planning board to order. It is 7 o'clock
on Wednesday, May 13th. My name is Chris Lavali and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight we'll be following the posted agenda. The meeting tonight is both in person and via Zoom. If Zoom fails for any reason, we will continue in person. The meeting is being televised live and
recorded via Chelmsford Teledia and will be available on their website and on YouTube. First item on the agenda is public input. Public input is limited to statements from the public related to any issues within our jurisdiction that
are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing before the board. Public comment on any pending public hearing shall only be heard during those hearings. So, are there any members of the public who wish to speak during public input?
>> Anyone on Zoom, Evan? >> No. >> There being none, we will move to the next >> again, Chris. >> Oh, >> go ahead. >> Is there someone who wishes to speak? >> Yes. I have >> Can you come up to the podium
>> and state your name and address for the record, please? >> Good evening, board. My name is uh Stephan Vermogo. Uh I live at five Lady Slipper Lane, a budding property owner of uh the proposed uh subdivision.
>> Yep. So if you're speaking on that project, you can we'll give you a chance to speak during that se that section of the meeting. >> Yep. >> Okay. So there being none, um we will move to the new public hearings. Uh
first is uh nine ladies slipper lane and Marcy can you read the >> Sure. Uh so first on the agenda is nine lady slipper lane. The applicant Donna Kulis requests a three lot definitive subdivision approval creating a private way for two uh new single family
residence lots one of which will also contain an ADU. The applicant requests definitive subdivision approval under subdivision control laws and rules and regulation governing the subdivision of land in the town of Chumsford. The project calls for the construction of an existing paper roadway, Chestnut Hill
Lane, the associate infrastructure to serve as frontage for the two new residential lots. A list of waiverss for roadway construction has also been requested. This site is in an RB residential zoning district. The existing residential lot is approximately 7.52 acres as shown on the
assesses parcel ID map 91, block 344, lot 9. Um, and since we do have a lot of people in the uh, um, public today, I just wanted to mention the process that we do go through for public hearings. Um, the
applicant will first give the presentation. Um, Marcy, the clerk, will read letters from the departments into the record. Uh, we'll do a round of Q&A from the board. um the applicant. I'll give the opportunity to provide any
additional information and then I will have um the public uh provide input as um people desire. Um this likely will continue uh to another meeting. Uh so I want to and assure the
public that there'll be plenty of chances to speak if you don't get a chance to say everything you want to tonight. Um and then um after the public gets to speak um we will again go back to the applicant for any additional information then the board for
additional information and then likely continue to the next meeting. So with that um I turn it over to the applicant. >> Good evening Mr. Chair and members of the planning board. My name is Doug Howsler uh with offices here in
Chelmsford and I represent the applicant Donna Culis and her husband Doug Kenda with respect to this definitive subdivision plan. Um the ad that was published says quite a bit which helps. Uh the property contains 7.52 acres of
land. It's in zoned in an RB district. um one of the two new propo proposed lots will have an ADU associated with that particular lot. Um the concept is to allow the parents Doug and Donna to
subdivide their property, have each of their sons own a separate single family lot, and that they would construct their ADU on one of their sons lots so they could all live next door to each other. A dream most of us probably have. Um, so
we're in the RB district and the proposed use as residential is allowed as a matter of right. Um, you'll probably see from the plans that are put up on the screen as we go through. Um, this subdivision, the two
lots uh, meet and proposed houses will meet all of the setback requirements, all the dimensional requirements of the zoning bylaw. So, frontage, front yard, set back, rear, sideyards, height, floor area ratio, all these are satisfied. So,
so far so good. This is pretty much a vanilla subdivision to be honest. Um, each lot's going to be served by a septic system. Uh, tests have been done. Brian Misi, who's the project engineer, can address some of those issues when he
comes to speak. I also have Anthony G here who is with he's our wetland scientist with Goddard and he has coordinated all the efforts associated with the concom hearings and findings that they need to make and he'll be able to answer questions about that as well
to the extent it's within the purview of your board. I don't want to do a concom hearing and a planning board meeting. Um, we are not seeking any special permits. So, it's a rather limited list of waiverss that we're seeking, most of
which to deal with the street. Um, basically elimination of curbs, elimination of sidewalks, uh, reduced width to 22 feet for Chestnut Hill Lane. Given that there are only going to be two homes that are going to be really two homes in an ADU
that are going to be using that lane on a consistent basis. It's as rural a road as you could possibly imagine. Um we had already um spoken with uh or obtained feedback from some of the safety
departments. Um my understanding police has not sent a letter in yet, but we're not anticipating any kind of issues there. The fire department, we did expect and we did receive a letter for their comments and they uh they are supportive of the gravel road approach
as long as it meets their load requirements of which they say it does. So that's another benefit and I would add to that now get it out in the front. The gravel road's going to be the better choice in this instant because you'll hear a lot of people being concerned about drainage and such and the gravel
road allows for natural drainage versus an imperous area. So, we're dealing with two lots, 900 linear feet. Um, so I just ask that you keep that in mind. Um, we agree with the conditions that the fire
department has listed in its letter. So, we would ask that if if when you take a vote and if you decide to approve that those conditions be incorporated into your decision. Um there were some comments that were already made for via various letters
about maintenance of the road and and and legal responsibility for this road. Um we have I have already drafted a homeowner association trust even though it's going to be among family members. This will obviously go on in perpetuity.
It's a private road essentially. And that homeowners association will deal with all the issues of maintenance and uh keeping everything clear, keeping any kind of screening that's required and any other conditions that are required through this planning board approval
process that need to be addressed as a whole for the subdivision, we will incorporate into that homeowners trust. So, we're hopeful that that will address some of the concerns that people may have. Um it will certainly uh that homeowners
trust will certainly address the issues of any of the fire department's concerns or police department as well. Um because it's common that a homeowners association does just that. It makes sure things are safe. Um you'll see on the plans that there's a proposed T turnaround that the fire department will
be using and they found that to be more than acceptable given the width of it. Um, we're not suggesting that Chestnut Hill Lane become a full street, meaning a thoroughfare from one end of Caner all the way out to Pine Pinehill Road. The
reason is we don't want it to become a cutthrough. It's it would be it just wouldn't be safe. Especially when you get out to Pineh Hill Road, your sight distances vanish literally when you're coming out. If you were looking left or right, you you could have a serious problem. So, by doing that Yes. I'm
sorry. >> So, um, can you just show me on the on the map where this is and then Sure. I I think I know where Pine Hill and I >> Well, Pine Hill is way down here. >> Oh, okay. What's up? Okay. >> So, Chestnut Hill Lane. >> Yep. >> Starts at Caner, goes all the way
through, continues, and it would wiggle its way and would go all the way out to Pineh Hill Road. Okay. >> In fact, there's a fence there now. >> So, where are you where's So, where's the gravel road going to be? Sorry. >> This This was being highlighted. Okay.
>> So, by doing it this way, we have a basically a dead end with a T turnaround. >> Okay. So, that you would have a dead end there. >> Exactly. We're not going to improve it past that. >> Okay. Got it. >> For safety reasons, it makes the most sense. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you for orienting me because I was thinking totally different.
>> I could see you. Sorry. Um, let me keep going through here. Um, the draft homeowners association um probably should not have to address sidewalks. I hope you wouldn't ask for a sidewalk on a two lot subdivision.
Anything's possible, but I hope not. Um, our detailed list of waiverss uh was submitted when we filed. Um again they are almost entirely related to curbing, BMS, sidewalks, diameter of the road, finished payment, dead ends,
everything is dealing with the street. Um we had filed a notice of intent with the conservation commission. We've had one public hearing already and at that meeting concomed.
It has been conducted. The peerreview report has been delivered to the Concom as of last Tuesday, which is why we con we actually continued the hearing that was scheduled for last night because you have to have your response in by a week
ahead of the concom hearings. So there's no way we could reply in two hours. So we continued it and we will be heard in two weeks. Um, Anthony uh can address the specific issues of of that to the extent you desire to hear from him on those issues,
but needless to say, there were a list of things both I'll call technical and some more substantive. Every single one of those issues has been addressed in Anony's report back to the Concom. We'll be submitting that either to probably
tomorrow or the following day so that they'll have plenty of time to review it. Um but you'll it it addresses every single issue that Kongcom had raised. Um that reply addresses all of those
particular issues as well as many of the comments from the abuters at uh during the concom session. Um one of them had a question about did we provide proper notice. I've given the green cards which Anthony I've handed them to him to give to the concom. So, we sent out a
certified mailing to everybody in advance of the hearing just like we did here. So, it it's there was plenty of notice. Um, prior to tonight, I had submitted a letter to your board addressing a a bunch of the issues that I've heard from
various abutters. So, I want to try to keep the uh keep the the playing field level and straight and and not deal with any kind of emotional responses to things. I know people don't like changes. Um, I'm just dealing here with the facts and what I think the law is.
And I put it down in writing to, you know, submit for your consideration. Um, and I'm highly highly confident that your town council, if it was even involved in this, will confirm everything I have written in that letter
legally. Um, one of the questions was, does the applicant have the right to use the entire length of Chestnut Hill Lane? Because one of them was, one of the abutters, I believe, made a comment and they say, "Well, you don't own this
apron." That's true. We do not own the apron. We own from my client's property line to the midpoint of this because it's a a paper street essentially. That's in terms of actual fee ownership. But the
right to use this entire length, not just here, but all the way through. Everybody that abuts that has the right to use it. There's no question about under Massachusetts law. That's the whole purpose. It's all addressed in the derelict fee statute. I've cited it. I've given you the case law on that. I
think you're I think most of you are very familiar with that already from prior hearings. Um, but I want to make it clear that we have the right not only just to use that for access and for frontage, but under the case law, and I've submitted it, we have the right to
install all the utilities through it, electric, gas, cable, you name it, water, we can do all that. And it goes even further because one person has expressed concern that they own a tree that's in, and I'm presuming it's
somewhere between caner and here that there's some tree somewhere in the middle of this lane. Under the case law, if if the if the tree is in the lane, it it really belongs to everybody and we
have the right to remove it because it's defeating the purpose of what that lane is. The lane is designed for passage. It's not designed to grow trees. So under the case law, we have a right to cut shrubs, trees, plants, anything that's in that if we're improving it for
purposes of using it as access, which everybody can use along that way. Um, and I cited the case law on that. It's a Shapiro case in 1987. Um, we so we have the right to use it for travel rights. We have the right to, you know, basically to use it anything
in common for access and travel. Um, we are allowed to build anything within that particular lane as long as it's not a permanent structure on top of it that pre prevents anybody else from using it. We're just making it better. Um, and there's a presumption to that effect.
Some people wanted to know, do we have the legal right or what is our legal right to rely on this road for access? The case law says the subdivision plans that have been approved pro by previous boards over the years in Chelmsford
starting in 1950 and then done again in 1999 and done again in 2001 or two. There are at least three subdivision plans of record and all of them define my client's property rights
by defining the the western boundary of Chestnut Hill Lane. That is the it's actually in the deed description. So because of that, it's a deed by ease by by implication. It's it's automatic. It's not even it's not gray. It's black
and white, which is great. It makes life easier for all of us. Um, anyone has the right to use the profit pro private way and make reasonable repairs and improvements. I've cited the case laws on that. And such reasonable
repairs include paving the easement and such other improvements as would be consistent with principles of safety. And that's exactly what we're all talking about. Clearing limbs from a roadway, smoothing the surface of a way, placing gravel on a road or even paving
a road have all been deemed as reasonable repairs and necessary for the enjoyment of the easement. So, we have the right to do that. That's based on a 1981 case called Glenn versus Pool. Um the installation of the septic systems have been uh deemed permissible pursuant
to the statute as well. Um there's two theories. We have an easement by a stopple or easement by implication. Either way, we have the right to use the land. Um he does the my clients don't have to own the entirety of the land of the uh the lane. Um some
people were concerned about traffic. um respectfully not making it a throwaway should solve that problem and that's what we've always proposed. Um the source deed goes from 1950 to from Mr. Sheen to Charles Culis on
his father and it's been that property has been further subdivided over the years. Lady Slipper Lane was part that that entire subdivision was part of this original tract. Um, some people were concerned about the width of the proposed roadways. Um, the
fire department's already addressed and says that they believe that what's being proposed is more than adequate and they just want to make sure that whatever type of road of gravel road that we put in that it meets the fire department specs, which we can and Brian can address that more particularly.
Um, you know, it's I I could be wrong. I I think this is relatively straightforward. Um I'm not going to get into vernal pool theories and uh other any type of I'll call concom issues that that discussion belongs at
concom not before this board in my opinion. I'll I'll refrain from getting into that too deeply. Um I think we're going to have established that we meet all the criteria for a subdivision plan. Um the waiverss are very minimal. Um, I think there's going
to be some discussion by your board about the use of gravel. Um, I I did a little research on my own and I'm sure Brian Melissi, the engineer, can discuss it at much greater length, but everything supports using a gravel road
in this instance because of the uh environmentally better of having uh drainage go through much more smoothly than having a a real road with buminous. No one wants to make this look more formal. We're trying to
keep some of that rural feel to to it. And these houses are going to be entirely consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. They're not McMansions. They're going to be nicized homes, but not overwhelming anybody. Um, there'll be some screening involved so
that people have a sense of privacy, both my client's property as well as their neighbors in the rear. And um we're going to be happy to address any concerns you have. I'd like to ask Brian Melissa to address the technical components of the plan and then Anthony
can be here to answer any questions you have about wetland issues or that might come up during conversation with the abutters. Brian, good evening Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Brian Vissy. Excuse me. I'm an engineer with Haley Ward uh here representing the
project. Uh council did a pretty good job. Didn't leave me a whole lot left to talk about, but I'll give it give it my best shot. Um so you see the roadway here in gray. That's the gravel driveway or the gravel roadway. Uh the subdivision will be serviced by
municipal water. Uh we're bringing up a 6-in line from Caner Road. It deadends with a hydrant um for not only firefighting purposes, but water quality purposes as well. So that line can get flushed every now and then. Uh the fact of the matter that two homes or two
homes in an ADU aren't going to use a whole heck of a lot of water. It's why we went to a 6 in um to try to get it to flush a little bit. However, um for maintenance purposes, there's a hydro day there to flush it. Um I believe the uh sewer moratorium is still in place in
the town of Chsford. So these lots will have to be serviced by on-site septic systems. We did perform the soil testing required for the septic systems a little while ago. The uh testing was witnessed by an agent of the board of health. Um so it was all done on the up and up and
we did show the locations of the testing the results of the testing are on the plans in the one of the back sheets. We also showed uh the layout of the systems. I think I read a comment where uh the four septic systems are going to cause all sorts of effluent problems. Uh
what I did want to show is the primary area and the reserve area. Title 5 uh requires us to show a reserve area. That area does not get constructed uh until the primary area were to fail or something were to go wrong. But we need to show that the lots can uh can
accommodate uh a reserve area. Uh within that roadway, we're going to bring uh we're going to bring electric. We're going to bring gas. Uh everything will be below grade. there won't be any poles around. Um the proposed storm water system that
we've provided for the gravel roadway uh utilizing one of the uh low impact development techniques that are floated around in the town of Chswood. It's a gravel roadway which reduces the amount of imperous area. Uh it still needs to be a wearing surface that the fire
department can travel on uh emergency vehicles as well as the vehicles that are going to be serviced. you know, going to and from the homes. Uh I forget the number right off the top of my head, but it's within the fire department um comment letter that just needs to serve. It needs to be have a bearing capacity
of X amount uh in order to hold uh to accommodate their largest or heaviest vehicle. Again, during the construction of the roadway, that can be fairly simply ascertained with some compaction testing. During that reports can be given to the town, the fire department,
whoever else would like to see that. Uh I think the council said that, you know, we we terminate the uh roadway with a T turnaround. Uh that t the the dimensions of that T turnaround are as prescribed in the subdivision regulations. Uh I think the very last
sheet of the subdivision plans, we show a sweep path plan. Um you guys are very familiar with those. uh the fire department typically asks for one on every single project. Uh we show how he gets in and out of Caner Road as well as uh turns around um using that T
turnaround. I should uh add that we have we do have a paved apron uh coming off a caner road just as vehicles such as a firetruck if they're going to kind of make those maneuvers uh we just want a little bit
more of a wearing surface there. Um it's not on these plants quite yet. We have a kind of a whole host of revisions that we're going to be making and not just after input received from you guys this s I mean this evening but from the conservation commission. But one of the things that we're beginning about is
providing a uh a paver imperous paver type of driveway for both the driveways to the houses as well as the turnaround to drive a little bit more of a wearing surface but not constitute a uh a complete paved way that again uh would add imperous area to this.
Uh so the storm water if you notice some of the grading plans and some of the details the grading of the roadway is what we call it's super elevated which is just pitched to one side >> um such that the water runoff storm water runoff from the roadway will pitch
to the west or to our side of the property and be intercepted by an infiltration trench uh in order to intercept that that storm water runoff and infiltrate it back into the ground. Um we did provide a profile on the
profile of that uh of the proposed roadway. We try to stay very very close to the existing roadway. Um in order to not create any large cuts and fills and have a lot of earth work, excuse me, that has to be entertained for the
roadway itself. From a cut and fill analysis, uh for the roadway itself, we have 330 yards of cut. Um so that's fairly minor. uh there's a little bit u more material that needs to be imported into the site for the for the development of the two lots. Um they are
on a on a slope and once we put the septic systems in, put the foundations in, there is going to be some material required to kind of grade the lots and make them habitable. Um I know this is not a conservation
commission meeting but you'll see under plans there is the the uh wetlands were located the appropriate buffer zones were located from that um in one of the the reasons for the lot cut up and the house placements obviously is to meet the conservation commission criteria of
staying out of the 30oot uh no touch zone keeping the structures at least minimum 50 ft away from those wetlands Um and the septic systems are 100 or 100 ft away. So that's where the placement of the
houses came. Um we put in kind of uh desirable footprints for the for the two lots. We wanted to show a real grading plan uh both to this board and the conservation commission to get an idea of of what would be going on.
Um I dive into septic system design. and I love that kind of stuff, but you guys probably don't want to hear that. Um, I will say that both the two houses currently are either going to be three or fourbedroom homes. And however, we've
designed the systems for five bedrooms mostly because of the ADU. The ADU does have the right to tie into the not say the existing septic system, but the proposed septic system and it'll accommodate that extra bedroom from the ADU. So these uh septic systems will be
fully compliant. Um again once following some of the input from this board, following the input from the conservation commission, we're kind of ready to go to pull those designs and and submit them to the board of health. We have not done that yet. Uh just in case anything kind of gets revised and twisted around, but there's that
hierarchy of uh of uh submitts and permitting. So I know I was probably very quick. I probably forgot a few things to tell you, but I'm sure it'll be flushed out during some of the questions. So, thank you for your time. >> No, I'll just wait. You know, has any
questions for me? I'm good to answer them. Um, considering some hearing you guys if you have any questions related to that. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Marcy, we have department letters. >> Sure. All right. So, our first one is from um the board of health. says, "Dear
members of the planning board, this letter is submitted in reference to the proposed development uh project located at 9 Lady Slipper Lane. The applicant is requesting approval for a three lot definitive subdivision which proposes the establishment of a private way to serve two newly created single family
residential lots. One of the proposed lots would also include an accessory dwelling unit. If the proposed development is unable to connect to town sanitary sewer systems, the development would necess would necessitate the installation of on-site septic systems. Any such system must be designed and constructed in full compliance with
requirements of title 5 of the state environmental code pursuant to 310 CMR 15 and successfully complete the department of health's application review and inspection process. Respectfully submitted, Donna Greenwood. Uh we have one from the Chumsford Water
District. Uh dear members of the planning board, the Chumsford Water District has no concerns with the proposed project at the location. If this project is approved, a representative should contact the district to obtain our rules and regulations as well as our specifications and fees. Sincerely,
Brendan Cana. Oh, that's today's meeting. Um, sorry about that. That's the wrong page. All right. Um, who's this one from? This one is from the Department of Public Works. Um from Sheila Joyce says, "The engineering
department has performed a review of the definitive subdivision applicant submitted uh applications submitted by applicant. The following contains a sub uh submissions were reviewed for appropriateness and method of accuracy as well as compliance of the town of Chsford's storm water bylaw, town of
Chamsford storm water management regulation and division 3 sewer capacity and connections restrictions. the attached entitled nine Lady Sipper Lane, Chestnut Hill Road definitive subdivision application packet, the engineering plans entitled definitive subdivision plans for Chestnut Hill Lane
in Chsford, Mass, March of 2026, and the attached titled 9 L Slipper Lane, Chumps Hill Road definitive subdivision waiver requested. So clarifi clarification request clarification is requested by the DPW regarding ownership and rights of the private paper street Chestnut Hill Lane
site plans review outstanding DPW engineering issues that were not addressed. Applicant has uh applicant to confirm HOA and procedures for trash disposal and pickup. If applicable provisions for the enclosed dumpster pad and dumpster should be depicted upon the plan set. A long-term and perpetual care
of the dumpster, including the emptying and enclosure, will be the responsibility of the property owner. Locations and pro procedures for snow storage and plowing of Chestnut Hill Lane should be depicted on this uh the plans. During construction, care should be taken to maintain separation of at
least 10 ft horizontally from the edge of the sewer services to the edge of the water services where horizontal separation of 10 ft is not practical. Both services can be installed closer to each other, but the water service must be 18 inches higher than the sewer services per D standards. See
Massachusetts Water Laws, Chapter 9, Section 9.8. All existing and/or proposed utilities should be clearly and accurately labeled size, materials, existing proposed rims, inverts, etc. on the drawings reflecting the most updated utility connections and
sizing. Confirm location of the proposed 1-in water services to the accessory dwelling unit. Cut and fill calculations shall be submitted for review. Location and size of public trees or statements of none. Any trees located in the town of Chumsford by uh right of way will uh
that will need to be removed will require a tree hearing and meeting with the tree warden for approval prior to removal. Submit draft language regarding the access easement including its proposed uh sorry its purpose and parties responsible for ownership and maintenance.
Include any existing easements on parcels of site plan. Include building foundations, locations, and elevation, top of the concrete, and the slab on the site plan. Confer proper sight distance and adequate distance between intersections for Chestnut Hill Lane, Caner Road, and Thomas Drive. Pavement
details for Caner Road apron should include current Mass DOT, Super Pave mixed designs. Uh, sewer comment. Coordinate with Border Health to ensure all town standards are met for septic tank installation. Recommended storm water management conditions. No storm water calculations
were submitted. No storm water review is conducted. A complete application for the land disturbance permit shall be filed with DPW approval of permits and must be obtained prior to the commencement of the land disturbing activities. Disturbing greater than than or equal to 1 acre of land. Applicant
for a land disturbing permit must include storm water management plan as well as the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection checklist for storm water ownership as well as O andM of all storm water sisters and BMP should be clearly stated on the plans to avoid confusion in the f future
regarding responsibility of the storm water management facilities. The deeds or the covenant should clearly specify the homeowners association or property owner whom shall be responsible for owning the system as well as inspecting and maintenance schedules. Recommended general conditions for
approval. All material within the rightway will comply with the town standards assessed forth in the town of Chumps Department of Public Work Street ongoing open utility constructions rule connections rules and regulations as built plans should be submitted to the engineering department on miler PDF and
AutoCAD no larger than 24 by 36 a Dsiz print upon completion of the project. All storm water best management practices will be inspected and designed, engineered and certified that they are built in compliance with plans. Documentation needed including photos, field books, entries and engineering
daily reports shall be submitted to the DPW with final as built. The storm water management system shall be maintained and perpetuated in accordance with the operation of maintenance plans. Any proposed sedimentation control devices within the town's right ofway must be maintained, inspected, cleaned, and
replaced as necessary to prevent possible flooding issues during rain events. All on-site work is done and approved and is granted by the DPW with sedimentation control devices must be removed by the applicant as soon as possible. Erosion control shall be installed at the direction of the
engineering department if determined necess necessary at the time of construction. The erosion control may include but are not limited to silt fence, draw waddles, straw bales, temporary sediment traps, temporary diversion swailes, temporary basins,
silt sacks, etc. The engineering department may also require the applicant to provide supplemental information on the placement and sizing of any additional temporary erosion controls. All contractors, builders, companies, corporations, individuals who are who or which to promote the
construction of multiple houses, housing units or developments or the erection of three or more houses is given to the area shall require the uh to plant one tree for each lot or two trees for each corner lot. Such planting shall be done before the street is paved and must be in accordance with the specifications as
prescribed by the tree warden. Stone bounds for all subdivisions should be depicted on the plans. A licensed contractor must apply for road opening, trenches, lane disturbance, and permits with DPW prior to the start of the work. Applicant site contractors must schedule pre-construction meetings with the DPW
engineering division prior to the start of work. >> Okay, that's a lot. Wow. I don't know how you did it, Joel. All right, next one. So, this one's from the
uh fire prevention offices. Dear members of the board, regarding the definitive subdivision approval request for nine liter slipper lanes, this office offers the following state comments. Site access. Truck turning plans submitted to this office are sufficient for the access of the subdivision. Any
alterations to the roadway configurations will require resubmitt of truck turning plans. Road construction. The gravel road shall be engineered so that it can bear the weight of the Chumsford ladder one and shall be constructed in an all-weather surface. Proof of such is to be submitted to the office as part of the building permitting process bearing the
engineering stamp. Building construction. All construction on site uh to meet uh current codes for smoke, heat, and CO detectors. Signoffs will be conducted as part of the building permitting process. Building numbering. Applicant is to submit to the town E9
sorry E911 committee for building address. We ask that this letter be incorporated into the public records may be made made part of your decision-making process with the requirement outlined. This office has no objection to the request as made. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concern. Respectfully, Josh
Abbott, captain of the fire prevention. All right, this one is from the building commissioner. Oh, you guys got to lie. Um, dear Miss Kulis, should the above definitive subdivision to be known as Chestnut Hill Lane subdivision be approved by the planning board? All proposed lots shall meet the
requirements of the table of dimensional requirements, specifically minimum lot yard requirements. Also, the proposed ADU needs to comply zoning bylaw section 195-6.1 in its entirety as amended and adopted by the town of Chsford. Thank you. Uh
Jose Negron. >> Thank you. >> And that's it. >> Okay. >> Um one minute. This is just the sign off from who signed off the conservation. You need me to read those two? >> Uh just the highlighted one, the
highlighted piece of that one. >> This one says the project is currently before the conservation commission in the form notice of the intent filing. And then there's just one from Yep, that's it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's a lot. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Um Glad I nominated you. >> Thank you. I'll remember that >> your voice didn't give out >> and I remember and I remember nomine that's very dangerous Joel. >> Okay. Um now we'll take it around the
the board for Q&A. We'll start with Mike. >> Yeah. I just if you could educate me a little bit on this on this road. I understand what you said about the portion that is going to be used. It all
makes sense. Uh, will that be fenced at the end or somehow terminated? Because I'm wondering, it seems to me from what you've said that the people who abut that paper street would in fact have the
right to continue down it. Not that there's anything to go to, but but they would have that right. >> I don't think anybody wants to use it because of >> I wouldn't think anybody would. I know those uh the turf. Um, okay. That's what I wanted to know that that right would
still exist even if nobody would >> Oh, absolutely. The rights are the rights. We can't, you know, we're not changing anybody's rights. >> Okay. >> Joel. >> Yeah. Um, sort of along that same line. So, this paper road which is between Canour and Pinehill Road.
>> Yes. >> Is understand. And that when you look at the GIS, it shows a gravel driveway. It looks like some sort of a use of that paper road up to about the point where it's indicated on the map where on the
left it makes some reference to a gravel >> road or something like that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So if that's accessible right now, then the only thing that makes it inaccessible is the fact that
what you're planning to turn into road because that's the part that's wooded and stuff like that that has to be cleared out is what I understood you to be saying that >> it's it's totally unimproved right now. It's just >> Yeah, it's completely unimproved. So it's not it's impassable right now. And
as I this road that continues all the way out is not in particularly great shape. My recollection and I can be corrected I'm sure by others but um the only one that I am aware that used that
on a routine manner was Mr. Parley when he originally owned this and there was a dispute back in 1999 which I was involved in. So he was using this to retain his rights, but to my knowledge, it's very rare that if anybody comes through, and I think there's a gate at
the end out on Pine Hill Road that prevents people from going all the way through. So it's not a throughway whatsoever, >> right? Although technically somebody could remove it if they wanted access, right? Just like you're >> the other end. >> Yeah. Right. Well, anyone of the people
want to develop it. Okay. But the the main question I had was well not the main question one of the questions I have is so we're subdividing we're creating two new lots >> correct >> okay so on one lot there is a principal dwelling unit that's lot two
>> no >> okay >> this is I don't know if we can show it this is the existing nine lady slipper lane >> correct >> thank you very much so this is the existing dwelling Lady Slipper Lane.
There's a long driveway in. >> Right. >> This is all one lot. >> Correct. >> Now we're creating this lot and this >> and that lot. Correct. >> The two houses with the uh >> accessory dwelling ADU. >> Okay. So the lot two, which is that lot? >> Yes.
>> Does that have a principal dwelling unit proposed to be developed on it? Does it have >> Yes. This this will be it. >> Okay. So there is a a principal dwelling unit proposed for lot two. >> Correct. >> So theoretically one could add an ADU to
that under the current law. >> Correct. Okay. So then lot three is >> where the ADU is being proposed. >> Right. So the ADU is being proposed on that lot but they share a common >> drive.
>> Drive. Okay. And then there is and that is the principal dwelling unit for that lot. And then there is a is that no that's the ADU and then the principal dwelling unit for that lot is that one there. Okay. Okay. >> Doesn't the ADU have the share is that
the driveway there that comes down to the street? >> This is the this will be the road and that'll be the driveway for the T turnaround and it will allow for entering into this house or to the ADU. This will have its own drive. Well, that's that's what I was just going to
get at was that doesn't aren't ADUs supposed to share the driveway of the principal dwelling unit on the lot on which it's located? >> Yes. And it will. >> No, it's going to it's going to share the driveway with lot two. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. I'm saying it should it have its own
>> It should have it should be sharing the driveway with lot three. I understand. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. not adding any curve cuts that would affect it. >> Just move that driveway into the middle. >> We could. I just don't think that would be the best idea, but we something to
look at. I agree. >> Okay, >> we'll address that. >> So, that's one question I had >> because there are technically two curb cuts on that property on that lot with that ADU. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Again, it's just a matter of
shifting it. >> We're not looking to play games. We're just looking to be what's going to be the most appropriate >> location >> for the driveway. >> And then lot three is sufficiently sized that theoretically, not that you're proposing it as part of this, but
theoretically that could be subdivided to create two legal lots as well. Is that not true? Because it's over two acres. >> It's over two acres. You can't I don't >> Well, you can you can draw lines through all kinds of stuff. So, I'm not
>> Well, okay. I don't think we could if we could get more lots we try. >> Okay. Um, so the so my question then is about the drainage. So the it sounds like there is drainage planned but that that was not
submitted to the DPW. >> Is there a reason? >> Uh, nope. U we will follow up with all that information. Um, what we were trying to ascertain was really some of the waiverss on the roadway. Um and then and the the surface obviously if we have
a paved roadway um it's going to require a lot more drainage infrastructure and so we didn't skirt that issue but we wanted to open up the hearing get some input from the board to find out which way we were going to go. >> Okay. So
based on the elevations that you are proposing for the road, are there places are they all is well first of all are the looking at the contours on the GIS it generally seems to be that the land is sloping downward along the proposed
paper road towards Cantor that seems to be sort of equally distributed along both. Um, so my concern obviously is a lot of that if that a lot of that's currently vegetated, then essentially what you're going to be doing is you're going to removing be removing a lot of the
natural, you know, uh, uptake and instead creating a situation now where you're introducing potentially a lot more water flowing than what weather was before. And the a couple of concerns I have that one is that based on the
elevation of the finished road relative to the properties that are to the to the lower part in this picture which I think actually are east. Uh is there going to create pockets where their land slopes down and where before it would slope and continue to slope it's now blocked by a
high road creating pooling of water in the yards? That in the very backs of the yards that would be one question that I have. I'm not asserting that's the case. I'm just asking. And then also um the the gravel my understanding so I've
heard two things about the gravel. One was that in fact it was going to be impervious or essentially impervious and then I was hearing that no it's actually going to be pvious. So which is it going to be largely? So a a gravel road uh has
the in storm water calculations a gravel road does not have the same >> runoff characteristics as a paved road. >> Right. >> So >> I understand that but it's very high though nonetheless. Isn't that >> it is it is high. Yep.
>> Impervious. So according to lid techniques we can we can claim that to be pvious. However we do have to account for the >> right to handle correct. Yeah. >> Correct. I mean, that would be the my my main concern is to know that we're properly handling the water.
>> If if I may, >> which is why I was interested to hear what DPW had to say, >> but go ahead. Yeah, >> if I may. And I know there's a ridge line right around here this way. A lot of this goes this way back down to Thomas Drive. Thomas Drive,
which is over here, >> right? >> Sits a lot lower. This is kind of a ridge. And so to answer your question, you know, like I had said before, we're kind of trying to super elevate the roadway here so as not to ruin or not
ruin to pocket water here and to to uh you know affect any of these neighbors at all. >> I will explain that a lot better. >> Yeah, I would like to see that explained a little bit more carefully. >> Sure. >> Um so so I assume then that you'll be
submitting a storm water analysis. Okay. So that answers that. Now the question of septic I was at the board of health meeting last night. Um no Monday night and um and they were under the impression that this was going to be
town sewer. Um, and I don't know how they got that impression, but they were then expressing concern about the fact that it would be that it would be before us as being on town sewer, but then be septic and that they wouldn't have had a
chance to weigh in on especially the placement of the confirmation of the placement of the septic so that we would know that the placement of these buildings are reasonable given the septic. So, I'm sure you're aware of the issue. So, uh, I guess my question would
be, uh, is can you, well, first of all, I understand subdivision, we have a 30-day window with Bord of Health. Uh, but I would like to be able to have some confirmation from Board of Health that these proposed locations actually are
locations that will work. So, >> I can I can let this board know that we will try to get on the agenda to to the next board of health meeting to have a discussion with them. Not exactly sure where that that issue came from. Again, we applied for soil testing permits
through the board of health. Uh they were witnessed by the board of health agent at the time and forget the name of his company. I'll think of it in a minute. Uh but he came out and witnessed the testing. It was all it was all done per code. >> Okay. >> Uh the systems again, we've roughed them out. We've shown them on the plans. We
showed them in relation to buffer zones, property lines, and things like that. and we certainly are planning on following up with that process. But um if it if it helps the matter, we can get on an agenda and and have a discussion with >> I think it at least for me it would. >> So um
>> I can reach out to uh and then and try to get us on the agenda. >> Thank you. Yes. Um then the only other >> But if they if they want us to hook the sewer, we certainly will. >> Yeah. Uh and then the last thing is and this is this is a question really. It
was just more I think a comment which is that given the opinions that were being expressed in a buttered letters and then also receiving a counter legal opinion by the applicant. I didn't know if we wanted to ask town council for their opinion as to
what we should do with regards to this application on this issue. >> Yeah, I was going to bring that up after, but since you brought it up, um I can address it now. Um Evan, I would like to have the town council take a look at it uh to make sure that they've
demonstrated sufficient legal rights uh to construct the road, improve the paper road um over its entire proposed length to serve that subdivision. That's it.
>> Okay. Thank you. John, >> um just a question. So, Attorney had mentioned that the a homeowner association would be created. Um and I understand so let's say the subdivision hypothetable
or not feasible and they desire to have it paved. Could it be paved at the homeowners association expense private way? >> Would it would have to go through the review of the town engineering department, public works, but yes, that would be at their cost, not at the
town's cost. >> Thank you. So then who's responsible for like it's a p it's a private hold on I'm a little confused with the paper thing because there's a homeowners association >> there will be there will be
>> there will be >> of these two homes and the ADU >> that's going to be responsible for this street >> this portion yes >> okay this portion okay I think that I get it now thank you yes >> okay any other questions >> no I'm good
>> any other questions We've come back. >> No, my so my concern is you know I go back to the 22 ft width. Is there any way to make it wider? >> There's no reason to the fire department it it's only for issues of safety and the fire department
is the primary safety voice for the town and they're saying 22 feet is more than adequate. They have and their letter demonstrates that. So, I don't know why you'd want to make it any wider than that. >> I'm not saying it needs to be 40 feet. I just don't I I get concerned a little
bit about the 22 feet because we always run into 22 feet and then, you know, 20 years down the road it gets subdivided and someone wants to put in, you know, two two families and all of a sudden instead of these three houses, now we have like eight. >> With all due respect, you can't you can't guess on the future. It's what's
before you. >> But it's part of planning. So, >> no. No. Respectfully, it isn't. if you want. So this paper road that you're saying on here, yes, correct. This paper road is something that could be used by all of Butters, >> correct? >> By all of Butters. Yes. It is private,
>> but a Butters also includes those other properties lower. >> Yes, it includes >> it includes them, right? So by you what you're planning to do with that roadway right now with the 22 ft, >> they can't use it because of the >> But you're making it that way that they can't use it. >> No, we're not. >> They can use it. They can drive on there
today and park their cars all along that edge if they wanted to because it's in a butters road where they could use it. Right. If you go to do this, they could park there. >> Also, if they did that, that would limit on that whiff, right? It would also block the fire trucks from going down there. >> No, they can't. That's the point. >> You're Why?
>> Because you're not allowed to block. That's the whole purpose. >> They can't park on the side of the road. >> No, they can't. >> And there's going to be signage for that because >> That's right. We'll come We'll come back to it. But I mean that I have additional questions to asking the access. You can't one of butter can't impede the
access of another. That's what >> you're But okay, then how is this project not impeding their access to their property with the roadway the way you're proposing to make the changes to it? >> It's only improving it. It's not >> you're impeding their access to their property. You are you're keeping it high on that side. How are they going to
access their property with their rights? >> They can access it through their own property. They want to build a ramp up into this. God bless them. They have the right to do that. They've had the right to do that for decades. No one's going to do it as a practical matter. They have frontage on Thomas. They're all going to go through Thomas. That's what
they've done historically. These this area is significantly lower. No one's going to try to climb the hill to get up to this road. >> Well, if they want to get to the back of their property and do some work, >> we'll hear that from the absorita. >> No, my my only concern is the W. I would
like it to be a little bit bigger. >> Okay. Deerra, >> can I just can you just refresh me? The driveway for the two homes, are they going to be permeable or impermeable? >> We'd like them to be uh John, you want to explain this, Brian? It's pvious.
There's I think I don't know if you were on the board at the time when um Bob McCrenky built uh the building at 28 North Road >> and that driveway is a a type of material that is I call it's mostly
pvious. It allows the water to drain through and it's the actual entrance way into the parking lot area. And he used a lot of that. It's the same concept being used. So it it lessens the amount of impervious >> I see. substantially and it allows for natural drainage.
>> Okay, >> I hope that answers your question. >> I think so. I'm gonna go check out that 28 North. >> Yeah, it's the yellow build. It's the U Wentworth building. That's what it's designed after in Cambridge. That's where that design came from. >> Marcy,
>> um well, Joe brought up one of the points that I was concerned with with the um driveways for the excess the ADU being on property 2 versus property three. Um, and I think I might know with the board of health questions, like when we talked about the septic system, I wasn't seeing where they're planned or
proposed on this. Am I missing it? I could be, but I've been over this a half a dozen times. >> Leader proposed soil absorption system, primary, proposed reserve, proposed primary, proposed reserve. And
those big boxes, those are the test kits that we actually perform. And again, I think on one of the later sheets, uh, the results of those test bits around those. >> Yeah, I I remember seeing those, but it's all right. >> Brian, could you address the issue about
the homeowners to the east side of Chestnut Hill Lane using that as a as a road? Why they probably would not be doing that? If they wanted to, they can. Obviously, >> I think they certainly could. I mean, most of these houses, most of these lots
are developed >> off of Thomas Drive. Um I I guess I don't know Billy the answer to that question. If they wanted if they wanted to carve a path through there, they certainly could bring that vehicle up that way. >> Yeah. >> Again, I think I I tried to explain I
probably didn't do a very good job grading of that of just lane trying to stay very very close to the existing grade such that we don't have any large cuts to large fills in there that would create a real real. Um
I I don't think we would impede their access. >> No, they would have to develop their own plan to demonstrate that it meets all the criteria. >> So storm water that would be created, runoff, etc. That wouldn't be the applicant's obligation. That would be theirs because they're the ones that are
seeking to tap into to use that road. They have the legal right to do it, though. Absolutely. >> I'm I have one more question. And so I know we're going the wrong way, but >> we go all over the place. >> Brian, um, can you just do the or maybe
anyone who can who knows the answer? The ADU will have its own septic. >> No, >> they'll share the septic. >> Share the septic for property. >> Property three. Okay. >> I'll take for the driveway part and I will revise that. But the septic will be designed by the bedrooms for both the
ADU as well as the principal. >> But it will be one septic. >> But it be one septic. >> I see. Okay. One septic per house, >> right? Not >> with the ADU tied into one of them. >> Right. Got it. Okay. That was I >> Okay, >> thank you. >> To keep on going on that same question
with when you move that driveway over, is the proposed septic areas going to be impacted, do you think? >> Uh, does it kind of look like if you got >> a little bit of leeway? There's a little bit of leeway. There's 100 foot buffer zone here. Know this could slide a
little bit. I I do have some I do have some design flexibility a little bit here, but I don't want to sit here and say anything. I might regret at the next meeting. >> He's got to go back to the draw board and look >> do some jiggering. I'll do some design and show you that.
>> And where would the dragways of lot two and three be like actually where they park their cars when they're in it? So I get the one on the right, but I guess when you move that, how about the one on the left? one and two >> there's garages and there's room here >> in the garage
>> and then they wouldn't be parking in the T turnaround zone. >> So is that T turnaround zone like a no parking? >> It would have to be for the fire department. >> Yeah, the fire department will make sure of that, I think. >> So pretty much the whole chestnut lane would have to be no parking because that's the concern. We talked about the
22 ft. Um it's a family thing which is great and I know that my parents live right next door to me. Um, but you want to have family over for a graduation, a birthday party, where are the where are your guests going to be? Um, because then that seems like you're going to be putting everybody out on caner and in
the other areas. So, if we want to make this so that people are usable, I could agree with Anita that it might need to be a little bit more than 22 feet so that people can, you know, park in the areas without impeding on things. So, >> I'm not like, and again, I'm not saying it needs to be 40 feet. I think there's some flexibility,
>> but I'm not saying it's going to be 40t either. So don't don't quote me on that either, but >> we built these houses. >> We're meeting really what's been done before and with the town for roads like this is 22 feet. The width hasn't been an issue in the past here.
>> Yeah. Well, some of us live on really tiny streets because parents can testify that really wished we hadn't done this in the past. >> Okay. >> Again, that's all I'm saying. >> Marcy, any other questions? >> No. STA.
>> All right. So, a couple things I just want to understand a little bit better on that 50 foot no structure build line of the wetlands. I see the property outline properties look pretty close to those corners, but how much distance from like the rooftop runoff are you
going to have in those areas from the 50 foot no structure on the wetland? It's >> really a concom question. You want to answer it or >> Yeah, >> I'm still allowed to ask. So, thank you, >> Sita. I'm not looking to be adversarial, but I want to keep the purview of the
board within the purview of the board. You're on the board, you can ask whatever you want. I'm just saying >> thank you. >> My my client's obligation is simply here to prove that whether you grant the waiverss or not, that's really all we're talking about here.
>> You want to answer the question? >> Yes, of course. >> So, just to point out, your question is where like the close. It's cuz it's hard for me to tell from here on the proposed lots that you have right there for the items like how close are you to that 50 foot no structure zone
>> because it looks like in that second the second one and kind of like the third it looks pretty close. >> Yeah. So essentially the roof runoff it's it's going to be limited to the air. So it's going to be at least 50 ft from the wetlands at any point in time. We have gone through peer review. This
wetland line has been confirmed by both me and the uh your viewer from Oxbow Associates. So this one less line is set in stone from a conservation point of view. So on that note like from here I'm sure Brian if you can speak this this
include like the roots as well correct? >> Yeah. So minimum like 50 feet here like 51 feet there. Um, so >> this is like because they look like they're right ab budding up to like that 50 foot line. >> Yeah, those but
>> that was a question had um and they did peer review the delineations. >> Okay. And that's what they're waiting on is that information or they got it? >> I believe they got it. >> They got it. >> Yeah, I met with I met with a few associates out there last Monday. We
both confirmed that any buffer zone that would be cast onto these two is unaffected um from that peerreview site delineation walk and from there like essentially all buffer zones in the line are essentially set in stone from conservation. >> Okay, >> that was actually going to be my
question too because I knew that it was close and I wanted to figure out if the if they had settled on where so that the houses wouldn't be moving. So >> yeah. So exactly in and if for being a little lost this delination was a little generous just to give the you know the
applicants the most ecologically feasible and most protection of the ingredient wetland as possible. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. And then the next question I don't know because I didn't see it. Is there um a thing in here about which trees exist today that would be removed?
>> So we do show a proposed tree line. We didn't go out and locate every single tree. >> Can we take a Can next time when you come back, can you bring the mature trees that are along there? >> Actually, I think that's what the DPW is asking for. Oh, >> they were too.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> In their letter. >> Cool. >> So, yes, >> the inventory of tree removal within that right away. >> Okay, perfect. Let's see. I guess I was just kind of wondering too because this road, but it kind of came
up with the trash that the health department stuff was asking for. I'm not really clear like I'm assuming this is private like a paper road. So a trash truck wouldn't go up it, but if you have a dumpster, it would have to go up it to go empty it, right? >> No, the the trash truck is p private
pay. They'll go up and they'll they'll get it and then they'll do the tea turnaround and drive out and they'll be part of the home homeowner association for trash road screening of PL the plants, those kind of things. >> Okay. And I'm also looking forward to
seeing when you guys do the storm water stuff, the snow storage, the plowing plant, all that stuff. I'll be interested to see that when you get that done. Sure. >> Um, yeah. And I guess I'm just concerned with the road in general. So, can't wait to see when more stuff happens. I mean,
I understand. >> I'm concerned with like the runoff. I'm concerned with the water. Um the fact of it does affect the abutters. So, I just want to see more information on it. So, I'll be looking forward to that storm water and the other info.
>> So, storm water perspective. Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions before I get to mine? >> Okay. the peer review that was delivered to concom what was the scope of that I don't remember >> they defined it I I >> yeah but was it the wet it was wet just
wetlands delineation or was it storm water I don't remember what the scope was >> so uh the peer review we went we reviewed the wetland delini line me and Oxbow also walked the entirety of the site looking for any vernal pool habitat
okay >> uh as well as um oxbow reviewed the entirety of the submitt and provided their comments. Uh most of them were you know revisions to the WPA form 3 or maps that they wanted provided which are
already completed and uh some minor stuff considering storm water and um and product design. >> Okay. >> So it did include storm water and design. >> Yeah, they they're requesting they requested that storm water calculations be provided and you know we're doing
that anyway. So it's it's kind of a moot point. Okay. Thanks. >> So, did they issue an issue an ORAD then? >> No, no, no. So, an order of resource delineation was not issued as part of this. That's a separate filing. Okay. >> Um the conf the confirmation of the
wetland line is only as it relates to this uh notice of intent for an >> part of the NOI. Yes. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Um the other question I had is So, for the excuse me, for the storm
water um report, it would also be good to have some information about how impervious the the road is going to be based on the engineering construction for the fire department. Um
what percentage of pviousness would it be compared to pave road? Um the other so the my only concern um so my concerns
about this ro road are less about safety and more about storm water. So once I take a look at the storm water report um I think we would like to get that peer reviewed. um because I don't think we've dealt with a dirt road like this before
for storm water. So, I believe we'd want to get that peer reviewed by either DPW or someone else. Um and then I'm assuming that storm water report would also include the impervious uh surfaces of the roofs and
the driveways. Okay. >> Okay. >> That's all I have for now. Did you have anything else? >> I don't Brian, do you need to know >> question which I'm sure leave the Butters will probably answer. Can I ask
one more question? So, and I know you guys are going to get us the tree count and what we're cutting down, but when I looked on the Google map, um it looks very wooded even from the butters. Like I guess is it still screened even if you would put this road? Would the butters
like all of a sudden look out their backyard and see the houses or is it still wooded? >> You want to try that? >> Yeah. >> Speaking as an ecological scientist um are you referring first off are we speaking about the uh abutters across
the wetland system within um >> the Thomas both backyards. So yeah, it's mainly it's mainly exists as backyard or even fencing uh as abuing the northern or the the street side on caner, it's
mainly fencing. Um and then from the next three properties, it's mainly sporadic forest and then uh around where that T turnaround is, it's also forest. So this entire that entire area on the abuing properties is just forest and um it wouldn't be too it would still be
adequate screening between the road and the abutters. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right, >> Chris. Just a couple of uh comments. Um so the uh uh just to remind the the
board the definitive subdivision uh regulatory focus is on the right of way and associated infrastructure. The details that are provided on the individual lots are forformational purposes only uh for purposes of planning board. Uh the storm water uh
review is um focused on the right of way improvements. Uh the trees that DPW mentioned I believe are within the Caner Road right ofway, not within the uh paper street. Just a reminder, the town has no interest in
the paper street. Uh and then there was comments about uh protection of future conditions. So, um, this decision, uh, could be conditioned as as proposed where it's for no more than two lots, whatever
width is agreed upon, and then if in the future anything is to change, it would require a modification. Yeah. >> Um, so it's it's it's not it's not similar to the roads you live on where they're public streets
>> and over time other houses got added and the road didn't get improved or widened. >> Um, at the time the board could have done that if they wanted to. Historically the boards uh didn't do that. This being a um a private way
uh most of the planning board decisions for private ways did limit the number of lots and houses. >> So you can deed restrict the number of houses on it. >> Yes. >> Or or allow for modification. >> Yes. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. That's all I have at this point.
Okay. >> Okay. >> So the tree count though that's not how I read the DPW. So if it if that's not included then I would like to see it included. >> Yeah. I mean I just I'm just trying to provide clarification on what I think
the DPW comment is for. >> Okay. >> It's coming it's coming out of the the um uh the tree the tree warden and trees within public rightways town rightways. >> All right. So, I would like to see more
of a tree inventory for that roadway as well, for the entire stretch of the roadway. Um, >> of what's being improved? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, >> so ask one more question because now I'm
confused of what you said. So, in this here, then those all those proposed layouts of buildings and everything else, they would have to come back here as a separate meeting on those. That's all part of this too then. So the questions we're asking then are okay. >> Yeah. >> It it the locations of the driveways,
the houses, the septic systems are shown forformational purposes. The other way of saying this is there's nothing preventing um after a planning board approval notwithstanding concom uh jurisdiction
that the locations of the houses and the driveways can can change. The only thing the board, the planning board is approving is the layout of the the rightway, the associated infrastructure and creation of the lots,
the the house locations, the the grading of the lots. Um that is typically not within um subdivision um regulation >> because I mean it depends on our bylaws, right? they would go through the building inspector, get a permit and just along and they would make sure
based off of our zoning and bylaws that it fit and worked. >> But because the storm water of the driveways and the roofs are essentially tied to the storm water system of the
roadway, we do have to consider that in total. >> They may they may not be >> right. But we got to know that. >> Correct. Correct. Yeah. So, if they're not part of it, then that would be part of the storm water report.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Here. >> Anything else? >> We'll wait to hear from the advisor. >> All right. So, now at this point, we will open it to public input. Um, I
would ask that because we will likely have future meetings, um, please, uh, contain the comments to relevant information. Um, we do have, uh, anyone who submitted letters. All of those
letters are attached to the all of our agendas. Um, so if there's information in here, uh, please try not to read the letters. You can summarize it. the highlights. Um, for for expedience sake, um, we will provide opportunities for
input at every one of our meetings um that we have on this public hearing. Uh, so if you don't get to say something tonight, there's always next meeting. Um the other thing is please uh constrain
the comments to the uh areas that we um under our jurisdiction and not the conservation commission. Okay. So please come up. Please state your name and address for the record.
>> Sure. Thank you. Uh my name is John Christensen and I've been a homeowner in Chelmsford uh for most of the past 30 years. U Evan I believe that you've received the letter and >> Okay. So I will address only a couple of salient points that came up in the
discussion today. Uh I trust uh from the discussion that you've read the letter and I appreciate that uh Mr. Chairperson. Um, so one of the discussions that you just closed on had to do with the
conservation committee request for um a delineation independent review. And I I I I'm not sure if it's out of form to rely on the attorney of the party and the agents to uh represent um an
independent party's review with statements of facts, some of which if you don't mind, I'd like to uh >> address. There was a question, I think. Is it Anthony? >> You can, sir. If you'd address the board, I'd appreciate that. I just wanted to make sure that I understood uh
who uh I was referring to. >> I think there was a question from uh Miss Tenini about the screening impact on some of the properties and in fact I think the u impact of that was entirely misrepresented. Um let me point to my
property to help you with that. Now uh I live here at 71 Thomas Drive and it's about a 50 foot grade down to Thomas Drive. My home is located at the top of the hill. It's more or less roughly exactly where you see the printing. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Um, we have several trees along the back line and there is quite a number of trees here in the lane. I assume they will be taken out. I assume a number of these trees will be taken out to create the property. I would
assert that it's a misrepresentation to suggest and I would perhaps request that maybe most of the comments be stricken from the record as it pertains to the conservation committee report that none of us have read have read yet and we haven't seen. Uh so that's a misrepresentation. This home is also
here. They're going to have significant lack of screening to the property. The rest of these homes are all down the hill. They won't see the property. Um, uh, I think the the final point that I'd like to close on is that we we respectfully ask the planning board not
to approve the subdivision or to grant the requested waiverss until the entirety of these issues have been settled um, including the storm water and the impacts on the utter property. You'll hear from some of them tonight. Um, so thank you very much for your time. Uh, appreciate it.
>> Thank you. And just to clarify, um we do communicate significantly with the conservation commission. I'm actually the liaison for that um group and I do attend all of the meetings. Um if there is any information that is uh provided
at those meetings, I do pass it along to uh the board um in these hearings as well um if it's pertinent to our area. That's one of the reasons why I asked about the scope of that um concom review um because if it was purely uh
conservation related um it wouldn't be pertinent to our uh hearing. However, if there were aspects of storm water and design um they might pertain to us. So, um, in that in that situation, I might
talk to the the conservation commission about looking at the report, but we would be gathering all of the information that we need, any other members of the public.
>> Hi, good evening. Um, thank you so much for your time today. I have to say proud to be a Chumsford resident with all the critical questions. Um really appreciated that. My name is Kate Renis. I live at 25 Amble Road. Um which is in actually an area we haven't talked a lot
about but is in um I can just point it out the immediate downgrade of these new proposed properties. Um right here. Um so I just want to be super clear. Um I'm not here to argue against the right to build by any means. Um, I do just
want to ensure that the board has the necessary technical evidence to prove that the development will not result in water trespass or damage to my property. Um, most of that area, as you know, because we're doing a wetlands review, is already quite wet. Um, and the downgrade does continue um on my
property, so there's a lot of potential for that flow. Um, so we already covered the DPW memo. Um, you know, there's no storm water calculations that were submitted. I do appreciate um the attorney mentioning that they're doing those. I would just ask that you know um in order to really respect the
application process that we need to review these calculations um as well as the missing land disturbing uh disturbance permit for cut and fill uh because it would be hard to make a vote or determination on this um in a vacuum. Um you know I think also I heard that uh
just on the conservation um commission review there were a lot of questions that were not yet addressed or we've not seen addressed related to whether there's perennial streams and I heard um uh the engineer mention that there's a a whole host of revisions um that they're proposing and I just think it's
important that we see those revisions and how it will also impact um the plan because we cannot assume right that the new designs will work. I think that is the applicant's um legal burden to prove. Um the second point I just wanted to touch on, we talked a lot about uh
pvious gravel roads, impervious. Um one of the important uh things that I think uh we should also be touching on here is that gravel surfaces um are often proposed to be green or friendly. Um but in uh reality, I think uh those gravel
roads change over time. Um, so we've talked about, you know, the importance of O andM plans, uh, to make sure that some of that is addressed. Um, but I just wanted to request specifically that the board um, consider requiring a 100red-year storm analysis that treats the gravel services as 100% impervious
because in 3 to 5ear periods, you know, that percentage can shift to um, impervious quite quickly. Um, and if the drainage system only works when the gravel is brand new or only when it's been freshly maintained, then that system is designed um, potentially to fail and could create a massive runoff
problem um, for my drown grade property and the downgrade properties of my neighbor on the other side. Um, I think uh, just specifically to talk a little bit about um, I heard the homeowners trust which I think is you know great um, to hear. I just would request that
that also come with a specific operation and maintenance plan how that is tied to deeds um if these houses are sold um over time um and make sure that that's also reviewed to make sure that they are fully responsible for that. Um I appreciate that the applicant is not at
all concerned about the runoff um but just would also like to see the data um to support that. um you know without this the issue is that gravel roads or these driveways or all of the other elements that we are moving around or have not yet determined um if they clog the first yard that's actually going to
be flooded is mine um and there is no one to be held accountable in those reasons if these um considerations aren't taken um overnight and you know the town then will be left mediating this private dispute which I think we could prevent um just by doing a little more analysis in advance. Um, I think I
don't know the details. I heard your specific feedback about the roads specifically and the rest of it beingformational. I have a lot of questions about the runoff that's created from all of the additional landscaping, which is today a very wooded area. Um, removing all of that right up, you know, on an up uh hill
property. Um, I don't know the specifics, but I would ask if there's something that you would review there. That's, you know, certainly uh partly a concern for mine. Um and then I just appreciate your consideration to continue the hearing um you know until
we have these uh you know land disturbance permits, the full storm water calculations um with these considerations um taken in. And I also really appreciated the town engineer um specifically being requested to review that as well. Um I think you know often this analysis includes a
post-development volume of water not just rate um which is really critical to ensure that it's not increasing on that property line. Um and you know I think we're all aligned that we should prioritize the protection of the existing homes and the town infrastructure. We've we've had a lot of
you know wetter and wetter lands over the last with the new houses that are developed and want to make sure that our homes are are safe too. Um thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Hi, my name is Christa Mloud. I am in a
butter on 29 Amble Road. Uh, I actually had a question. So, it may um all along this road, if you'll notice, all along here and all along here, those are stone walls. And according to research that
I've done by my neighbor Matt King who also submitted a letter and um those stone walls may be as old as 200 years old. Um so my question is uh will those stone walls in any way be impacted by building a road there. Will they have to
be removed um in while when the road is being built? The reason I asked this question is because um according to uh zoning bylaws, one of which was just voted uh uh in town meeting. Um any project that includes a building or structure over 75 years of age shall be
referred to the Chumsford Historical Commission for review and comment. There has been a lot of uh recent um um scholarly interest in these uh stone walls in New England as they are unique to our area as archaeological properties
and as historical properties to be investigated. So that is my question is I'd like to know if there's any plans on disturbing those stone walls when that road is built or improved. >> Okay. >> Um the next point that I have I have another point as well. Um it's regarding
the Pinehill Road access. So, while they've stated that uh it is not passable um that access right now, the paper road, I would argue that it is passible enough that the uh homeowners in that area have had to block it off with a with a piece of chain because
they've repeatedly had Amazon drivers, people cutting through their trying to cut through on their vehicles. And if you look at Amazon maps, it's on there as an unnamed road as of right now. So, um, if this road, this road, uh, paper road runs the risk of becoming a
cutthrough in the neighborhood, um, if, uh, the if all of those trees down that road are cleared. So, I just also want to point that out, um, as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Any other members of the public wish to speak? Okay, good uh good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the uh the board. I appreciate you holding this hearing and giving us the opportunity to uh to provide input. My name is Matthew King, and I'm going to butter at 23 uh Amble
Road. I do want to say that uh I do want to lead in by saying that um I did submit a letter in advance detailing an analysis that I did um raising questions about the applicant's right title and interest to build the paper road over or build the paper street over the proposed
area because you have um kindly and I very much appreciate already requested town council review that plan. I am happy to hold my comments um out of courtesy to the board if you would prefer um um to see that analysis first. And I do have some comments that I have
prepared um in response to the rebutter letter that attorney Howler um did post. So we'll leave it up to you all. >> If you have additional details that are not in the letter, now would be a good time to add them. >> I I can certainly speak to the ways that
that I I read the letter that I think are are relevant to you all and your consideration of that letter. Um I'm not going to repeat it now and I'm certainly not going to try to rebut it point for point. I I simply want to call attent the board's attention to the fact that
um the core gaps um remain in in Mr. Howler's letter. Um most of the letter is spent making the argument that the applicant has some form of easement in the lane. And I do want to emphasize that that is that that's simply not a fact that's in dispute. I think the law is clear. Yes, she has some form of
easement in the lane. The question and the only question that actually matters is whether her easement in the lane covers the distance from here to Caner Road that is not abuing her property. Now, you will have heard attorney Hower talk on and on about the derelict fee
statute and how it grants um property rights over half of the fee within the lane that abuts the applicant's property. But it is important to be clear that the derelict fee statute in and of itself contains no language, no provisions that that actually conveys
easement rights. It is simply um it is simply an instrument uh or is simply a law that that um controls the uh uh fee ownership in in legal conveyances. So I want to uh talk a little bit about the fact that um Mr. Hower's letter is
ambiguous uh with respect to actually defining for you all what is the source of his claim that the applicant's easement covers the entire lane. Uh he is um what he said is that um I'm sorry
lost my place. Um nowhere does he clearly explain which theory of easements is he asserting that grants the applicant rights over what I'm calling the terminus of the lane above Caner Road. Instead, there is an implied argument based on two claims. Uh he implies that an easement by a stoppple,
it's a word that that came out, covers the entire lane on the argument that because all parts of the lane have appeared on any subdivision plan at any time, that and these are his words in his letter, no one can claim the right does not exist. I want to emphasize for
the board that this is a categorically false statement and I might go far as to say a disingenuous one because I suspect that even Mr. Howser knows that that is simply not true. Uh every uh many many courts uh in Massachusetts have
repeatedly upheld that a stopold does not apply to everyone anywhere at any time. It is a right that runs against granters only uh in favor of their grantees and not against any outside party. So it is true that the applicant's granter Charles Kulis and
anyone who followed him in his chain of title cannot claim that the applicant's easement does not exist. But as I noted in my letter, Esttoppel does not in any way legally bind or burden land that is owned outside of parties that had no history of common ownership with Mr.
Kulis' chain of title. Uh, and therefore the letter does not address the most central fact. The Caner Road Terminus and Lady Slipper Lane have never at any time in history, as far as I can tell from public records, been owned in unity. They have always been a part of
separate chains of title. There is a fundamental core fact that is so fundamental to law that it exists in Latin. I won't try to pronounce it, but basically it says one cannot grant what one does not own. Mr. Kulitis has never owned the caner road terminus of this
lane, nor has anyone who preceded him in title. And therefore, there is no easement that can apply to a part of the lane that no one in the applicant's chain of title have ever owned. It is simply an incontestable, highly upheld tenant of Massachusetts land use law.
So, no, the applicant's claim to an easement across the entire lane is simply false. Her easement stops right here. This is what she owns. This is all private property of these three of butters and no this easement absolutely does not include this part of
the lane. The other part of the letter that I will address um mostly involves as I as you all have noted if you read the letter mostly involves I said an explanation of the derelict fee statue and the purported utility rights in in the abuing way. Most of that is tangential
until you actually can prove that that part of the lane is covered under the easement. It is important to note as I said that the actual statute only addresses fee ownership and not um an actual easement right. So once you boil it all down Mr. Howler's argument is based on exactly that common assumption
that I described to you in my letter which is that of some sort of ephemeral a butters easement where simply owning a property that abuts a private way ephemerally grants an easement right that exists independently of any other theory. But I have already discounted that in the letter that I wrote to with
cited case law that shows that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has explicitly rejected this idea of an abutters easement assumption. So unless the applicant has a valid easement claim under one of the theories that Massachusetts actually recognizes, then
no, there is no right that automatically pertains to the entire lane. And you will notice if you read the letter over again that Mr. Hower's letter does not address or rebut this point. and simply he he simply asks the board to believe in this theory of an ephemeral grant uh an ephemeral easement grant that does
not exist. So I will wrap up by saying that I am not asking the board to attempt to adjudicate either one of our claims. Um this board is a regulatory body as you all know and ultimately this is a legal dispute that requires lawful
adjudication. Um when development rights are disputed as they are here the issue should be resolved by the courts not by this planning board. So, I respectfully ask that the board require the applicant to take her claims to court and try her title rights there before taking any action or making decisions about her
definitive plan. The burden of proof to show that she has right title and interest in that contested segment of the lane is on her. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Any other members? >> Good evening. My name is Deborah.
McDonald. >> Good evening. My name is Deborah Dura and I'm going to butter to the property in question. Over half a century resident of Chumsid, a Chumsford volunteer and producer and host chef of Cooina Cuisine on Chums TV. Um I'm just
here to provide a little bit of history. Um the previous this the development has been the culuses have identified um developments previously and the the previous
applicant was Charlie Koulis and we had um there were some issues with the planning board and conservation commission at that time. So at that point and this is over about it's almost 30 years about 28 years ago and I
believe the um attorneys were Holl and Finnegan at the time they were over at the Fisk House next to the Fishbones and they decided to to ask the neighbors to come to the law offices and there's no there aren't any meeting minutes to to
speak of. So all I can do is give you from my memory and at that time and I made bucklava too. So I don't think that was I don't think that was the the the decision maker but as a result of that
meeting they abandoned the use of the paper street and scaled back their development at that time which is now Lady Slipper Lane and also the conservation land the coolest farm at that time. So, I'm just giving you some
historical perspective. Um, the intention since I've been there almost since, you know, I was a child. Uh, the intention of the original developer Hicks was to leave a forested area in the back of the homes on Thomas
Drive, Caner Road, and Amble Road. He want wanted to maintain the desiraability of those properties. my backyard and the wooded area which includes the paper street is designated as a national wildlife habitat and I have there's a sign back up and also I
have the certificate if you need it. The current site conditions already demonstrate that this area is highly sensitive to water as documented by the Oxbow Associates which specifically highlighted my property 61 Thomas Drive.
the applicant wants to use as an access point to the paper street for the express benefit of the applicant, essentially creating a private way without consideration of the abut's property rights. It does not seem logical to me to destroy the environment
since there are a lot of trees on that on that road and the only fencing all of those properties in the back. The only fencing is my fence, which only is part of that property.
If you want to go down to Thomas, I can show you. There's only a little bit of fence here. So, if they take all of that, all of the trees and the vegetation, I'll be looking in my backyard at a paper street
and people going back and forth. It's also a nuisance because That's going to it's going to be a private nuisance because it's going to attract other people. We have motorcyclists that go up and down Canter Road all the time. So, they're going to go running around through there, too. And they will
probably go to the um other side of the Cton Road. Um I mean, um Chestnut Hill uh road, which empties into Pine Hill Road. And uh basically it, uh it's It's not
logical to destroy the environment. It's a quiet paper street. There's cumulative negative impacts on the aba properties. There's loss of natural screening. There'll be increased traffic. It's not just going to be the the the
applicants uh uh residence. It's going to attract attention and it's a private nuisance interference with the use of a home via the water trespass. I appreciate the opport opportunity to speak and ask that the
abus uh concerns be fully addressed. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Any other members of the public wish to speak? >> Okay. Uh did you have any answer? There
was one question about stone walls or is the applicant prepared to answer anything about that? Uh yeah uh some of that stone wall if not a majority of it will be disturbed during construction. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Anything else from the applicant? >> Um just a few things. I'll I'll I'm not going to respond to Mr. King's comments. Um town council will give us his its opinion. We can work from there. I'll rely on legal counsel from the town and
I to work out what we think are the right principles of law applied to this situation. Um I'll leave it at that. Um, with respect to uh water trespass claims,
um, I don't know where that's coming from because there's never been any such and we're not proposing to create any water to affect anybody else's property or trespass on their property. We have to maintain the storm water per the regulations. It'll be handled by T town
engineer and our uh, engineer as well. So I just ask you to keep this in the focus that is within your purview. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Um, one of the questions that just came up from what I heard from the public
across from that T area, it's not really clear to me where the current structures of homes are. Is it possible to get an updated view of one of these plans showing those structures for the next meeting? >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. My clients have spoken to the White
Houses which are right here. They have no they're not here and they have no objection to it. So I certainly understand Mr. Christensen can make whatever comments he wants about his property and we respect that. He should not be representing what the comments are for White House Family Trust. As far
as I'm aware, they're fully supportive of this entire my uh proposal. So if they're not, they'll come, but I'm fairly confident they won't. So we will address that particular issue for Mr. Christensen. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
Plug in point. We'd be happy to locate the homes. Mr. Well, I don't know that all the abutters are here, but I'd like to get permission to go on there to locate. We don't have to cut any trees. We don't have to do anything except for a survey crew to go locate the corners of their houses. >> So don't know if we need to survey. It
could probably and some type of maybe the town map showing the homes >> GIS something to give me an idea in relation to where your tea is. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. That's why I always have my computer because it's always
>> What about that stone stone wall? >> Hi. Um I wanted to also about one question regarding 61 Thomas Drive noting uh that um there was some comments by Oxbow Associates. Uh I feel like that area that the letter was
misrepresented. Um 61 Thomas is only mentioned once in that peerreview letter as it relates to a dip in topography. Um nothing regarding clearing or screening or environmental impacts. >> Okay. Thank you. You >> got a copy of the letter?
>> Yeah. I have a question for Evan. I'm not aware of a national wildlife habitat certification having any regulatory >> um strength to it. >> Not familiar with that. >> Okay. >> Not familiar with that. >> Can we Yeah. Can we ask uh conservation?
>> Yeah, I was going to reach out to uh the chair of the conservation. I would suggest that the um that the residents submit that paperwork and then we can have conservation review it. >> Okay. >> I I just want to jump in. Um while you
know that area is maybe defined as something it's not within legally protected area under the WPA at least noting it's not within priority habitat or estimated priority habitat of rare wildlife uh or species considered by natural heritage. It's not mapped with
an either. >> Okay, Mr. Tori, if you could uh submit that to Evan so that he can get it to the conservation commission. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anything else from the board?
>> One more. >> Just a clarifying question. Um some of the we've talked I know this is planning board. I actually just was looking to be educated if you don't mind for a second on there are open questions in the conservation commission. So does that mean that your decision includes that
explicitly? That needs to be okay. So >> no they're separate decisions. Um >> they typically impact each other which is why the two boards um work closely together and why we have a liaison with them. Um
but they are two separate regulatory bodies. Sometimes the jurisdiction does overlap. Got it. >> Um but it is >> separate. >> So who's respons I just heard the attorney's comments about like you know not being this not being a water
trespass issue that's relevant but like isn't uphill construction responsible for proving that they don't create a burden on downgrade properties? Is that not a planning board issue or who who actually is responsible for that issue? I would just like to know. >> Basically it's our review of the storm
water. Got it. Okay. >> Degree of our jurisdiction, but it does it if it is designed and implemented according to the guidelines and it should not it should prevent trespass. That's the point of >> Okay, that's super helpful. Last question is um some of the questions on
the conservation question that came up was like there's potentially a perennial stream and that would change the boundaries because that switches from 100 to 200. So those issues around septic tank could actually be and house boundaries could be put into question. So is that a that overlap doesn't No,
that's all conservation question. Okay. Thank you so much for clarifying. >> Or board of health. >> Or board of health. Okay. So the board of health would need to see. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Which is a separate hearing. >> Yes. >> And now my full-time job. Thank you. Sorry. >> Yes.
>> Anything else from the board? Anything else from the public? >> Anything else from the applicant? I will take a motion. I would move that we continue this hearing to >> May 27th. >> 27th.
>> Motion by Mike. >> Seconded. >> Second by Marcy. All in favor? >> I. >> Unanimous. It is continued to May 27th. Thank you everyone. >> All right. We will now move
to the next item on the agenda. >> Next exciting. >> No more public hearings for this evening. Community development director's report. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh just quickly, I have
one item. Folks, >> you may want to >> folks, we need to continue the meeting. Could you take the conversations out to the hall, please? >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Thank you. Just give him a couple minutes. >> Thanks again.
>> Thank you. >> Hold on, Evan. Just give him a minute. >> Okay. Okay. Uh so the one item is um the managed growth strategies meeting tomorrow night. At that meeting, Nimco and I will be providing uh several
updates. One of which is submission of the uh second state grant uh with a submission date of June 3rd that would cover the second $100,000 uh for the uh estimated budget.
So that is all I have this evening. >> And when does that grant award get? >> Uh it would be uh October. both both both the grants, the one that we submitted back in uh March and this
one uh we expect to hear um uh responses probably uh around October time. >> Anything else? That's all I have. Okay. Comm uh leazison updates. Um I will
start with a town meeting update. Um all of our zoning uh articles passed except for the bed and breakfast. Um there was significant opposition to that. Uh so I think at this point um unless people
feel really strongly we will put that on the back burner um for a while and maybe talk about it again in the future. Maybe not. >> We'll see how things go. >> We got a lot of stuff going on. We have a lot of things to >> y
>> um conservation commission um had three meetings between our last two. >> How was our last meeting? >> We canled the second one last month because of town meeting. >> Oh, so it h Okay. So, it's not just been a long time. >> It's been a long time.
>> And our meetings were staggered with conservation last month anyway. So, >> they didn't have one on the one before. They didn't have one in between, I think. >> Right. Yeah. >> And then they caught up. >> So, yeah. So, we there were three meetings. The only thing was uh Lady
Slipper had their first um hearing with them and then the last two meetings were continued. Um so, they've now they're now even with us for lady slipper hearings. Um but that's really the only item.
Nothing else major. Any other leaison reports? It was a ZBA meeting which we haven't had for a couple of months. Um like the most it was a short meeting um was in ADU and they were looking for variance because
of the FAR but it was like 0.02% like over it was really really small. They approved it. They gave them the variance. It really wasn't all that material >> substantive. >> Yeah. And not at all. Um but that was the excitement. It was a real short meeting.
that little and they didn't place modify their plane to like take off like a corner of >> it's an ADU behind the triangle >> saw off a foot. Yeah. >> Yeah. It was just one. Yeah. >> I don't know. >> Which I thought was interesting in and of itself
>> because it's supposed to be residential, but it's >> Yeah. >> But again, that's one of our selling conflicts. >> So, anyone else? >> It looked nice. It did look nice. John, >> just real quick, I do have a NIMCOG council meeting scheduled next Wednesday
the 20th. >> Okay. >> Board of Health met and I already mentioned that and I already mentioned that I think that maybe was that they heard that from DPW that Lady Slipper would be able to connect to town.
>> But in any case, they were under that impression. So, um it'll be interesting to see how that resolves. Obviously with the whole act gap analysis, we're wanting >> to sort of have people go to border of health first before they come to us to resolve some of these things. Um, and
uh, other than that, I asked about the gap analysis, but I know we're going to be talking about it. So, I'll just keep my comments. >> So, so, oh, who was going to follow up with get letting them know? Did we say were they going to follow up? They were going to follow up, right? >> They were going to follow up. Yeah. And then also they had a change. They had election of officers and now David
Pquette is the chair. Uh, Dr. for me as vice chair and Rich as clerk. So, they just changed seats again. >> Oh, interesting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Uh, the vinyl square committee met. Um, the clock tower is going to be unveiled May 25th with a veterans um honorary
plaque on it as part of it. Um, NEMCOG came to our meeting and they were talking about railway a railway feasibility study that they're looking to try to get started. Um they talked a lot about the railway potential from is
it Gallagher and LOL to up to Nsha. Nshawa is currently doing a study as well >> um to see feasibility wise um about it going there. The other and that was really interesting to hear that. So we >> they've for a while but it seems like
they also found out Nasha's moved forward with their feasibility study. So now they're trying to like catch up to it. And what they're trying to find out is apparently they haven't figured out I think they said they didn't know what they were doing with their budget for next fiscal year and they were hoping to reallocate some of that money towards
the feasibility study. >> So >> see where that >> trying to get two states to connect the railways. Always interesting. >> Yeah. Yeah. It was different because one of the first things she said is that the New Hampshire DOT wasn't in favor of it. So then questions
started coming up of why. So, it's it's will be interesting to see what they find out because NSHA is actually the one that did the feasibility study. >> Yeah. I wonder like I always wonder why couldn't we just connect it all the way up to Tingboro. >> Well, I guess and that's the other question is Tingsboro doing a study. >> Well, but >> because like Chums this is Chumsford,
right, with that feasibility study. Well, would that be the whole thing? How does that work? >> Would it be? >> It would. Okay. And then um the other thing that's still kind of up in the air is in Vinyl Square that parking lot lease has not been renewed. M >> so there's currently no lease and I guess also by no lease there's no
insurance so >> and we don't know when that's going to get taken care of so they're having a hard time >> had the lease I mean the town had the lease >> it was like a 30-year lease between that and I believe it was whoever owned that property before and then the property got
>> inherited right >> so the current owner doesn't want to lease it back to the town again >> he there was talk back and forth so but Now he's not nobody's talking. He stopped answering calls. So they're trying to get him to talk for >> but he hasn't said what he wants to use
the property for. So that's you know people they're asking that as well but there seems like there's not communication happening. >> Yeah. I just to add just to add I want to stop on your report the um I did talk with town manager Cohen and it was you
know town meeting did approve renewing the lease for a dollar. However the town manager has reached out a number of times. The property owner has not heard back. So that's where it sits >> for a dollar. >> Yeah, that was the the renewal. Isn't there a renewal option >> on it?
It >> it's just there to be a nominal fee, but you but you need the other party to enter into a lease agreement. >> No, no, I understand for a dollar. Maybe he wants more money. >> No, I get that, but I thought it was an automatic. >> Let's give him two. Yeah, >> I think we can get two. Yeah.
>> All right, let's move on. Anything else? Senate >> villages in meeting this month. >> Okay. All right. Um, let's move on to the aquifer protection gap analysis. So,
a few of us met with the other um with conservation, the board of health, um, Evan was there, uh, Christine Kansy was there. Um, and we met to review the draft. Uh we
got a presentation from the uh consultant. Um we provided verbal feedback. I didn't see a lot of notetaking. Um so I believe they're asking for continued feedback. So my
recommendation is that if you have feedback from that night that you verbalized or if you've got feedback now that you send it to Evan and I. Um, we'll compile it and get it on to >> Weren't they also recording the meeting?
>> Yeah, I'm pretty sure Nancy was recording. >> Yes, cuz I remember she saying something then she put, you know, put >> Okay. >> It was kind of noisy in there. So, I wasn't sure how much that is going to pick up anyway. So, if you've got feedback, >> are there minutes?
>> Let's at least get it into writing. >> Evan, I think you took some notes at one point. I made some comments in the end. There will be minutes. Uh the board of health will create the minutes and then planning board will okay we'll have to review and approve those.
Um my recollection was >> um the main feature of input from Hong Kong planning board was what kind of questions, what kind of data
>> and then any stated methodology maybe lessons learned from 270 would be incorporated into that. Um I think also being able to have some say if there's a public hearing undisputed >> right >> of >> the LSPs can't can't agree.
>> Yeah. If the LSPs can't agree then that right now the way it's worded is the board of health will have a hearing to adjudicate any of those things and I wanted for us and for >> well I wanted for us I'm speaking for us to be able to weigh in on that too. >> Uh so how exactly that happens I don't
know. 270. Which one was 270? >> 270. >> 270. Bill wrote the warehouse. >> The warehouse that has the big rent sign in front of it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Don't worry. Don't worry. >> The one you didn't vote for.
>> The one I did not vote for. I was >> That's why >> there was some discussion last night at Concom. um some concern voiced from some some of them about is this going to be too ownorous on people uh create too
much um undue financial burden on some applicants um but as David Coons pointed out 270 as an example they ended up paying
for the um for the uh LSPs for both the town and their own LSPs after the fact for an long significant period. So even in 270's case, if this were done
upfront, they would still be paying for both, but it might have compressed the timeline for the LSP time. So um it for some cases it may increase the cost for other cases um for the more complex ones
it may decrease the cost. And I think too we we were both asking about essentially what triggers this um sort of particularly hydrog study um because the way it it appeared it appeared to be fairly broad like even if
you're just having a site plan review >> and so we wanted to get a better definition. I think that's something they were going to work on. Yeah. >> Was that but one of the things I added I'm just remembering I'm making a note of it now was that we also wanted to have it be triggered when the applicant
is aware of contamination on their site, which is different than the land owner because that's what 270 was all about. The applicant knew about it, the land owner did not until the applicant became the land owner. Then they required to report. So, we wanted to catch that.
>> All right. So, um, so yeah, we will have the minutes that we'll look at, but if you do have additional feedback, send it along to us and we'll make sure it gets to the board of health. >> Did we skip 210 Boston? >> We did. >> Oh, yeah, I did.
>> My memory is really bad. And then when you kind of start screwing around, >> it was small. Sorry, I missed it. >> I was like, we kind of missed something there, but we'll let him go. >> 210 Boston Road. Sorry about that. Evan, do you want to give some background on this one? >> Yeah. So, I printed out um the
materials. This did not uh the materials that I printed out for you did not uh get on the agenda. So, the property owner of 210 Boston Road um which is the retail plaza uh along Mill and
>> is this the CVS? >> Boston Road. No, it's a strip plaza. >> Um >> and Boston Road. It's this plaza right here. >> Used to be a peach peach old train store. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yep.
>> Uh they have uh a vacancy uh and they have a small coffee shop interested. Surprisingly, the CA zoning does not allow um restaurants of any type.
Um, so I told them to send an email to me and I would uh uh bring it to the intention of the planning board for consideration. Um, some of the other material that you see
here uh is that there's four CA areas in town. Chumps Street across from the Westlands, which is primarily a commercial area. School Street is a mixeduse area. Kate's Corner has some CA. And then the fourth CA area is is
this Boston Road um area. So, um at a high level, some of those areas may be appropriate for like small coffee shops, not full-blown sitown restaurants, and others may not. Um but similar to um the
mill property owner, >> another example where a property owner is um uh receiving inquiries um and uh trying to engage uh with the planning board. >> So if you want we could uh we could invite them in for maybe a more detailed
conversation uh or we can you know proceed as uh as the board would like to. Final comment is there are several uh restaurants in this plaza already. Um I have not done a file review, but my guess is that those received use
variances some time ago. >> I was going to say I thought there was a restaurant >> pizza shop. >> I think that may be the only restaurant, a pizza shop. >> So what's in the train? >> They go and get >> spot like a variance.
>> We don't allow use variances any longer. I was going to say I've never heard of abuse. I've never heard of one coming before us. >> A long time ago, the town did allow use variances. Those would go to the zoning board. Yeah. >> Ah, >> there's pros and cons to allowing use variances. >> Interesting.
>> So then what would be the process? We would have to go to town meeting and >> correct. Yeah. So we would have to either allow >> change the use table. >> Yeah. Change the use table to allow these small type coffee shops. We'd have
to define it >> because the way we've defined restaurants is not based on size or what they serve >> like fast casual that kept on coming up. >> Yeah. So, we would have to essentially create a definition.
Um, and because there's already a pizza shop here, I'm not sure we would want to limit it to only coffee. Um, so we'd have to redefine what we want and allow it either allow it in the CA zones
or create a new zone >> or or change it to another zone like a a different zone like I don't know if there's another more like CB. >> Yeah. or change this to a different >> because it's literally like only four places in town that we have CA and
>> one of which is Kate's Corner which we just reszoned >> but so is that a darker area all CA >> yes this is the lumber yard >> okay >> uh these are probably um part of the lumber yard these three uh buildings
lumber lumber >> yard council lumber Yeah. >> Oh, across the street. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Sorry. >> And what's the green thing? Is that public? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> The question I had is School Street area. I'm not familiar with that. CA. >> Yeah. >> Uh it's very small. Well, it looked like the the the mixed use looked like the mixed was um single family with maybe
some contracting in the back. >> Okay. >> And then final comment is while we don't um have subcategories of restaurant, we do have subcategories for retail stores.
So, for inspiration, you know, less than 3,000 square feet. >> Yeah. Right. >> Uh more than 3,000 square feet. So there's a variety of ways you could do size. You could do not to exceed number of seats >> tables. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What about where's a gas station and
what zoning gas station? >> What was the question? >> Gas. >> I was just thinking because gas stations have coffee. >> Yeah, but it's not primary use. The gas stations usually have um a
convenience store and then the convenience store has >> a food counter. >> Yeah. >> Where and convenience stores are >> retail retail. Yeah. But the the principal use of of those sites is a gas station which we regulate.
>> So I think we have two things here. We've got there's not I don't think there's much we can tell the property owner now at this point. >> Um but if we're going to do something for
town meeting, we should discuss what we would want to do. >> So think about it between now and the next meeting. Um we'll put on the agenda for some brainstorming next meeting. Um, and
then we'll see what we want to do for direction for this. >> I think it makes sense to regulate restaurants based on size. >> That's going to have significant impacts across town, though. So, we do have to think carefully about that one.
>> Well, maybe. I mean, if you're putting >> like what's the one by Roger Robert? Is it Robert's Field? >> The crearyy. the primary. >> What's that zoned? >> Um, I don't know off hand. Do we do we know the address?
>> No, I have no idea. >> Old Westford Road. >> It's next to the new fire station. >> What's that address? >> I'm going to head into School Street, too. >> Yeah, it connects to School Street. >> Where's that? >> Old Westford and School Street. Is it? >> Here it is. Right here.
>> Um, Friendship Park. >> That's right there. >> Oh, both. Yeah. Yeah. RB. >> Well, that answer will help us. That makes a lot of sense. >> Would a coffee shop be allowed if it was CB light?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, that's one option, too, is just turn that thing into CB. >> What would the >> lumber yard be? >> Is that >> Lumberyard is currently CA? >> Yeah, I was. >> Yeah, but is that retail? Is that >> It's got It's
>> contractor. It's um yeah, it's retail wholesale. Retail wholesale. Okay. So, that would be allowed in CB light. >> Yeah, >> that'd be easy. >> That would be easy. >> Well, we got to check to see what else is in the other CB light. >> Yeah. >> What what the other CA districts are?
>> Well, we wouldn't have to change all of them. >> Oh, no. Wait a minute. You're saying just change that >> area? Change that CA area to CB. >> Well, that one's also wrong right next to it. >> I mean, if it works for Kate's Corner. >> Well, this is up at Roberts Field now. So, different area.
>> All right, think about it. >> But yeah, that might be an easy one. >> We'll talk Yeah, we'll talk about it next meeting. >> That CB light might come in really handbike zone. >> Pretty soon we're going to change the whole town. >> I like it. It's just got a problem. Make
it CB light. Right. >> Flexibility. >> An old business. Can we move number four? >> Yeah, I was just going to suggest that because I've noticed some folks patiently waiting on Zoom and in the audience for number four.
>> Um, all right. So, we will move to Riverneck Road as the next item. >> Excuse me. >> Evan, do you want to bring up the slides? And Anita, Mike, do you want to walk us through? So, this is not a public hearing.
>> This is not a public hearing. >> Are we taking public comment? >> No. Um, we're discussing. So, the process that we've that I'd like to continue following that we've been following is we have a group or some
initial draft that this board talks through, makes adjustments and changes based on our own input. Mhm. >> Then we have a formal an informal meeting with the residents in the area um Butters and things like that. Get their feedback and input.
>> Then we have a more formal public hearing that by then will likely last one or two meetings. >> Yeah. >> Great. Thank you. >> So, >> okay. >> So, tonight is the board discussion.
>> All right. Ready? This is the first slide. Yep. >> Okay. I'm trying to reorient myself. This is so because Riverneck Road is so large. These are We're doing sections at a time. >> Perfect. >> The gray section. Um just orient the
Mercury buildings up on the right. They're not highlighted. Um and up to the top is 495. Like the top is 495. Riverick kind of comes all the way down. I think it's even Carter Drive as it might be in here.
Um, the gray is currently IIA, which doesn't make sense. >> Is the gray above it also IIA? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yep. It's 495 right on top. >> Yeah. And all of those properties are town of Chelmsburg.
>> 3. >> No, 495. >> That's 495. >> Route 3 is to the right, further this way. >> Is it is it possible to get like some sort of picture added in here that gives like a bigger view? No, >> you can't fit it on a slide. You'd have to >> not not putting these to see the changes, but something like an overview
one that says, "Okay, we're gonna look at this." >> Oh, that's a good idea. I can do that. Yeah, definitely do that. >> Yeah, >> those that way then we can go. >> Yep, that's a great idea. >> Those of us who live there don't >> um
>> so these this is a lot of this is all public. So, if you go to the next slide, Evan, um we're just propo um proposing to change it to public because the town owns it all. Um there's a couple of properties that have like a little bit
of IIA in their corner. That's mostly RB. So, we're saying those are RB. And um >> and that weird shaped one would be RB, too. >> Yeah. >> Which weird one? That >> that one like that one that's pointing
>> where the RB is on. It's got the lightning bolt to the right. >> That's 243 here. >> Yeah, >> that's 243. >> Oh, this is 243. >> Oh, okay. the
>> so we had talked once before and I we never did anything about it but the one other time iteration of this process we had proposed as a as a policy which maybe doesn't make sense now that we're doing what we're doing but I'm just going to put it back out there that the people
whose property are like half one thing half another could choose one >> I thought you were picking to the best >> no yeah sense You're okay. >> Where does where does that RV red line where's that pointing to on that?
>> So this So that property there, that big property like Yep. with the RBs on and that little property that has the corner there, that's a little >> tiny corner. >> That's why I called it out >> and the rectangle >> the whole rest of it because only
>> So those two P Yeah, those two highlighted yellow >> top left of >> I think the the arrow seems a little confused. Does it need to just point like I guess I'm getting confused. >> So there are three properties there. >> One that are partly IA, partly something else.
>> Yeah, they're kind of cut in half. They're part IIA, part Okay. RB mostly R. Well, >> you're looking to change the whole section. >> All three of those properties to RB. >> They should be one or the other, >> which they are RV because they have houses on them. >> The other question I had is just make it
not a straight line basically to make it go like this >> to the left of that. No, I mean like that other one's RB and then there's I think you just need a line to that one or something. I don't know. >> Or we can put a little RB on this one a little bit and get rid of the >> get rid of the arrow and just put RB. >> I was just pointed out that that's just a small little piece of that property
for some reason. >> I think if it hits that little >> because they were married to the straight line. >> Yeah. I don't know why why we did this like why we didn't follow property lines before which is really bizarre. Evan, to the left of those properties,
that curved shape, >> the yellow, >> yeah, >> the brook >> on the other side of that brook, >> if you look at the map and blow it up, >> it's a little still IA, >> there's still an IIA strip on the other side of that brook on that residential section
>> to the left of Collins. >> Yeah. See, like right there, I didn't highlight it. So if you So we should include that one, too. >> Oh. Oh. Oh. >> Right there. >> Huh? >> Look at that. >> What are we looking at?
>> If you want, if you pull up the slide, I can point to it. It might be easier. >> He's doing the map. >> Which one? >> This little strip. I think she's talking >> on River Meadow. Like there's a little bit here. >> Yeah. Right there. Right there. See how like >> it's like colored outside the line. >> Yeah. Again, it didn't follow the bottom
part. The bottom part sticks out too. there a little bit. >> Yeah. Like my point. Okay. >> Sorry. Really? Like >> on this one. This was supposed to be the easy one, by the way. >> Yeah. So, we need to clean up all of those. >> Yeah. But so, we're just going to make them follow a property >> property line. Yes.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's sensible. >> Okay. And they have houses on, so they're going to RB. >> Common sensible. Common sensible. The next piece of this, the famous, this is the one everybody should be familiar with because I think we've spent quite a bit of time on this planning board
looking at this >> wasn't here then. >> Um, come on mouse. >> Come on, mouth. We've got McFarland. We've got the Mercury building. Um, we also have Apollo Drive.
Um, >> well, Apollo Drive maybe could be IIA. >> Um, hold on. And then we have some piece off of progress here. Um >> are we on a new slide? >> It was right here. >> Next slide. >> Next slide. D >> one more.
>> Okay. Sorry. >> Okay. Um following you know our process for Kate's Corner um in North Chelms the IAS that I've highlighted on here that abut the neighborhood. If you want
to move to the next slide. So, what we're proposing is turning McFarland back, Mammoth back to RB >> um CB light for Mercury CB light um across the way there in the empty lot.
And then there's a machine um shop light um >> high-tech machineries, >> high-tech machineries. Then, um CB light for the anything that abuts a residential. And again, what they have now is already allowed in CBI. It
doesn't change anything, but it does prevent >> um anything that would be, you know, gives us that buffer to the neighborhood. >> I creep. >> Yep. >> What happened like with all that gray to the right of the RV houses? What is that? >> Route three.
>> Highway right away. >> To the right, that line right there, that's route three. So it doesn't matter what we zone that or what >> it doesn't matter for like that whatever that is space between >> we're not going to build there >> actual >> no I think that's owned by a state >> the state
>> the only thing they can build there is if they decide to expand Route 3 again >> okay >> before we go on to the next slide I have a question about the residential house on Riverneck
um >> in the middle Yeah. >> Yeah. According to Sean Campbell's letter, there's someone living in there now. >> Is there? >> Which one? >> Oh, that was the one that they >> I thought they sold the owner sold it to
Mercury >> or to Buckley and his crew. >> So, if that that's the house that was part of the the contractor proposal. >> Yeah. Correct. >> Well, there's somebody living in it now. There's nothing preventing them from using it as single family.
>> No, but if that's the case, then >> we need to put it back to >> RB. >> You can change it if you want. >> No, we can reszone it. It becomes I mean, we prefer to keep >> non-conforming. Have little pockets of RV.
>> No, but I mean it's a cute little single family home. I would do that one in the um in the big empty lot right across from it next door to it. Do that RV. So then development go >> say you can put RV abuing CV light. >> Yeah. Like >> like Evan if you take that CB light move
it to the right >> on the machine shop up on you should be able to grab that. >> Wait this is just an image. >> Oh okay. Maybe not. Oh I can fix it. >> It's a PDF on online.
>> Oh okay. Um, so if you do the CV light, move that over to the Misha. >> I want to change that to RB. >> I don't. >> Well, I Why would we want to do that? We have a >> here. >> Yeah. I'm like, I've lost a cute little blue farmlike house. >> It's like on the left
>> between the side of town. >> Ouch. Ouch. >> I'm going to Nashville. I didn't I didn't know people from East Chelsea could look down on anybody. >> Looking down on North Chelsea, man. That's amazing.
>> Go ahead. >> Okay, so this is house. It's a cute little house. >> So, currently it's a house and people >> Okay, >> this is a machine shop. >> Okay, >> so if we're going to move this change back to RV, >> I would sell this RV and allow someone
to come in and put a development in there. We need housing in this town. Oh my goodness. I cannot believe you're saying that with your mouth. >> It would add value to this area. >> Um, and you know, again, I don't know
why this area ever got zone IA to this day. I don't know why they did that. This used to be, but it is still a primary resident home that they're running a business out of. Um they do um >> pools >> pools and they do great jobs but they
actually you know converted when this zoning changed to IIA they still live in the primary residence. I don't know if they're running their business out of it but >> is it the little yellow one on the end of Monmouth? >> No >> no this one right here is um >> I can't think of the name of the
company. >> They do beautiful workshore >> pools um >> they moved Actually, I think he sold the business. >> Okay.
>> Going back to where it >> wish list. You can put it on there. >> Well, yeah. I want this one like this. I want this to be your neighborhood again. Like where like >> Well, because it's RV up this way. You're saying RV >> this way. I mean, >> so originally I was thinking doing RV up
all this way. And then because this was already developed and that I thought was owned by but I would you know I'm fine if we want to do these two lots that would make sense to do it RB and break it up.
>> Or or what how would you feel about multif family there? >> No. >> But I would be open to like smaller lots >> like a little village. >> Yeah. >> You like villages. >> I know I do. like >> just a thought.
>> I'm not against housing. They would be I mean they would be very close to high-tech machinists which is an attractive looking building compared to some of what we've seen. >> Yeah. >> Aren't we supposed to be looking at more smaller future homes for people? Isn't that part of that growth strategy?
>> Yeah. I want to say >> some someone I think John came back and reported on that one. >> But I you know I would even like I mean I say no to multif family but I wouldn't be like an RC would be not that I would love that there but
we could also do that RC but >> well and we don't really have a zone that we can build villages in. >> Not yet. >> Right. So >> you can do that in the seoid. >> Yeah,
>> if it was owned uh commercial >> CB light. >> This is >> We also do can't we do this villages? >> Well, this does have see over that's
>> Well, we got to discuss that, but right now it has it on. Yeah, but we I was thinking taking that off and maybe put you can do like a village overlay or something like that that would allow it. >> Um, >> okay. Next.
>> I would love that. >> So, >> so I guess on this one you're going to come back with what it could look like with what you're proposing next. >> Yeah. So, I guess we're this these properties here kind of >> Well, we have all those pictures from the missing middle from our from our
>> um MBTA. What are we What are we talking about? What with three properties? >> This one. Might as well do this one. Like you could do this one, this one, and this one >> is RB connect >> or a new or new village zoning
>> overlay. >> I think we're we're doing a lot of change here. This is big project. So >> So you want to remove commercial zone zoning >> for these that have houses already like this one and this one? This This is the 5 acre vacant piece. >> Yeah. I mean, that could be a nice
development. Five acre. >> They keep it CB light and keep the overlay on it that would allow >> res. You go see what else the overlay allows. That's the problem. We looked at that and it allowed a whole bunch of other stuff that >> you probably wouldn't want.
>> You don't want in the CB light. >> Which overlay? >> Huh? >> What overlay? Seoid doesn't change the use table. >> No, sorry. It's the 129, >> right? the 129 but the sead >> sead you could keep
>> the 129 overlay doesn't doesn't even apply to riverneck road >> yes it does >> I think >> only for multif family >> not not hit the zoning >> not the not the business amenities >> I think it does that was the problem
>> I don't think so I think the business amenities are along the main road >> I think that was the whole problem that we were alerted to When those people bought those properties, we were like, "Oh,
>> you look at the we turn on the um when I ask, you turn it on, the overlay goes all the way up." >> Yeah. Yeah. The overlay goes up there, but it but only certain parts of the 129 overlay are applicable to this area. H >> daycarees are allowed,
retail's allowed, restaurant, no drive-thru, um is allowed. Uh let me just get my I thought there was something here about Um,
restaurant, no drive-throughs allowed. Bank and financial agency, health club, hotel, motel, and then by special permit. Yeah. Multif family, retail with drive-thru, banks with drive-thrus,
and upscale fast casual. The upscale fast casual restaurants are only allowed along Mill Road and Bill Ricker Road. But Evan, if we if we have it as a CB light, most of those commercial uses would be
included in the CB light. So, we wouldn't need that overlay. >> And then we keep the seat out overlay and that allows the residential. I was just I was just I was just um
trying to uh focus on the notion of uh eliminating commercial zoning and replacing it with residential zoning. Yeah, I'm not sure we would want to do that, but I think
I do see Anita's point about the 129 overlay and a lot of the uses that you mentioned are either allowed in CB light or we intentionally left them out of CB Lite. >> So, we would pull off the 129 overlay from that area
>> and keep it on the main 129. You can make changes to the over like you can add use like >> it focuses on that and it's not creeping on anything that's a budding res like really >> but if we want to see residential there
and still allow the flexibility we can keep it a CB light with this say out overlay >> okay >> which allows the residential >> I was getting you some confused in that because right now before everything that was a house in the other areas that we were looking at we were making them back to residential. So in here you're
telling me you have properties that currently have homes that people live in or three and you're proposing to make those CD light is there. >> Well, one of them includes a business as well. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> That's
>> and the other one is a vacant lot. So, the only one that I was recommending the residential is the one that actually only has a house on it. >> And that's that small one. >> Yeah. which was >> but to Joel's point that doesn't really
make sense for that small property >> in that large area >> which is why those people sold it and left. >> It's an investment property. So it's a it's a rental. And then my only other comment is
anywhere where you introduce single family zoning adjacent to nonresidential zoning 100 foot buffer may may apply. >> Yeah. So I' I'd be in favor of keeping
it CB light. Mhm. With the current use grandfathered in >> again look at the next sides Clay is going to be mostly on that side because that seems to be where it all changed >> right >> um and this side seems to be you know pretty much residentials with the
exception of this guy. >> Yeah. and yeah. >> Okay. This is the So, three. >> Anita, could you go back to your seat cuz you're blocking my view. >> You can talk over here. >> So, >> you look like Vanna.
>> She was up there because I asked having a hard time following it. >> So, now we've just gone, just so you know, like the other side, Route three was on the right. We've gone under or over Route Three under the bridge. Now we're going up toward There's a cemetery that the
>> up toward St. Jose makes sense there. >> See, just to orient you. Um across there's a fire station. >> So these are all these are all homes, but they're all
along here like Yeah. See those? So see the little the ark. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, this is Riverick Road. >> Yeah. >> Okay. This is a home. This is a home, right? >> These are homes, >> but they're currently zoned. This is
currently zoned IIIA. >> All I actually got um I think like the town actually owns. So, if you go to the next slide and these up here are IIA. Um so, those any place where I put RB are where homes
are. The P that stays P, that's where the fire station is. CB light is where there are actually office buildings that fall under it. >> CB light. >> Where's that teeny tiny square under to the right of st and underneath RB?
What's that tiny thing right there? >> Which one? >> It's a very small square. >> Those are two houses. >> Where are we talking? >> Yeah, those are two houses. >> Yeah, two houses here. >> So that's RB as well. >> Yep, that's RB. Oh, that little square with a little thing. That's not the house. That's the um is that the pigeon club?
>> Oh, that's the pigeon club. Yeah, >> the pigeon club. >> The pigeon. >> We have a pigeon club on river neckro. You got to come up our way. >> You got to take a whole different cars there like twice a year. There's like a whole bunch of cars. >> What is that? >> Welcome to East.
>> What is the pigeon club zone does? >> I a right now. >> What do you want it to be? I don't like our like our beak because >> we allow pigeons. >> I don't think anything allows pigeons. >> I think it's grandfather. >> I don't think we have a zone. >> There's no pigeons there. It's just a pigeon club.
>> No, we need >> But there's no pigeons there. It's just a club. >> They have like an outing maybe once or you see. >> They bring their pigeons. >> Cars and cars. They bring their pigeons there. >> No pigeons. >> They do. >> They bring pigeons there. >> Yeah, their trailers there all the time. >> No, I didn't know they brought >> So, it's like a fraternal club.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah, that's that's likely already allowed. Let's take a look. >> I would think so cuz it's I don't know only been there since I've been born. >> I think it's been there forever. There's so much. >> Yeah, I think I think it is allowed in CD light.
>> You need to come to our side of town. >> Yeah. >> Come over. >> Oh, you're center. You're not even on our side of town. >> I drive River Road all the time. >> Evan, if that's what you would classify it as. I think we do allow that in CB light. Yeah.
>> You're making it RB. Is it loud in RB? No. All right. It'll make me be light. >> That's a weird Isn't that gonna look weird though? >> Well, it would be grandfathered. >> It would be grandfathered anyway. >> Future future use would just mean somebody would I don't know.
>> Like I guess they could sell it and whoever wants to buy like like it's enough. >> I would then I would do an RV because you have all the other houses right next to it. >> It should be RV. >> It should be RV. >> Better. >> The fire department. No, I'm out of the pigeon place. Are they going to come here?
>> Fire department and then a couple houses. >> Okay. >> I thought no one actually used that till I drove by and it was filled with cars. I'm like, "Oh my god, people actually go there." >> I know. >> The one thing that I think is going to be a little problematic.
>> Oh yeah. This is I put in the 129 overlay >> and you see how it all goes all the way up. So I was that's where I was recommending we >> one small section >> here >> so anywhere where we change to CB so that
>> okay >> that's it what were you gonna say the only >> the only thing I think might be problematic if stay on the side see right um to the left as you know close to the route three where you have the water
east jumps water >> I think it's Walsh who owns the Walsh who owns the property he owns like it's a residential house >> but then and I don't know how like this came about but he has trailers parked there >> campers >> campers it's almost like is it a
junkyard or what is it >> there is a very long history yes of >> he does have a zoning permit for >> RV sales and maintenance. >> Yeah. Which buts like which is right on Chumps East Chumpswood Water. >> Mhm.
>> Um and if I got to look at the when the property was bought, but I believe the property was bought when it was zoned RB. >> Um but that would just be grandfathered in >> like it is. Um,
that's the only thing I could see to be problematic. >> I guess you'll find out when it comes. >> I don't think it's any more problematic than the pigeon club. It just is what it is for now. >> Pigeon club. So, are there any concerns
or questions on this other than that initial discussion we were having on those three properties? >> So, change those three properties. >> Do you feel it's more cohesive now with all these changes?
Do you feel like there's any areas that >> you don't have that problem of things just crossing on each other or like we had before? There is one other um there's on Monmouth I think uh town owned property.
>> It's really tiny. It's like a >> Yeah, >> it's Yeah, >> it's like the size of a boat launch. >> It's the between two residential homes you're talking about. >> Would we want to change that to a public or would we want to keep it RB? I would
>> the town wanted to sell them like this like didn't we want to like offer to sell >> it was being looked into. Um it's unclear if Butters are still interested but um you know I >> thinking we would probably want to keep it RB and not change it to public if the
really want to keep it >> right and then the butters could like someone may want to buy it and you know >> expand the tax. >> Yeah. And put it and make it a you know >> Okay. do an addition someday or whatever. It's RB, you know, gives them a little bit more land. It gets it on back on the tax roll >> property right here. The red block.
>> Yeah. >> What's that? That red block. >> Municipally owned. >> Oh, it's bigger than I thought. >> No, but it's it's not. >> Can you blow it up? Is that this block right here? >> Little tiny. >> No, isn't it? No, that's not it. >> There's a tiny >> Well, that's one of them. >> Go low
to the right. There's that tiny strip of red. >> No, that's not talking about that. >> What is that? >> That's Mammoth. Who wants these two little pieces? >> Anything. Anything red is um select board. >> So the little one at the bottom, the skinny one. That's Monmouth.
>> Nope. >> No. Monmouth is right here. >> Oh, is it bigger than that? I >> really didn't think I was going to say these two little small lines here. >> You live on one. >> You've lived down there. >> I wonder if it's that's the one that because that looks like that one there. >> Didn't you live on Monmouth?
>> I did when they first came to town. Okay. So, you don't know where it is? >> I I just I I was picturing a different little strip. >> I thought it was skinnier. >> You were thinking of these little ones. These two little ones next. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Is >> there anything on it or is it just uh
>> It's just open land. >> It's just forest between Apollo and >> Okay. >> Yeah. But if if we keep it residential >> Yeah. >> and someone buys it >> Yeah. >> then we get it on the tax roll. It might be big enough to
>> It might be big enough to build on since it's not the one I thought it was. >> No, I don't think so. >> But if you made it public, it would stay green. >> It would stay green. >> Yeah. >> So, we'd probably keep it RV. >> I like green. >> Oh, >> the trees.
>> All right. Any other comments? So for those three that we were talking about earlier, are folks okay keeping them CB light with the uh say overlay? >> Yeah, I mean I'd suggest that there's
enough fuzz in this that rather than trying to overthink it at this point, we >> talk to the >> we make any obvious changes right away and then we go talk to the to the neighbor. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that there were no serious concerns about any
of these yet. Right. >> All right. Anita, could you make the few changes to the slides? >> The first slides >> overlay or the the overview slide? >> Yep.
>> And then also include those other few properties >> on this one. >> Yeah, that one. >> Yep. >> And then clean up the labeling. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Nice work. Yeah, it's a lot of work.
>> Do we want to start the informal discussions with property owners next meeting? >> Why not? >> Yeah. >> Evan, do we have time to get notifications out? >> Uh,
we do. Um, it will probably be about a week notification. Just chumped mail is really slow for whatever reason. >> Do you want to wait? Do you want to do it in the first June meeting? >> I think you might want to push it out a month. >> June 10th >> because uh
>> I think one week's not enough. >> Yeah, let's do June 10th. >> Okay. Property owner invite. >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. All right. So, let's
go back. So, we don't have any updates on managed growth strategy. >> No, I'd suggest we defer that because we have a meeting tomorrow on it. >> Got it. Okay, we will defer that one. All right. Um, so the number one is just
the update on the changes. Um, I'm not going to go through that. You can read that. Uh, just keeping track of our our changes and updates. Um so we will go to the pilot
discussion. Um so last time we talked about simplifying that definition uh up top Evan >> on the polic not the definition but the policy. So, I took a look at the video,
got some wording, um, and this is what I would propose if folks are okay with it. Any concerns? So basically, Chris, that's what we talked about like removing the actual dollar amounts and then you'd have that
in a policy that can be updated. >> I think it'd be much more effective. >> Yeah. So the short-term changes are going to be with that policy and then the bylaw change of striking these numbers. >> I'm still not >> and then the words the word these and
changing it to the in number two. I highlighted it in yellow so you can see it this time. >> I don't like the rounding up to I still I'm not I'm not comfortable necessarily >> with the rounding up, >> right? And that is a larger issue that
we need to address in the more large discussion, >> okay, >> with Chsford housing and choice. >> Okay, fine. >> Um and that would be a longer >> discussion. So my plan is to
definitely go with these changes to town meeting. So to at least clean it up >> and at the same time um try and schedule choice and housing to come in for a formal public hearing on updating the
whole bylaw. If we can get it done in time for the next town meeting, great. >> Yeah. um we'll do that instead of these cleanup changes, but my guess is that we probably won't be able to do it in time for that town meeting. So, it will
likely spill over. So, we would probably do it in two stages. Do the cleanup first at the next town meeting and then have the yeah larger discussion about the direction of pyo.
>> Okay. So, Evan, I'll work with you to see if we can schedule those folks to come in and have that discussion with us. Okay. So, I'll consider that one done. All
right. >> I guess it's kind of a side question. What do people think about density bonuses as a >> we'll table that till that next discussion. >> Okay, >> that's going to be a larger discussion. >> No, but
I was just curious. >> All right, so the next item is contractor yard. So, um, what I did, so Evan found a report from Fairfax, Virginia that discussed a little bit of
this. So, I took that information. I also looked at our um, definitions that we have for the different um, small, medium, large warehouse approach.
I looked at the home occupation bylaw. put it all together and realize that for some of the smaller contractors like the trades like plumbers, um, uh, general contractors,
the people who have the home offices or have a few employees with vans, those are more similar to the service businesses like housekeep house cleanings. services. Um, HVAC
contractors. >> They're not they're not providing any materials typically. They usually get those from their stockhouses. >> Um, they're not typically storing heavy machinery on site,
>> right? You're not making a mess. >> Yeah. They got one truck with a rack. >> Yeah, that's pretty typical. They're not usually storing a lot of >> they might have some tools in their garage, >> but they don't have like inventory of different they're not Yeah. carrying all these pipes or what,
>> right? So I realized that we do have some service business definitions already. So what I did is I kind of lumped those together in a tier one and I called it contractor service
business use. And then tier two was a little bit more of the heavy duty stuff. Um, probably light machinery, some outdoor storage, >> piles of rocks.
>> Yeah. Tier three is going to be the heavy duty contractor yards, paving, that type of thing. Um, so I kind of tiered it based on the use business be >> it depends. So what I did is I defined
it based on their use the materials um for for that. I also put guidelines in for the types of vehicles medium heavy medium no medium or heavy duty
vehicles or heavy equipment. So it would be the >> tier one tier one. >> Uhu. So if you scroll down, you also have um a small number of vehicles as opposed to large number. Um no outdoor storage of equipment or materials,
uh plumbers, electricians, HVAC, small carpentry, contractors, those types of uses. Uh the multi-tenant or contractor, condominiums, um those types of facilities. So, what would it be if it was like a um say a
plumbing company that had a fleet? >> Tier one. >> That would be tier one. >> If they had a fleet of vehicles, >> vans, like they have like 10 of them parked out front. >> Well, 10 would be potentially a higher number.
>> You You're not regulating number though. >> If you scroll like what um >> for tier one, I don't think you're regulating number. No, this one says less than three. >> Yeah, less than or equal to three. So, we did put some in there. >> I brought that to your attention.
>> Yeah, and I wanted to bring it to the board. Yeah, we can leave it in. We can take it out. I >> Yeah, >> we may >> I mean, I just >> We may leave it We may take out the the limits, but also then require some parking. >> What if they have stuff besides commercial vehicles?
>> What's that? >> What if they have stuff besides commercial vehicles? Like in some of these businesses, they could have vehicles for the business that are non-commercial >> like cars. >> Yeah, cars. Like you mentioned a cleaning service, right? Running out of a business. Those are regular vehicles on the road, not commercial.
>> Well, you know, they all have gross vehicle weight. Why don't you just say, you know, tier one is a total of so much gross vehicle weight. >> Well, I mean, that's duty class one. >> It could be three cars or one truck and a car or whatever combination you want.
>> But I think but I think you address that with the parking, right? based off of the business, right? Like I think someone with a cleaning, you know, cleaning service would people have their own cars. >> How does this I guess maybe I'm asking because I today people run businesses out of their homes such as a cleaning
service >> or something. >> Yes. Yeah. Like that. They have their cars there. Their employees come and park there and they're doing that in a residential area right now. >> They're not supposed to. >> Is that true? >> I don't think they're supposed to. You can run a home business, but you're not
supposed to have employees. >> Employees, right? >> And then you're not supposed to have >> vehicles for the business parked there. >> I'll ask you a question after then. >> Probably building trouble. >> So, if you scroll down, Evan, um, to
tier two, >> love my neighborhood. So tier two has more vehicles, a little bit heavier, potentially small stockpiles of material like mulch. Um,
we also talk about potential daily trips for this one, a little bit more impact. Um, and then tier three is more of the heavy truck traffic. Uh these are the heavy
pieces of construction equipment. >> So that would be allowed only in IIA. >> Well, if you scroll down even further. So I go back up for a minute. Um I also defined heavy equipment, commercial
vehicles, heavy commercial vehicles. Uh talk about exempt uses that are not part of this. uh I talk about the um potential framework that we would put in the the use table. So tier
one would be potentially by right in all of the commercial and IIA areas. Um tier 2 would be prohibited in residential CB light special permit in
commercial and then by right in IIA and then tier three essentially only by special permit in IIA and maybe down the road we can change that to by right once we have CB light buffering all of the IIA.
Yeah, >> I think that's good. >> I like I like the idea of the tears. I think that's really helpful. >> It also gives people options, right? >> Yeah, great work on that. Much more clearly defined.
>> Then Evan and I were talking about if we can agree on these concepts, then we'll have to figure out how to get it into the bylaw. >> Where do they go? Does it go into its own section, its own new section, >> or do we kind of intersperse some of
these it's going to be a little bit more difficult because some of this is new stuff >> that we don't have elsewhere. >> So, is this in a state to for us to look at and comment on? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, um please provide me any feedback
you have. Um send it my way. I would like to try and discuss it again next meeting. Um, I'll incorporate any of your feedback if you can get it to me before uh the Friday before the meeting.
Um, I'll incorporate feedback and then we can discuss it and hopefully close it out soon, at least for the concept and then Evan and I can figure out how to mix it into the bylaw for a proposal
that goes to the public hearing. >> Okay. >> You think this could be like some portion of it for fall town meeting? >> Oh, yeah. I think we could get this into fall. Yep. >> Okay.
>> Strong work. >> That's all we've got for that. Any other topics? Just that I submitted some an initial overview of some thoughts on the data processing.
>> Oh, yeah. >> Data centers. >> Yeah. So, we'll add data centers to the next meeting uh for possible bylaw changes. >> Um I'll add that to the list. Um we'll send out the information. >> No surprise.
>> Joel did some good initial work on that. >> I'm surprised we haven't seen that about Mercury River and proposed that one. >> The only other thing I have is >> everything else. >> Yeah, it doesn't be next. Yeah, next month. The only other thing I have is to
congratulate John on his appointment. >> Um that starts at the >> May 26th. Now, I appreciate the select board support and um it will be a challenge, but I'm looking forward to it. >> Now, will you still be participating in the planning board?
>> Yes, I can address that just if people have questions. So, um, you know, uh, town manager Cohen looked into that with town council and, um, as because as acting town manager, it's a temporary position. So, basically, the select
board appointed me for a period not to exceed 6 months or until the new permanent town manager arrives, whichever is shorter. Um, if I was going to be the permanent town manager, which I'm not, then I would not be able to sit on planning board or be a town meeting
rep. Okay. >> But town council has weighed in and said that I can. That being said, just being honest with everyone, I'm going to see how it goes. And as a last resort, um, if if it becomes too much, then I would, >> you know, share with all of you. give
you advanced notice, but my plan is to um continue attending the planning board meetings and >> Okay, >> maybe you could like audit planning board first, spell. >> Yeah, I I mentioned that uh J Blake was chair of the ZBA when I was on the ZBA
and because of a health condition with his wife, he took a leave of absence from the board. So, >> I I just uh I don't want to burn John out. He's invaluable member of this board. So feel free to >> although the CDA is appointed.
>> That's true. It is different. >> So this is elected. So sure you could do that. >> No, we've had people >> I would think board member could sit out for any particular period of time. >> I mean that's kind of the role of the the alternates to step in.
>> Right. That's true. >> Yeah. I mean like if there's like I mean god forbid but like if someone had a health issue or something, right? I strongly suspect that John has a highly developed sense of responsibility and so I would like for him to that we grant we
want him to not come if at all. >> Right. And where I was just reelected um you know my plan is to try to continue on with it but if it becomes too much obviously my first priority is to make sure the finances of the town are running well make sure the town manager's office is running well and so
only as a last resort would I you know look at um stepping back from have a capable backup, >> right? We do. >> It'll be more than understood. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> So, feel free. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Last item of the minutes.
So, the Let's do the uh April 8th minutes. First, >> move to approve the minutes of April 8th, 2026. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Joel. All in favor?
>> I >> I abstain. >> Nita abstains. >> All right. And then we have the joint meeting minutes, too. >> Yeah. And the joint meeting minutes. >> I move to approve the joint meeting minutes of April 8th. >> I abstain. >> Motion by Mike.
>> I'll second. >> Second by Anita. All in favor? >> I >> I abstain. And >> And it says I was present, but I wasn't. >> Oh, >> she missed that part of the meeting. She was there for the other >> Oh, that's right. All right. So, >> sleep on my couch.
>> So, we'll have to make that edit that deer was not present. And >> this was the the joint the joint meeting. >> That's right. She was not present. >> Came in at >> Oh, I wasn't there. >> You were there for the joint meeting because you had to run the finance part of it.
>> Yeah, you were there. >> You're listed. >> Was it the one at the library that I missed that you was here? >> Oh my god. Oh my goodness. >> That was That was the last >> Oh my god. What is wrong with you? >> Are you still upset or >> the last one?
>> You can't stay with the answer that one. I don't think you could abstain. >> Yes. Yes. So, like, can I change? No. Can I vote in favor? Well, no, I didn't vote. >> We didn't vote. >> Yes, you can vote. >> We didn't vote yet because we got to take D's name off of it. >> Here. Oh my god. I really do need to go to bed. >> So, you abstained from the other one?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Now, >> for this one, >> wait, but you were here for the other one. So, why are you abstaining from it? >> Cuz she didn't read it. >> I didn't read it. Oh, okay. Really? I didn't read this one either, but >> it's we got it's 57. >> Yeah. So, Anita and Deedra abstained
from this past vote. >> Yes. >> For the record. >> No, the last vote I voted. >> No, the vote for the joint meeting. >> We just took the vote. We already voted on that. >> Oh, I missed the >> You voted on it. >> We had We You voted and we said, "Oh, wait a minute. You weren't here for that
part of it." >> Everybody can hear it. >> So, we voted for that. >> Not just me. >> We're going to take you out. Anita and Dearra abstained. Everyone else voted in favor. So we approved the minutes. I will take >> my only question is is the person who
abstained able to second. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And I'm just going to say this. Someone when we get these meeting minutes, we should really read this last section. >> That's why that's why that's why I'm summarizing again.
>> So I will take a motion. So moved. Motion by Mike. All in favor? >> Going to bed. >> Everyone's got