was uh done earlier tonight. Um so the next item on the agenda is the administrative review for 33 Glenn A uh Mazota Rentals. >> Good evening everybody. Good evening. >> My name is Jeff Chismas. I'm the owner
of the property at 33 Glenn A. Uh I've owned it for about four years now. Um the property is currently leased by Brooks Automation and um Brooks subleasased it to a company called Infraservices.
Infraservices is a uh telephone um tower equipment service company. So they have a lot of equipment on site, a lot of metal and so forth. They have about 3540 subcontractors that are in
and out of the site frequently um that work for them and uh a number of projects throughout New England and specifically from this location for Massachusetts. Uh their lease expires at the end of September. Um so it's about 11 months
something like that left in it. and um they do not have a need for the entire property and will most likely not be um continuing their lease and so the property is on the market. And I've come upon a company called Mazata Rentals, a
uh well-known company in Connecticut expanding and is interested in leasing the property. And so uh there are some modifications that we would like to make to the property. nothing. Well, I shouldn't say nothing that significant.
U that's up to you to decide, but we'd like to do some clearing of the property so that um they can store a couple of uh delivery trucks >> um in the property. I think I don't know if you have uh pictures of this or not.
Uh Evan, I don't Oh, there you go. Right. So, >> okay. get my bearings here. So, right now this is Glennav and there is an easement road that comes
in here. So, this is a storage area that abuts us right now. These are condominiums and this is not an updated map. There is there's storage of dumpsters all along this side of the road. Um,
and this is this area right here is paved on the site and this area is kind of crushed gravel and there are some trees here. Um, I think let me get my notes here.
The distance from here to here is about 80 ft. Uh and so right now the distance of crushed gravel this the trees overlap this that's on site right now are between 25 and 35 ft extending this way.
This area is just contained brush and trees. Um so we would like to either get a a ideally get a um a curb cut off Glen A
between 35 and 40t long. We can either start right along the um the boundary line of our property. Actually, this is the property. So, can you is there another map that has the uh
plan that we want, Evan? >> I was looking I just brought up the two attachments. They both appear to be the same. >> Okay. Let me see if I can find it here. Maybe this is >> it.
Right. Is that it? >> This one right here. >> Yes. >> Yes. Exact. Thank you. >> So, so this is u right now existing conditions would have this road right about here. So, we need to cut out in
certain places, I'd say between five and 10 feet additional um brush and a couple of trees. And then over on this side, this is all vegetated right here. So, we can either come in from the road and
stop here. We need about 40 ft. Or we can cut from the road and leave some green out here. And we just need to be able to swing. So, there's going to be no activity on this side of the uh
property, at least no storage activity. They just need to be able to get equipment inside the building on a door that is at ground level right here. So, we just need to be able to get the equipment in. There will be some equipment, all the equipment that's outside will be stored over here, and
then the rest of the equipment will be stored inside the building. So, we're interested in getting a curb cut here, clearing some of this land out, and just nudging this back a little bit. And we wanted to get your um your views on
that. Right. So, there's a storage facility here. There are dumpster. This is not This is not that accurate, but there's like I don't know between uh eight and 12 dumpsters stored on this property. Of course, we've got condominiums over
here. So, we have to respect them. Um, and then there's some more storage down in here. And so, I think from Evans input that would require a zoning change. I don't think it's allowed by right. And so, we're here to see if we can we can do that. I would like to be
able to lease the property to them. Any questions? >> Evan, do you have any additional >> It was a a zoning change. Um, this use is very much similar to the one at the end of Katrina Road equipment
rental. Uh, so that gives you some context. Um, so it's it doesn't require a zoning change. Obviously, it will require um site plan change of use. It may trigger
some special permits. um haven't looked that closely at the the required setbacks and things of that nature. Uh but I offered the uh the proponent to come and have an informal discussion.
That's that's what's going on this evening. >> So tonight we're just informal discussion for proposed use >> um change or anything like that. >> Okay. All right. Um
thoughts go around the port >> questions you know this almost has the feel of a seoid you know I don't know I don't I don't see any any particular problem in this area given what the other uses are
around it but >> okay Joel I don't have any questions I'm just going to ask the property owner mentioned that you would probably be seeking a curb cut >> on that on off of Glenn Avenue. Could is
there an access there now or is or is the access from a different area? >> Yes. So, right um this is all the access right now for actually there's some trees down in here. So, the access really starts from
about here to about here. And this is all trees. Let me see if I can get a live picture here for you. I can show you >> is it above >> the existing sites highlighted on this slide here. >> Who's the existing sites?
>> Which one is it? >> It's the one that says chimps selected site. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, so there you can't see them because of the trees, but there's access about from here to about here here. And
then the tree line extends down here. So, you would drive in here, right? And uh and that's really the only access that the site has right now. Okay. Yeah, I mean my my just five minute impression of it looking at it quickly
is that um you know the the intended use seems to fit with some other businesses in that area. You mentioned that other equipment company um chat with Baras there's a bus there's a school bus company that's down off of the picture. Um I think for me the key would be just
trying to maintain that buffer between the condo condominium properties. Yeah. But I think overall just looking at it quickly, you know, it seems to >> we agree. So we we we and looking at this, we can maintain about a 25- foot
buffer of vegetation off of the condominiums there. And actually the condominiums are kind of upgradient from the site um in some instances as much as 20 feet I think. And then there's a fence there, right?
So, but our you want to be good neighbors, too, right? This company has a good reputation and so we just need to cut some trees back, but we will be about 35 ft from the back of the building,
>> which is right here. And I think the distance plan, >> I do have the site plan if you'd like to see it. So this is the back of the building here.
These are where the condominiums are. Um no right right here. Right. And so there's a bump out here on the building, but that is still it's either 50 or 80 feet. So there'll be probably 25 to 35 buffer.
>> Well, these are these are details we can probably work through. Sorry. No, I mean I appreciate you letting me come and >> so um I So then I'd like to apply for a uh a permit to do this. >> I'm not really quite sure what I need.
Evan, >> I'll talk to you. We're still going around the board for dis questions and topics. So Anita, >> yeah. No, no, I mean my I would just reiterate um my concern, not my concern, I would just like to see is, you know,
that buffer between um the condominium and the building, you know, as much as we can, you know, to shield it, like not take up too much. >> You know, the other thing that we were thinking of doing is planning a line of arborites >> that would grow much taller, right? So
that you know I mean we can anticipate that nobody wants it but actually the use that we propose is less disruptive than the current use on site right now because infrastructure is as I said has
like 35 subcontractors and they come and go when they want and you know they don't one of my frustrations is they don't really respect the site so this will be an organization that belongs there and cares about the site but I hear your concerns and we will address those.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yep. >> You still have more concern. >> We're not done yet. >> All right. >> Um, looking at this, I mean, I have concern looking at the picture. There's tree line all the way around this property. I mean, to the left you have a river I or a brook. I'm not sure what's
on the other side of that and what type of blocks been occurring there. You don't need to you can hold on for a moment. And just in general, when I look at the condominiums, even though they're at an upscale, there is these are mature trees that are all around here that it looks like you'll have to cut back into.
So big concerns with what you know what because I don't think you could plant other trees in your space to take up how many you're going to be taking away. So like we have other projects, what what would you do for that? Um >> there's um
>> just these are just things to consider as you come before the plan. >> I actually was there today counting the trees that we would have to take out. I think we would have to take out between four and five trees. That's it >> to to get that done because there's it's
when you really get into it, there's a lot of brush in there, right? >> Could you go to the microphone too, please? >> I'm sorry. Yes. the after looking at it today, I think that there's four or five trees that are significant that need to be taken down. The rest of the vegetation is very dense and there are
large trees along the abuing line. >> Okay. So, that's just that's like one of my concerns when I first look at this shielding. >> I agree. It's mine too, >> right? >> Marcy, >> um I brought along with Sera there. My concern was, you know, removal of the trees, how this is going to impact the
um condominiums behind you. um you know the some of the pictures here they're very shielded from this right now and if we're moving too many trees that's going to be right in their backyards and they're going to be able to see it. So, >> okay. And then the one other thing I
would add is um as you get into the the plans, I'm not sure what the interior looks like and how it could be even if it could be reconfigured. Um but if that overhead door where the trucks uh load and unload could be on the move to the
other side of the building away from the residences, that might be an another way of minimizing uh the impact to the uh condos as well. So, just something to keep in mind if if it's possible in the design >> like over here.
>> Yeah, either one over on that far side closest to the road or on the other side. >> Actually, the one loading good they have is approximately right here. So, we're not going to need to go all the way back here. >> It looks like you have quite a few dock
doors on here, though. Is that picture above not really the picture? >> No, we do. We have a lot of doctors here and here and we will be using them. The issue is is that we need a drive in >> to get the storage equipment inside the building. >> Oh, it's a drive-in door.
>> It's a drive-in door, right? So, we would need to build a ramp here to do that >> and that gets tricky, right? Because then you cut into the parking lot area. >> Okay. >> Right. So there's there's and what I would do is I would expand the drive and door and I might even move it closer
here so that you know we we want to do as little disruption as we can and in here this will just be for overnight parking. There'll be no activity here during the day. >> Okay, that's what the people tell me. So >> all right, thank you. >> Okay, thank you. I appreciate your time
and your willingness. I'll follow up with you. Um, Dearra texted me and she is able to attend via Zoom. So, can you send her email her the Zoom link? >> We're good, right? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Talk to you later, Evan. >> All right. Well, Evan is getting that done. Uh, the next item on the agenda is going to be the Chsford Water District public hearing. uh requesting site plan review and
special permit for the aquafer protection. Good evening. Hello. We were here about two weeks ago. I couldn't read that screen well, so I brought my own computer this time. I wasn't flipping my glass. Oh well,
I'll let Evan get all set. I'm Steve D. Franchesco with ACOM representing the Chelmsford Water District. I'll be right there. >> Okay. >> I know if you wanted to put our presentation up.
>> I can I can wait. The presentations on your email, right? >> Yes. So, most of you probably remember we were here two weeks ago, applied for a waiver that wasn't granted. So, we're here for the full full site plan review.
So, again, this is a Chams water district. This is for the Crooked Springs Water Treatment Plant. This is going to be for treating PAS in um some of the wells at Crooked Spring. Um file number 2025-7.
And if this looks familiar, it's pretty much the same presentation that we provided the last time. So, next slide, please. So, hold on. So in 2021, Crooked Springs Water Treatment Plant
exceeded the state PAS drinking water limit and the district was placed under the under an administrative consent order from the Department of um environmental protection. So what we came up with was a a treatment plant. We're going to use granular activated
carbon in large steel filters under pressure. So the the treatment is going to include a PAS building approximately 6250 square feet. It's going to be a masonry building and the architecture is going to come as close as we can to
matching the existing treatment building that's up there at Crooked Springs. The existing Crooked Springs plant is there to treat iron and mangades. Um and then along with this when we backwash these filters, uh we have a we're going to recycle the water. So none of that gets
wasted. So we're going to have a underground concrete tank which is for the backwash water gets sent to the tank and then gets recycled back to the head of head of the plant to get retreated. Next slide please.
So if would help I can come up and and point things out. But you can see the darker the darker line work is the is the new the new structures and and the more lighter line work is the existing structures that are
there. So the existing uh the existing treatment plant is represented by that square block right in the middle. That's the existing crooked spring iron and manganesees plant. Off to the right will be the is the proposed new um
treatment for for POS and off to the left is the um is the back spent backwash water tank that that I had mentioned. Um no new uh access roads around. We're using the roads that are right there. We're
bringing this the structures close enough so that we didn't have to build any new roads. So this this plan repres this was taken off the the town's GIS and we wanted to just show on this plan the distance that we we are from the from the existing
property lines. We're really in the middle of the site. It's a very large site. So the closest we are to any property line is almost is almost 275 ft and that's the closest. Most of the other property lines were were 5 to 600 feet away from the from the property
from any of the abutters. The uh this this slide here shows the floor plan. You can see that um this we've built this building no larger than it had to be. Um, those are all of the the PAS or the treatment filters filled with
granular activated carbon. And um, we have a a little backwash, some backwash pumps, a backwash tank over to the left, an electrical room, um, a mechanical room for for a hot water heater and and the boiler and and a small storage room. So that's that's
the the layout. This is kind of a section cut right through the plant. So you can see why it's as high as it is is because those those uh PAS filters are 12 foot in diameter and I think they're like 25 ft
high all filled with granular activated carbon. Um so that's why we actually depress the floor down to keep the roof line down. Um and that's a section cut through. So, some of the elements are the c the project characteristics.
There's there's no change in use. We're still treating water up at the site. Um, as we saw from the earlier slide, the structures are not close to the property line. Um, everything is within the existing fence line. We're not clearing any trees. Um, we're not bringing in any
new treatment chemicals. Uh, no new access roads. Daily traffic to the site will be the same. The same staff, the same parking. Uh runoff from the the two structures will be handled by underground infiltration trenches. We
did turn in our our um our storm water permit for that. Um no additional site lighting, no noise um disturbances less than an acre. The the building is less than the 35 foot height. Uh we've had communications with
the conservation commission. We are impacting no resources or buffer zones to resources, communications with the fire departments. No sprinkles were needed and the access was acceptable. So um that's the the entire presentation. I
guess in summary, this is really a benefit to the entire town. It's cleaning up providing everyone in the town with or everybody within the water district and all the schools with with cleaner drinking water. uh that will be ab absent of PIFA. So
>> okay, thank you. We do have some departmental letters. Yes, we do. Okay. From uh the uh zoning from the building commissioner. Uh dear
water district personnel, this letter serves as notice to the above regarded PAS treatment facility proposed development. be advised should this project be approved by the planning board. The building code, energy code, stretch code, and table of dimensional requirements shall be met as deemed
required and/or necessary. A revised certified pot plot plan depicting the structure and existing proposed dimensional requirements as deemed necessary. Thank you, Jose Negron, building commissioner.
And from the DPW, this one is longer. Um, the engineering department has performed a review of the site plan review application submitted for applicant Chsford Water District. The following contents of the submission were reviewed for appropriateness of method and accuracy as well as for
compliance with Town of Chsford storm water bylaw, town of Chsford storm water management regulations, division 3 sewer capacity and connection restriction. They reviewed both the engineering plan and the report, their site plan review comments. These are outstanding issues
not addressed. During construction, care should be taken to maintain separation of at least 10 feet horizontally from the edge of sewer services to the edge of water services where a horizontal separation of 10 ft is not practical. Both services can be installed closer to each other, but the water service must
be 18 in higher than the sewer service per D standards. See Massachusetts Water Laws Chapter 9 Section 9.8, which I imagine you're very familiar with. Snow storage locations should be depicted on the plan set as well as signs for no storage in the existing detention basin
and BNPs include cut and fill calculations and if applicable provisions for an enclosed dumpster pad and dumpster should be depicted upon the plan sets. The long-term and perpetual care of the dumpster including the emptying and the enclosure will be the responsibility of
the property owner. Sewer comments. no increase to the town of Chumpsford sewer in sewer infrastructure shall be more than 500 gallons per day. The applicant should analyze sewage flow using title 5 and proposed conditions to determine required sewer allocation. This should
be submitted to DPW for approval for existing sewer connections. If there is a change in use or expansion, the applicant should submit necessary plans to supplement the sewer allocation calculations. Emergency power required for commercial grinder pumps.
confirm backup power and its location and recommended storm water management conditions. Ownership as well as O andM of all storm water systems and BMP should be clearly stated on the plans to avoid confusion in the future regarding responsibility
of the storm water management facility. The deeds or a covenant should clearly specify the homeowner or association or property owner whom shall be responsible for owning the system as well as inspection and maintenance schedules. It is the owner's responsibility to provide completed annual compliance records to
the engineering department at 9 alpha road. The project storm water management system shall comply with the department of environmental protections storm water management policy. And basically they say they've met standards one, two, standard three. There's a comment. One
test pit shall be located in recharge area and witnessed by town representative. There shall be a minimum of four feet of separation between the bottom of the infiltration trench and estimated seasonal high groundwater level. The storm water four which is the 80%
TSS removal. The standard is met average annual pollutant removal requirement to be achieved by retaining the volume of runoff equivalent to or greater than 1 in multiplied by the total post construction impervious surface area on the new development site.
And standard five high pollutant potential potential pollutant loads is standard is met. Standard six critical areas is met. Standard seven redevelopment project standard is met because the project's not considered redevelopment. Storm water standard 8 erosion and
sediment control standard met. Ensure that filter type soil erosion and sediment control are properly located for effectiveness throughout construction activities. location should follow contours of the site and should retain sediment prior to flowing to major conduit of storm water such as
paved impervious services. Standard nine, operation and maintenance is met. Elicit discharge standard 10 is met. A signed elicit discharge compliance statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of any storm water runoff to the post concussion post construction
BMPs. And then there's a series of recommended general conditions for approval. U I won't read those unless specifically desired. >> And one more and that's the fire department. Dear members of the board, the fire prevention office respectfully
submits the following comments on conditions for your consideration regarding the proposed water treatment plant at 50 do drive. Code compliance. All construction shall comply with applicable codes and regulations including but not limited to the Massachusetts state building code 70 780
CMR applicable Massachusetts CMRs. Massachusetts general laws, relevant NFPA standards, and the town of Chumps for bylaws. This office has reviewed the project plans as part of the building permitting processes. Knox keys to be provided on completion of the project
for access to the facility. Knox keyed to Chsford Fire Department specifications to be installed in coordination with this office for the location. We respectfully request this letter and the outlined conditions be incorporated into the planning board's decision and entered into the public record. Sincerely, Josh Abbott,
Jumpster Fire Department. And that is the rest are no comments from scroll down too far. Uh no comments from uh conservation commission nor from the board of health
nor from the treasurer collector. That's it. Thank you, Evan. Any additional I would just suggest that many or some of the TPW
uh what they labeled as outstanding could likely be handled as a condition of approval. I know the applicant has some clarification on a couple of them. Um I only say that within the context of the uh time sensitivity that the
applicants expressed. Yeah, my I would agree with most of them except for the test pit. Um potentially um but let's go around the board and get thoughts and questions first. Mike,
we'll start with you. >> Nothing here. It seems pretty straightforward. >> Okay, Joel. >> Yeah. Um, the DPW requested, they said one test pit, but I think it was a little ambiguous whether they meant each infiltration trench, but I would request
that you do a test pit at least in each infiltration area because that's that's the storm water standard. Um my feeling as to whether that needs to be done beforehand or not, it seems that you have a certain amount of room there for
location of the trenches if you do encounter problems like ledge or something like that. So in this case and because it's the water district performing a public function, I'm almost I'm inclined to be willing to make that a part of the condition, but only
because of those special conditions. Ordinarily, I would not. Okay, John, >> I don't have any questions at this time after reviewing all of the items that have been presented. >> Okay, Anita, >> no comments.
>> Sita, >> I always do. Can you go to the drawing and can you point out to me where the parking spaces are right now? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. It could you could use the
presentation too. >> I think it there was one link that gave all the drawings. I don't know if it's in that one. >> Yeah, there's one that says plan. >> Brandon, where are all the parking spaces now? >> Right in front. >> Right in the front. >> Okay. >> Can you maybe bring up this one? I don't
know where that one is. It was in one of the links. >> Oh, that was the cover. I think you're looking at the cover sheet there. >> Yeah, the same plants. >> Yep. >> This one here. Uh, second one down. >> Yes. >> Zoom in.
>> You can see all the cars on. >> Yep. All the parking for the treatment plant is right there. >> So, if they need to go to the other buildings and move any type of heavy equipment or anything, where would they put their vehicle? >> Right there. >> And they'd walk. >> Yes. It's not very far.
>> What about the other piece that you're building? >> This piece right here? >> Yep. >> That's That's a belowra That's a belowrade concrete structure. So if they needed to do any work there, I'm sure they just pull a pickup truck right up on the road next to it and work on that.
>> I think when we met last time, I think we asked about parking at the space and also where they were going to do their snow storage. I thought when he came in last time >> that was the solar farm, >> wasn't that one? Okay. >> Yeah, that was a different project. >> Does this one need parking at the building?
>> I think so. >> There won't be any more operators than treatment plant operators that are there now. So, they'll park where they usually park, do the work in the in the main facility, and then just walk over to the um to the other facility. It's I think
it's probably 100 ft. Okay. And then on these plans right now, there's no snow storage. >> Well, we're not adding any any um access road. So, wherever they're whatever they're doing for snow removal now,
they're going to they're going to continue to do that. There's nothing. >> I thought that was in one of the DPW things. >> Yeah. So, that's storage. That's going to be one of the conditions I think um is that the plans and the plans include the snow storage locations um because of
the BMPPS uh the addition of the BMPs. We want to make sure that there's no snow storage on the BMPS and uh so the plans will need to have snow storage locations signs for no snow storage and then we
typically also ask that be added to the on&m plan as well. Okay, I agree with that. And then I think it also mentioned something about the dumpsters. Do you guys have a dumpster there now? >> There's a dumpster there now. And >> And where is it? >> Where is that now? >> Right next to
>> Yeah. >> And this this facility will not be generating >> any additional trash. >> The garage. It's a dumpster. >> Okay. So I guess >> so I I guess I agree with all the stuff that we said like that you said for the multiple pits and also the conditions of
all those things being met. >> Okay, >> Marcy, >> no questions. >> All right. Um so yeah, so I guess I think um if people are okay, we can uh look at those more as special conditions
that we could add to the decision. Um, all right. Since this is a public hearing, uh, I will open it up to the public for comment if there is anyone. >> All right. Um, so before we close the public hearing, let's discuss the
special conditions. Um, >> so it sounds like, uh, really the the big special conditions would be more on the DPW letter. uh the the test pits at each of the BMP locations
or the infiltration locations, the um snow storage locations on the plans and locations of the signs for no snow storage also on the plans. And then also adding to the O
andM the um that same map and um yeah the same map for uh where the plows can put the snow storage and not Is there anything else I missed? >> You talked about the OEM.
>> The on andm yumm. >> Was there anything else within their items that we missed? Don't think I saw any. >> Okay. There was one comment on I think a few of the letters about meeting building
codes and our full set of drawings has a whole building code sheet on it which which tells what energy codes we we were we're meeting and what building codes. So that that's all on there. >> Yeah. And typically Jose won't sign off
on it until that's there anyway. So I'm not too worried about that one. Is there anything that people see we missed? Evan, do you see anything? No, the the decision will reference the >> Yeah. >> compliance with the letter, >> but I did want to call out those
specific ones. >> Um, are those special conditions okay with you guys? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Um, so I will take a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Moved by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Serita. All in. Uh, actually,
do we have Deardra on? >> No, she dropped off. >> She did drop off. Okay. Um so SHA you're voting on this one. >> So all in favor >> I >> I >> unanimous approved with those special conditions.
>> No we just closed the public. >> Sorry. >> Thank you. Yeah. No just to close it. Right. Sorry. >> I need more coffee. >> Motion to approve the site plan. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Sarita. All in favor? >> I.
>> That's unanimous. And also, is there a special permit that we need to approve? We just approved the site. >> Yes. And so, well, do we typically vote separately for the special permit? >> Um, you don't need to, >> but we specifically
>> Chris's motion specifically cited the site plan. >> Yeah. I think based upon the the more detailed information, >> it sounds like there's no additional impervious. If that's the case, then they technically wouldn't need the um >> the aquifer lot coverage because they're
not increasing, >> right? >> Actually, they are because they're adding the buildings. >> So, yeah, they are. >> So, let's just vote on the special permit. >> Move that we uh approve a special permit for what was it again?
>> Aquaer protection. >> Aquaer protection. >> Okay. Special permit motion by Mike. >> I second. >> Second by Serita. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Unanimous with a special permit. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> I just want to add that I was happy to see that you named the drive after Bob
Do because he was a a real asset to this community for his service as a superintendent and an excellent >> wonderful person. So was very happy to see that. >> All right. >> All right. Moving on. 191
195 Bneck Road. Public hearing continued. >> Evan, can you let me know when Dera rejoins? >> Wait, cuz when she comes on, I can't vote. I'll let you know. >> It's been a It's been a while. >> I figured.
>> Good evening, Mr. Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Good to see you again. Carrie Pike with Howard Stein Hudson on behalf of Commonwealth uh utilities, construction utilities, sorry. Um I have some updates for you rel related to the transportation analysis. We received the
peer review um from your consultant and as a result of that we prepared some additional information. So I have a few slides um and then we can go from there. So, just um a reminder on the site plan here. Um I mostly just put this in for
reference in case we need it. I find it's occasionally helpful. Um next one, please, Evan. Um so, the comments that we got, um I'm going to give you kind of an overview. Um were to revise our no build condition to include the vacancies at 199 and 2011
Riverneck Road. Um, so we did that based on direction from Evan and from uh your consultant Jeff Derk and we revised the analysis to reflect that. We also revised the analysis to reflect the slightly smaller program um that is
currently proposed compared to the original TIS. So those effectively resulted in um no no effective change in the an in the impact of the project. Um, and I'll I'll talk about that a little more in a minute. Um, but the I think
the bigger things that we did, um, your consultant asked that we get crash data from the Chelmsford Police Department. Um, because Mass DOT's data only covers what they call the last closed year, which means they've verified the locations of the crashes and this sort
of thing that they get from the um, police departments through 2021. So, we did get u data from the Chelmsford Police Department and using that and the mass dod data we prepared a crash diagram. So, I'm going to show you that in a minute. And then we also identified
potential safety improvements at the intersection of Riverneck Road and Carile Street. Um, next please. So, here's the collision diagram for Riverneck Road and Carile Street. Um, so you can see uh Riverneck Road is running across the page left to right and
Carlile is running up and down. And you can see each crash is um the pair of arrows. Um they're numbered. I did not include the the data, but the data was in uh the report that we provided to the town, the updated report. Um but each of those crashes, you can see there are a
lot of arrows that um are kind of at right angles to one another. That means that basically two cars traveling in opposite directions hit each other in some fashion or another. And we did have one pedestrian crash as well. Um so clearly we have an issue with um the
those what we call angle crashes. Um and so using that data we developed a plan u for improvements at this location. Um your consultant did specify that those be limited to um what we call lines and signs. So pavement markings and signing.
So if you can go to the next one please Evan. Um so again same orientation riverneck road is running across the page and carile up and down. And one of the things that we noticed is that there are no stop lines on Riverneck Road. There are stop signs, but there are no lines
to tell you where to stop. Um, and so that's one improvement we propose to put both the line and the stop word on the pavement so a car knows where to stop and how far forward to stop. But also to reinforce that the crossing traffic on
Riverneck Road is supposed to stop. um because it did seem that there was a lot of failure to yield in the details of the crash reports. Um then the other enhancement here um we did propose to install the crosswalk. There are ramps
on the east side of Riverneck Road. So installing the crosswalk to match up with those ramps. Um as I mentioned, we did have one pedestrian crash here. It was an injury crash, not not a fatality, but nevertheless. Um and then the last
thing would be to install um LED flashing stop sign. So basically this is a sign that has a solar panel powered um edge that flashes. So again it's reinforcing to traffic you're supposed to stop on Riverneck Road. Um and so you
can see kind of what those look like. Um and then underneath that would be augmented a panel that says crossing traffic. Cross traffic does not stop. just to again reinforce to the folks on Riverneck that they are supposed to be stopping for traffic on Carlile.
Um so those are the proposed improvements at this location. Um and if you could keep going and then I think this um we did provide this the last time but I just wanted to remind everyone the project since we prepared the traffic impact study did get a little bit smaller and so these numbers
were in the last presentation I gave you as well but you can see just a slight reduction in the overall trips about seven in the morning and um eight in the afternoon and that's those trips are based on it so as I mentioned before those are um
actually conservative compared compared to the two sites we did count um to look at what the trip generation would be for these types of uses. Um but we felt it was appropriate to go with the uh more conservative numbers for the analysis.
Um so again the the trip generation is a little bit less minimal impact overall to the surrounding network. Um and I'm this is a very broad statement and I know um Jeff Durk is on so I'll let him give his um overview. We did receive his comment letter back just I don't
remember if it was yesterday or the day before um telling us that I think generally speaking he was satisfied with our responses but I will um again I know he's here to tell you in his own words. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Do we want to hear from the peer reviewer next? >> Jeff Yara. >> Thank you. Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board, for the record, Jeffrey Durk with Vanessa Associates, the board's transportation peer review consultant. Um, so I think the applicants representative um provided a
good overview kind of where we are at with respect to the peer review. Um, just kind of going back but not too far in terms of the review itself. Uh, we have issued u actually three letters. Uh, two of them came in recently. So the first letter was an overall review of uh
the transportation assessment but also the site plan. And um as we're reviewing the site plan, it's really for access circulation, parking, and um general circulation for uh pedestrians and bicycles within the project site itself. So we have comments related to the site
plan as well as the transportation study. Um, focusing on the transportation study, um, I think it's it's accurate to say that all of our comments have been addressed and what you'll see in the most recent review letter we've issued, um, is really just some suggestions for consideration by
the board at the appropriate time for conditions. Um, I think as Carrie went through what our major comments were on the initial study, uh, they primarily focused on safety. Um the Carile Road intersection with River Road uh was a
location that was identified uh to have a disproportionate number of crashes happening. Uh most of them were property damage only, but I the number of crashes that occur at that intersection are disproportionate to the amount of traffic that's going through the intersection. So we would expect less
crashes to be happening uh than is actually occurring at the intersection. So that's why we've asked for that additional analysis which um Wood's just gone through with you which we think provides some very good information to the town and and us as transportation professionals in terms of looking at
what's happening at the intersection and I think importantly to develop remedial measures and that's what's been presented to you tonight. Uh one of you will see is one of our suggestions is that those improvements be a condition of the approval of the project. uh they are as as was characterized signs and
markings. Uh we did ask um that in addition to the signs and markings uh that some vegetation clearing happen in the I believe it's the northeast and northwest corner. So those are the corners like on the side of Carile Road and the Boston I guess it's Boston Road
as you head toward 495. Um as you look at that collision diagram um it is accurate to say that a lot of this is failure to yield. Um, but the other thing that you see is that the majority of the crashes are an a an
eastbound motorist on Riverneck Road being struck by a southbound motorist on Carlile Road or coming over the bridge from 495. Um, and I know you're probably all very familiar with the intersection, but the the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection do have some
vegetation in those areas. So, we've just suggested as well that um some trimming happen within the public rideway just to clear the sight lines in that direction. So, um as a motorist is coming over the bridge, they'll be able to see a vehicle that's um maybe in the intersection crossing from one side of
Riverneck Road to the other side. Uh so, we just ask that that be included as an enhancement to the markings and signs um that you've seen. Um it's a very wide intersection as well. Um, and so that's why I think that that crossing distance from one side of Rubberneck Road to the
other side catches people in the middle of the intersection. Um, and so I think that's another thing. These signs and markings will help with that because it's moving the stop lines uh closer on the riverneck road approach approaches closer to Carile Road which puts better
sight lines essentially for everyone at the intersection. So um again we had suggested that that be uh condition of the approval of the project. Um, as we looked at the impacts of the project, I think the important thing was including the vacant space at 19920, which the
applicant has done. Obviously, that building reoccupied will generate traffic and so we want to make sure that that's accounted for as we're looking at the impacts of the project. Um, I believe in working with Evan, it was identified that there's about 123,000 square foot of space, a little less than that, uh, in that building that's
vacant. And so the applicant is basically backfilled traffic associated with that building being fully occupied, which I is appropriate when we're looking at what the impact of the project may be. No, I know what was said is that the project is a a minimal impact or a minor impact that the
intersections and that characteration characterization is correct, but I think the caution that was noted was it doesn't mean that traffic is free flowing, especially um Carlile Road, the riverneck road approach to Carlile Road heading in the eastbound direction. So
from the site heading toward the low area or in that direction that approach is operating at or over capacity. Uh the project has a very minor impact on that approach uh during those conditions when um it's probably on the order of less
than 20 seconds during the peak hour. Uh increase in vehicle queue of about one vehicle. So um that's a location that does have some capacity constraints but the project's impact is relatively minor. Um the other the same can be said for the riverneck road approach to um
bill Ricka road and now that approach is the left turn movements are operating over capacity during both peak periods. Um the project's impact on that approach um it's it's adding about somewhere between 30 to 35 vehicles during the peak hour. Um so it's one additional
vehicle every two minutes uh during that peak time period. What that translated into in terms of impacts is an increase in queuing of about 1 to two vehicles. Uh so what was estimated is the queuing is about seven vehicles today with the project full occupancy of the vacant
space adjacent to the project site. That queue would probably go up by about 1 to two vehicles. So 7 to nine vehicles. So it go from seven to up to nine vehicles in Q there. Um the applicant also did undertake an analysis to see if a traffic signal uh is justified or
warranted at the intersection. It is not. Uh so it's not an appropriate traffic control measure. Traffic's being processed. It's just being processed at a slower rate, meaning that there's queuing, but the project's impact and queuing is not significant. Um so again, by way of a summary, the applicant has
addressed all of our comments. The project will produce minor impacts as I've noted about one to two vehicles in Q delays going up on the average of about 20 seconds at any one movement at at the intersections they've evaluated. Um we did me recommend some conditions
of approval which you'll see in our our letter that deal with um the intersection improvements Carlile Road um sighteline maintenance at the driveway. So making sure that the sight lines are clear. they the sight lines are appropriate, but we want to make sure no signs or landscaping are placed
in those areas. And then lastly, and I think this is pretty consistent with the reviews that we've done for projects along River Deck Road, um this area is lacking in sidewalks. In fact, the basically the segment from the site all the way down to just about uh where the cemetery area is is lacking in
sidewalks. And so, um it would be desirable at some point to have sidewalks along the road. Uh so we continue to recommend that these projects contribute to uh future installation of a sidewalk. So there is a sidewalk on the south side so opposite
the project site just to the north. Um it starts at I think 154 Riverneck Road and then travels toward Carlile Road or to the bridge um for the route three ramp the ramps in 495 to Route 3, but there's no other sidewalks. And so we've suggested the applicant make a
contribution towards sidewalks which they've agreed to do. Um that may be something that you'd want to get an estimate from your engineering department for a segment of sidewalk in this area and then the applicant would make a what we call a fair share contribution. Uh we did provide some
guidance that the project's impact in terms of increased traffic on Riverneck Road is about 16% over existing conditions on average. Um and so as you're looking at a potential cost for a sidewalk segment, um we would suggest that the fair share contribution would
be 16% of whatever that cost happens to be. And that's something that again we've suggested be a condition of the project. So our comments related to the transportation study have been addressed. Our comments related to the site plan. Uh we did provide some comments asking that some sidewalks be
provided internal to the site that those sidewalks extend to Riverneck Road for future connection to a sidewalk. Um as well as some uh parking enhancements within the site. Um those have been addressed. The outstanding comments we have related to the site plan uh deal
with vehicle circulation. So the first is the the type of use that's here. So this is a a contractor storage facility. Uh we do know that um the utility company up in the back end or the north end of the site um they do have accommodations for parking
trailers. There'll be equipment storage um things like that. So we did ask that the applicant provide an analysis of vehicle turning for basically a truck towing a trailer. Um so they did provide that analysis. Um, as we looked at that analysis and focusing on the driveway,
there is an area on the I believe it's the east west, I'm sorry, the west side of the driveway, uh, where the truck would actually off tracks over the curb. And so we've asked that they increase the corner radius so that that does not happen given the fact that that's probably going to be a a regular user
going in and out of the site. And so we want to make sure that that the curbing doesn't fail within the public rideway. So we've asked that they do that. Um the second thing relates to the fire truck. Um so as they've uh run the turning analysis for the fire truck, uh they've ensured that the fire truck does not
cross the center line on Riverneck Road when it enters or exits the site. Um as the vehicle is exiting the site and turning to the right, uh we did note that the aerial portion of the apparatus, so the portion of the the um the ladder or the basket that hangs over
the front of the cab, um that will actually swing beyond the curb line. So the tires and the bumper stay within the curb line, but the aerial portion that overhangs the front of the truck will off will swing beyond the curb line. Uh so we've asked that the applicant verify
that there's no structures or objects that would exceed 7 ft in height within that swing area. Um as we looked at the site plan and especially the illumination plan, um it does look like there's a light pole in that area. So that may need to get adjusted, but we want the applicant just to verify and
make make whatever refinements are necessary. Um so that that concludes our review. As I said, Mr. Chairman, uh they've addressed the comments pertaining to the traffic study. We provided some suggested conditions of approval. Uh there are some minor adjustments to the site plan that still
need to be made, but none of those would affect the building or parking layout. So happy to answer any questions that you have. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Evan, do you have anything to add? >> No. >> Okay. Um before we get to questions, I
just want to make sure um are you are are you guys able to address the issues on the site plan that they raised? >> Oh, absolutely. Yes, Katie and from Harston Hudson. Yeah, we addressed um some of the comments or we addressed the comments from the previous letter. We got some new comments back. Yeah,
they're very minor in nature and be happy to address them. >> Okay, thanks. All right. Um so at this point I'll take it around the board for uh questions um pertaining to the traffic studies questions comments Marcy
>> none right at the moment >> nothing I did notice the electric parking he had mentioned and I didn't hear comment on that so I'm not sure >> okay >> yeah I did note that that is one um ask
that they're suggesting more electric parking be included. >> Anita, >> no comments at this moment. >> John, >> no. No questions at this time. >> We have the data.
>> I'm surprised no one's got questions or comments. >> Jeff is very thorough. >> This person is very >> I've got some questions and comments. different sense of austerity. >> Right. >> Right. >> But I'm not the only one. >> No, I don't. But usually >> I try to read the reports on a phone.
>> You go first. >> I think for most projects on Riverneck Road, I'm not very concerned with the increase in volume. I think most projects with that road is is to me volume is not the concern. To me, the number one concern
is safety. Um, one of the things I've noticed, um, that it would be good to see if could be addressed in the study or the peer review, um, is the safety along the
Riverneck Road in terms of the heavy trucks. Um, like you said, there are no sidewalks in most of Riverneck. It's a windy road. heavy trucks are being shown to go across the center line in in most of
those turns. And so it would be good to see what the increased number of heavy trucks on that road is going to do to pedestrian safety with or without a sidewalk. We've got a number of school bus stops along the road, too. Um that
are pretty well planned out by the school department. Um, so it'd be good to see where those school bus stops are related to blind corners and things like that. One of the things that I noticed on my drive along Riverneck Road this past
week is that most of the houses in both directions have mailboxes across the street. So you've got people crossing the street to get to their mailboxes on a daily basis on very windy roads with
potentially an increase in heavy trucks. So it'd be good to see what that impact would be as well. Um >> heavier and wider trucks because heavier wider than cars and that's the issue here.
Um the other concern I have um is that intersection at Riverneck and Carile. I don't think the sight lines for the where the stop location is ver and the
um brush is the issue. My experience in that that intersection with myself and with my new driving daughter is that hill where the bridge is, that is a blind hill.
>> And no matter how good of a view you have of that area, you're not going to see a car until it's over that bridge. And my concern is if a car is coming over that bridge and you've got a heavy
truck coming out of that intersection, it there's going to be an increase in accidents. So, it'd be good to see if maybe a light would be a good idea with an increased number of heavy trucks in that area. >> If I could address that, um, the volume
in there will not meet the warrants for traffic signal. Um, we didn't look at a four-way stop. I don't know if that would be something that you would even want to consider, but >> people won't stop. People won't even see the stop sign. >> You can't see it. Like, you literally
the way cuz me and Chris and and John, all the three of us all live in that. And even tonight when it's we finish this meeting, the way you have to go into that intersection from Riverneck Road through Ka because I have to go across is you stop and then you inch
forward slowly until you're in the middle of the road. So you can see and then you go real fast to go across. That's how you do it. And I've been doing it for 55 years. >> And I have noticed there's a now a traffic light on the other side because of the the detour. That's a safer
intersection now because yeah, >> you've got the same blind hill coming over. So, it's to me it's not about volume because I'm coming out of that neighborhood and that neighborhood's maybe one, two cars every few hours, if
that. It's about the safety of that intersection as opposed to the volume. >> Yeah, understood. Um, we use the crash warrant so few so infrequently. Yeah, I think the number is five crashes a year. Jeff, can you
confirm that? Um, I don't think we have that here. Is my recollection on the yearly data? Give me a second to >> Well, my daughter started driving in May and we've had two near misses already. >> Oh dear. I'm so sorry. I would not want to be a young person learning to drive
in the way driving is now. Um, so I'm not sure we would meet the crash history warrant either. Um, I also do want to say that this should not be on the applicant solely to solve either. So, um, give me
a minute and I'll look up those numbers for you. >> So, those would be my comments um, related to the the safety of Riverneck Road as opposed to the volume because I think like I said, most of these projects are not going to increase the volume tremendously. It's it's really
about the safety aspects of of Riverneck Road. Um so those are my comments. >> I just have a quick ad. Um those LED stop lights that they have um do a Butters ever complain like the people that have those corners complain of the lights going in their houses.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. Because that seems like an issue. >> Yep. And these houses like there's not a lot of it's East Chster not a lot of frontage on like they don't have a lot of frontage versus like you know >> other areas in town. So >> there's no way to shield those things either from the house.
>> No. >> All right. Any other questions or comments related to traffic? >> No. I you know I've mentioned it earlier like there this street is so narrow and we've run into this before with trucks
being proposed on this road. The fact that we don't have sidewalks makes it very difficult to approve any business that is going to be putting a significant increase of trucks on the road. And I know that's
not this applicant's responsibility to put the sidewalks on this street, but at some point we if like if we want to start entertaining these businesses in this in this area, like we need sidewalks here. Otherwise, it is not
safe for these children >> or adults >> or adults. But like again, I I'm on the street five times a day easily and I know like I know where all the bus stops are. My kids were on
is are on these buses. I It's been 55 years. The bus stops have not changed and I'm careful >> with the size of the vehicles going through there. Is there any spots in that road that are narrow that actually can't accommodate? >> Oh, yeah.
>> Side by side. So, is that something they reviewed? >> No. >> So, if they could I mean, that would be interesting to see if there's any spots in the road that's like a pinch point where two extra-large vehicles would have a problem passing each other.
>> And it would likely be on the turns. >> On the turns. It's right in front of um this is 199. It's the one the property that um >> Yeah, >> that's empty that they want to build the 40B >> 243. Yep. >> What is it?
>> 240. >> 240. Yeah, that area is one like from that down to River Neck uh to um >> St. Joseph's. >> Yeah. And no, not even there, too. Um but I think it's particularly narrow from like 240 coming down into the
center of town like those that curve right there. Yep. Okay. Anything else? >> All right. >> The St. Joseph turn a tough turn. >> That's a tough turn, too. >> Are there any other comments or
questions related to the site plan review? From the the um peer review. So, one of the things that I noticed as part looking back at the site plans um
related to the the reconfiguration of the entry, I noticed that the curbs are um the uh Cape Cod BMS. Um one of the things because it's heavy machinery, it'd be good to get
those as cranet granite curbing um throughout the site. Uh that's something that's something that I typically ask for on some of these higher usage areas. Um
even if it's sloped granite for the fire trucks, it would be good to make sure that that is a strong material for plowing and making sure that the snow stays within the the boundaries because this is going to be a hole site.
Are there any other comments on the site plan? Okay. I noticed um well, we'll get to the site plan topic after. Um, so if there are no more questions on the peer review, uh,
for the traffic. Um, so I think Jeff, if you could potentially address those questions that I had, um, and see if we can uh, get some feedback on that.
>> Absolutely. I've made notes of all of the comments that you provided, the board members provided. >> Okay. Thank you. So, I think if there's nothing left for the peer review and the traffic, I think we can let him go and then continue on with other questions and comments on the
site plan. All right. Thank you, Jeff. All right. Um, are there any other comments or questions on the site plan itself or the project? I think the is the DPW
letter a new one. >> No, we did not send um we did not ask for new technical comments. >> Okay. >> Understanding that tonight's was primarily a focused on uh traffic. >> Yeah. I just didn't I just saw the
letter and I didn't know if we needed to read it into Okay. All right. Um, before I open it up for the public, are there any other questions, comments? >> Not at this time. >> Okay. Uh, since it's a public hearing, I
will open it up to the public for questions and comments. All right. Are there any other >> topics that you guys would like to discuss tonight? >> Yeah. This Chris Gr did just want to get back
to you on the crash numbers. There is only one year that we had five crashes and that was 2019. Um the most recent couple of years have had no crashes. It's not to say there were not near misses as you all were talking about. And as someone who has
also driven through that area, I do exactly what Anita described, which is inch forward and then >> gun it, >> jam it. I'm curious what the crash data is going to look like over the next this year and next year with the increase in traffic for the detour. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, that'll be interesting to see. >> That's how I taught my two teenagers to get through there because now they have to get to work. >> Do you need to review Chris Graham's letter at all? Because that looked like that was a new one. >> That's a resident. >> A resident. Okay. Yeah, they're not here.
>> All right. Um, so I just had one other comment on the site plan. Um, it looked like the updated site plans that I was looking at recently decreased the amount of snow storage
since the last one. >> And I think we asked for what percentage they were doing for snow storage. I don't think they ever answered that. >> Okay. I don't believe that the areas were decreased. I think we relooked at the areas, but I can give you a square
footage area that we have shown on the plan for the next meeting. >> Okay, that'd be good. Thank you. The one concern I have because this is a HPE um or LPLE, however you pronounce it, uh
site with the fleet storage. My concern with putting snow storage into the permeable areas is that it it's potentially untreated snow um going into the uh the ground.
So, if there's a way of moving the snow into more permeable areas that can be uh funneling the snow >> uh impermeable um that can funnel the the snow into more treated >> that's fine
>> avenues that'd be better I think. >> Yeah, we can move it on to paved areas if that's >> Sure. >> I think for this one it would be better. >> Yeah, that's not a problem at all. >> Thoughts on that? Joel, >> is the has the park been updated where it showed the gravel area not being as
permeable? >> Pavement now. >> Yes, that's not pitch. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And so the calculations changed very minorly because we had used a um a coverage of 96 and it just went to a 98 for the curve number for the for the
volume of water coming off of that. So it's all been updated to pavement. >> Okay. All right. Um, so at this point, I think we'll I'll entertain a motion to continue.
>> Um, before you do, um, our next meeting is October 22nd and we've already got a couple hearings at that time and that's also town meeting week. So, I'm wondering if we
can continue this to November 12th. Mr. Chairman, my clients are under a deadline for completing their permitting in order to purchase the property. So, we'd ask for whatever you can do to get us here sooner than that. >> Okay. Um, Evan, how confident are we that we'll
actually get Steedman Street? >> Very confident. >> Okay. And then Princeton is also on the 22nd. >> It is. I don't have a level of confidence on that one, but >> we absolutely will be here. >> Yeah, we'll be here. Yeah, we were to
come tonight. So, >> all right. All right. Um, do we have any new ones coming in, Evan, that you can think of? >> Yeah, 10 independents. We have 15 residential units.
Um, and then a minor site plan for 15 research place. >> It's going to be too full. >> That's going to be a packed meeting. >> Someone drops out. Maybe we hear of someone dropping out. >> I don't think any of these will be
dropping out. swap your other project. >> So of all of these, the landfill is probably going to take the most amount of time just because of the peer review presentation. 10 independents you've already heard the
CEO uh applicability. So uh 15 research place you've already seen this is a kind of a minor modification to your approval. and 133. Um, I think the primary purpose of that
meeting was to hear from the property owner contractor. >> You're still covering a lot. >> That's a lot. And it's not meeting week. >> Well, Mr. Chairman, um, unless it it turns out otherwise, um, we
weren't expecting to take a significant amount of your time with regard to 133. we are bringing in the land owner and his um development team to provide you the information you've asked for. Um
and with respect to this potential um hearing, um it's our position that what we need to do between now and that next hearing is to provide you the updated site plan which will reflect the
comments and suggestions by Mr. Durk and >> from the board here today. Uh my engineer has assured me that those are simple and easily added to the plan. We are not going to um suggest otherwise. We're going to
accept all of those changes and and comments that you've provided us. Um personally, I'm of the mindset that we have done a good job in addressing traffic. And so quite frankly that next meeting I
would hope to be a fairly short order. We will present the this the site plan which we would provide to you a couple weeks before the meeting and uh you know we're going to come in give you a quick overview on those changes and respectfully ask that you consider a
decision on this project. So, I don't expect this to take a lot of time and again, you know, my clients are under uh legal obligation and uh I I'd really ask for your consideration with that. It's we're in a tough spot right now.
>> All right. Um we would also be needing uh Jeff's information, too. Um so, let's schedule it for the 22nd. Um, and if we can't get Jeff's information uh and feedback before then
we'll have to we'll have to uh continue it. >> Understood. >> But we'll try. >> Appreciate that. Thank you very much. >> Okay. So, >> second. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Marcy. All in favor? I
>> Thank you. What happens when something's put on that you don't Is there ever a stop where someone's stuff doesn't get looked at >> like by time? Like I don't know, let's say you're running till like 11:00 p.m. >> We've done it at night. >> It just keeps on going. >> Y they should be last.
>> Yeah. What I what I tend to do in those cases, I'll limit some time especially for new ones. >> Okay. Um, so I'll take a look at the agenda once it's built out with Evan and then I'll take a look to see if we need to limit time on topics like the 133 or
things like that. >> Okay. >> All right. Motion to continue on. >> Yep. I move that we uh grant the motion to continue on the Chsford Mall to November 12th.
>> A second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Sertha. All in favor? >> I unanimous continue to November 12th. >> I can book tonight. >> I get to vote. >> You know, for for the 22nd, we could always send out for pizza.
>> Great. I'll be on a cruise now. >> All right. So we will go back to the sead applicability. >> Are they waiting for anything? >> Let me bring up my notes. >> So
at the last meeting um there was some discussion about the applicability uh for the overlay. um questions about how we should be looking at performance standards and the purpose and intent of
the overlay itself um and how do we base our our um decision on applicability on that. Um, we also had the letter from prior town council um talking about how
it would be good not given our current uh regulations and overlay um it would be good not to uh have the uh denial at that point um but have it more of the discussion.
current town council. Uh Evan got that information to current town council. He agrees with that. Um but then Evan and I had a further discussion about how do we then get to the point where the
applicability is either a useful step um in the process or if we're just looking at early feedback, how do we change the process so it's not a decision on applicability? That's essentially a rubber stamp.
Um, and so there are a couple different ways that we could go about doing this. The first one is if we wanted to, we could add information in our overlay in 1951 199B.
um where we ask the applicant or or require the applicant to provide a narrative of how the proposal um would comply with the performance standards and purpose and intent of the overlay. Um and then also ask what
relief is being sought through the overlay. So that way we're getting feedback from them about um what the uh benefits are and we can see what they're asking for in terms of relief to make
that tradeoff so we have a little bit more meat in our decision. Another thing that we could do that Evan and I talked about is if so part of the discussion I think is
less about the applicability in terms of the the dimensional requirements and more about the impact and benefits of the use being proposed on the overlay. Um I think in some areas
it's the use itself. In some areas, it's the combination of uses like the Joel the example that Joel brought up about the beehive. My concern was the combination of those two uses in uh in the proximity. Um I think the
combination of uses in the pro in the the North Road one um was not a concern to people on the board. Uh so it it didn't get the same reaction. um with the plumbing I think it was the
plumbing business uh project as well there was only a single use so it wasn't a combination so I think if there is a concern with certain combinations of uses like residential and more
industrial type uses then we could either put combinations that are non-starters in the bylaw as um a a way of preventing those combinations of uses or we could potentially add a
line in the table that says the mix of uses in the overlay um would trigger a special permit and then we take it on a case-byase basis. Um I think there ups and downs to both. Um,
I think the uh the special permit route allows a little bit more flexibility of the board. Um, and I not sure that we would want to necessarily codify mixes of uses that we don't think go well
together because uses do change and so it might be a little bit hard to even come up with those those combinations. Um, so that's what we were thinking. um thoughts on those approaches?
>> Sure. I think in the first uh thing that you suggested there, I hit you I think you hit the nail on the head. Um uh and I very much agree that's with what I think you're saying which is we should be very careful about codifying
the use mixes because I really don't think we can fully anticipate all the possibilities >> and you know it could be an industrial use and a residential use and if the residential use were set up in a way that it was you know there wasn't going
to be a million kids. Well, maybe that's more acceptable. Yeah. So, um yeah, I I think you got the program right. >> Okay, Joel. >> So, were you were you suggesting that we think about modifying the bylaw or Okay.
>> Yep. >> Okay. because right now it's you need in particular the 19519B1 the proposed type size and location and adding like you mix abuses or something like that.
>> Yeah. And I think um we would add we would do a couple things. I think we would add that the applicant must provide the narrative of how the proposed project complies with the performance standards and purpose and intent of the overlay and also what what relief is being sought. Those would be
part of the packet that they would present to us. >> Um and then further on we added a a use in the use t or a line in the use table that any mix of the uses triggers a special permit in that
overlay. Yeah, I think that sounds great. >> Yeah, I I very much like the idea that the proponent >> presents the rationale. >> I think that's a really good idea. I >> Well, I'd think a little bit about uh
actually adding a line in the use table, but maybe that's called for. I'm not sure. >> Thoughts, John? I like the part about making having the project the proponent m you know just do a narrative so that we can see clearly
what's being sought for relief in that or how the seaw would benefit and then as far as I do agree with um I think it's going to be very hard to anticipate future uses so I I would support doing a special permit having the board review you know if it's if you know for um
certain uses so we can make a determination whether it's beneficial or Anita, >> I agree. >> Okay, >> um I like the more information um with the mixeduse special permit, but I What
happens in future? Like, so they get a special permit for mixed use and one of those uses goes away. Do they have to come back for another permit or they're still approved? >> The if if my memory serves me, if it's the same use, it remains approved. If
it's a change in use, it would have to come back. >> So, if they have approval for two, one goes away, they'd have to come back. >> I If they have approval for, say, a residential and a contractor yard, take the beehive. >> Um, and
the contractor yard changes to another contractor yard, they would be fine. >> Yep. >> If it changes to another use, they would have to come back. >> I was thinking more like it stops using that altogether. Now, you just have one use. I don't think that would trigger. >> No, that wouldn't >> that wouldn't because it's >> because you don't know what would be
coming in >> and then >> but that's the same now any special permit that we grant for a specific use stays with that use and then if it is a new use down the road they would come back again. >> And where does the approval for the
special permit come in compared to saying it's COD applicable before or after? It would be after, right, Evan? >> It'd be part of >> or part of Okay. >> So, just keep in mind um any residential
element within CEO currently requires a special permit if it's four or more units for eight or new uh construction. I think what we're talking about here is um going into the underlying use table
in anywhere in town, not just in the CEO because if you're going to if you're going to apply it only to COID, then you wouldn't put it in the use table because there is no use table for COID. That's right. >> You'd go into the COID zoning bylaw. >> You could do both. Um but in seoid the
residential automatically requires a special permit. >> But if there's a mixeduse in the seoid we don't have a >> um so when beehive came in the the the industrial component was a byite use the
residential was a special permit. But I think you need to figure out whether you want to whether your concern about mix of uses applies just to the o the overlay which applies to existing commercial and industrial.
And again an overlay means someone chooses to come in under the overlay. Currently, most of your underlying zoning districts don't explicitly prohibit or allow mixed uses, but there's a general provision in the bylaws and multiple sections that say uh
you they say you can have multiple principal uses. So by default it appears as though someone could appro could propose a mix of uses not using um the CO overlay >> involving residential >> like say a residential with a commercial
res. You're correct. So yeah the only way to get the multif family >> and that's what makes a unusual because it has the residential. >> Right. Right. >> So the best strategy is probably apply it within the co bylaw. Yeah. And not the use table.
because that's also where we see most of the mixed use require coming to us anyway is through the overlay. >> Yeah. I mean there was even some uh if you recall there was even some board members who expressed concern about on Littleton Road there was an office building.
>> Um >> yeah with the residential. >> Yeah. It was commercial. It wasn't even industrial. crucial. >> So, it seems like uh there's enough there's enough concern to warrant um you know putting it in the bylaw
explicitly. >> So, it wouldn't be a an additional line in the use table because there is no use table. It would be just a line in the bylaw. >> Correct. >> Mention that any mix of uses >> Yeah. could be under um
19512 which is use regulations or 19513 which is residential uses. You could do a 19513.5 kind of just slide it in as a new subsection mixed uses.
>> Are people comfortable with that? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It's a good idea. >> Okay. All right. Um >> just one just one question on that just so I can wrap my head around it. So you approve the special permit and then that
allows them to do a seoid. >> You approve the cooid applicity and then they still have to do a permit. >> You do it together. >> Yeah. It' be part of the same >> the same thing. So you could then deny because you don't approve of the mix use and then thereby you're denying the CO
applicability. Probably keep on saying it wrong >> effectively. >> Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I mean it depends on how how detailed the the new mixeduse provision is. It may it may may create non-starters. You won't even see those types of projects. If there's some
specificity to it if it's just very generic and vague and applies to any mixed use, then that would be reviewed as applicability. They be then they'd apply for the special permit do the full public hearing, full submission. Unlike any
other project, the board would have them, you know, make a decision. >> Because I thought part of this problem with this one was by saying that we approve the applicability, they then come to us with a plan and then we have issues with the plan and then all of a sudden we approve the applicability, so
they think it's okay. >> It's separate. >> It's like a circle. So that's I think I think some members may have that concern, but if you look back at Beehive, at least to me, it was they they pretty clearly got the board's
message. There were there were a number of board members that expressed pretty strong um perspectives on it. after they met with the board, they they reconveneed with with the town officials. Um,
and then they never re-engaged with the board. So, while applicability, as two councils have now indicated, the way the bylaw is set up, um, you'd be granting positive applicability. some of the um previous
decisions that I provided to the board. Uh the way board members had have dealt with that in the past is some board members have voted against uh positive applicability. Majority would vote for it and others uh
expressed um specific concerns and those were codified in the applicability decision. So, I think I think generally speaking, applicants do get the message. Um, and more often than not, they're not willing
to take the risk to advance the project and be played out play it out that way. >> Okay. But I mean, I do like going back though, I think what you're trying to do is good. I just want to make sure we still have something that you It sounds like no matter what, if we really didn't want it, we could still vote against
>> even with the suggestions. This just adds to our ability to do things. >> Yeah. >> And I like the more information I think is really important because when they come up here, seeing that even ahead helps. >> Yeah. >> And we'll we'll start asking the applicants to provide that now. We won't
wait until the you have to go back to town meeting. >> Okay. >> So, procedurally, we're still having a separate applicability appearance versus a permit appearance, right? In other words, that's the way we do it now. So, okay. Okay.
>> And Joel, I have your email from 2023 on other suggestions for uh the SEAD uh changes. >> Yeah, I kept it. >> Um >> remembered it. >> Part of it is performance standards.
Um a couple other minor changes. So, what I can do is I can pull all of this together um after town meeting. um and I can uh put the draft together for us to take a look at um for Springtown
meeting. Um so if everyone's agreeable with that, I can put that together. Evan can start talking to uh current applicants to provide that information and we can move forward. >> Sounds good. >> Excellent.
Thank you. All right. Anything else on that topic before we move on? All right. So, we have discussions.
Community development director's report. Okay. Brief report. We've already covered the uh upcoming items for October 22nd. Um, we covered pre-T town meeting. Um,
received a new inquiry on Tim Butterfield. Uh, that will likely appear before you in an informal fashion for a uh landscape contractor yard. Um,
I handed out the uh Chumps Street uh concept vision. Um there's a survey uh that's out um seeking um input. Uh so I encourage you to uh take the survey and
spread the word. Final um update on my report is UN we received feedback on the onetop grant application. Unfortunately that was uh not awarded. I'm in the process of
scheduling a debrief uh session with the state uh to review the uh you know the comments and and reasons why. So I will uh you know update the board accordingly on that.
Um as far as next steps on that, um couple suggestions. Uh one is to uh try to keep the scope as
is which is fairly robust. Um and find alternative funding sources. That could be a combination of uh town funding uh and maybe some other state funding. It could could also include working with
Nimcog along with some town funding, but that that current scope uh was estimated to be, you know, minimum about $100,000. Um the t the projects we do at NIMCOG
are nowhere close to that. Um they're usually, you know, around 20 25 with with a local match. Um, the other option may be based upon some of the newer information that's
been received, maybe go in and uh amend the scope, revisit the scope. Um, my hope is uh that there is a a reconsideration process. I don't know if there is, but we'll we'll inquire and find out.
>> Okay. >> Um, so I expect to have that briefing uh within the next two weeks. That's all I have for you. Okay. Um, we'll talk about uh the managed growth
strategy in a minute, but Evan, I had a question about the climate resilience and sustainability design guidelines. Is that still moving along? And >> yeah, so on Monday night uh the board um awarded the uh contract.
Uh so um Kleinfelder has been um notified to proceed. The next step will be um scheduling kick a kickoff meeting with the uh with the task force. Uh and that should be within the next couple of weeks. >> Okay. Who are the planning board members
of the task force? >> Um >> I don't remember. I'm drawing a blank. Um, Mike, you were in the interview Kleinfelder. >> Uh, who else was there? DJ. Yeah, >> Drew.
>> Okay. >> I couldn't remember. >> Been a while. >> It has. >> All right. Thank you. And then any up uh I'll wait for Joel's update um because I know the board of health met so I'll ask him. All right. Any anything else for
Evan? All right, Lee's on updates. Oh, yeah. Le on updates. >> We'll start with John today. >> Oh, thank um just a reminder that so the Northern Middle Sex Council of Governments or Nimcog has their annual
meeting next Wednesday um October 15th at the Chumsford Center for the Arts at 5:30. Um just to remind everyone, there's a couple of highlights. um the Mass Executive Office of Housing and Livable Community Secretary Ed Augustus will be there giving a keynote address. Um unfortunately I will not be able to
be there that night because that's also the night of um the town manager's uh pre-TOW meeting information session which is a little later that evening but that's at the senior center but I would encourage anyone uh to attend that NIMCOG meeting. Uh it sounds very
interesting and also I believe um one of our representatives um Jim Assero will be receiving an award and speaking there as well. >> Anita >> um I was at the ZBA. Um
for the life of me I can't remember. I'm trying to look at the agenda to remind myself, but one of the things that did come up was the um fire station in um Kate's Corner if I'm not mistaken. >> Road. >> Yeah. Um >> or Actton Road.
>> Actton Road. Thank you. And um they want a very large variance because it's going really close to the butter. It's like five feet. I thought it was like it was right went right to the edge.
>> Um the butter actually came in and spoke in favor of allowing them. >> Wow. >> Yeah. And they did allow it. Um but it was a huge um like wasn't like oh I need five like we're 5t over it was like it went all the way the building. Yeah.
Like went all the way neighbors. >> Um >> and the actual butter came in and you know spoke in favor of it. um he's been working with the designer, the architect, you know, they've spoken with the um fire and he felt that they're in
a good spot. I mean, obviously, if the one that's impacted the most isn't complaining against it. Um >> the town did look at other properties, >> looked, you know, at other configurations to try, you know, it's a small parcel of
land, right? And we're trying to build out for the next 50 years. like this isn't something that we're trying to add an addition to for the next 10 years, right? Like this is if we're going to do this, we're going to do it right. Um they better felt that they were good
neighbors um and that they would put in the appropriate um >> shielding or >> shielding for them. You know, there won't be any windows on that side, that kind of stuff. So, >> okay. Thanks, Sita. >> Nothing.
>> Mercy. Um, NEMCOG had their meeting Monday at the library for uh, Chster Street improvement plans. Um, reached out to the neighborhoods, the businesses um, on what people would like to see uh, on Chester Street, ways to improve it, make
it more of a village feel. Um, trying to put sidewalks in, whether bike lanes are needed, uh, connecting the rail trail better. It was interesting for a while. Uh they did have a bunch of different stations put up to get people's input in. Um and as Evan says, she all got
this. Um take the survey, spread it around. I think I saw this on the town's website. Has this gone out on Facebook, the survey, too? >> It's been posted on a couple Facebook pages. >> Okay. >> We'll we'll add it. We'll add throughout this. >> All right. >> Okay. Mike, >> absolutely nothing since our last
meeting. >> All right. >> EAS with anybody. >> The board of health met last night. Um, so some interesting things. One, 133 Princeton, there was I think they said a 35,000galon
drum that they pulled out from that was buried there and there was another thing underneath it and they tested it and everything was fine. And it actually the the 35,000 thing had stairs going down to it. So, somebody was speculating that
maybe it was like held coal or something in the old days or I don't know, >> but it's just interesting, >> you know, getting the backstory or other other things going on at some of these properties that we're dealing with. >> Um, there was a they mentioned at 295
Actton Road that there is a a PAS that is there um that it's within 500 feet of a private well on Fort Proctctor. it's an unknown source. So, I just thought it was of interest whenever there's a PAS occurrence in town to have a sense of
where it is, what's going on. Um I I wasn't going to ask about the gap analysis, but they did tell me that at the end of October uh is where they expect to hear uh more from the consultant where uh I think he would
have a more concrete uh set of things to discuss with the directors or town uh uh personnel first and then sometime after that going to the boards potentially before going public. Um, and so I asked
when that was. They uh, Donna didn't know exactly, but I just wanted to make sure it was after town meeting. So, it is. So, um, then also I asked about Hildrith. Um, on October 1st they were
due to have their report to D. She has not heard anything about that. Um so she would expect to hear something soon from D but no one has approached um them about moving forward. Um and so there
was uh uh so basically it's in D's court still and um that sort of thing. And then also 242 that we approved uh was before them and there they were requesting that they do some soil
testing particularly related to the septic area. Uh the concern there being potentially what was dumped into the septic. Uh so the applicant agreed to that and that um overall and they were willing to uh they had already agreed to
not require a geohhydro study. uh and so the uh applicant's able to move forward uh with that. So overall was a very productive meeting and um Gavin made some comments in general during the 242
about the process in general. Um but uh they were particularly seeking input on the 242 and uh so that uh so that that resolved itself. >> Question on the gap analysis. Um
what is it going to be recommendations that are going to be presented to us or because we haven't really given any input? Well, if you recall, and I and I did confirm this with with uh Donna
Greenwood, the director, the public health director, that the sort of the the genesis of this was the concern about the GPZ, the ground protection zone that the board of health >> is administering and in particular, one of the questions being the criteria by
which they say certain things have to be done like geohhydro studies, soils testings, and things like that, which is one of the issues that Evan was bringing up. And so uh so so it sort of became uh sort of grew to you know seeing okay well there's multiple bodies involved
with acro protection and so trying to work out you know some sort of approach that's consistent across town across the different groups and so forth and so on and so that's ultimately where you know I I would think that what they would be doing is coming to us with potential
recommendations that we would have input on. I mean, we did provide our inputs already, right? And so that that's what I but I don't actually know. And that's kind of my question is I'm I'm assuming they'd come to us with recommendations to each board about this
is where we think >> u board of health could be strengthened, planning board could be strengthened, concom. But then there's got to be some dialogue about well that's not really how we work. This is more in concom space
>> or something like that I guess. I mean, it's not hard to imagine, for example, that they would come to us and say, "Well, what we're going to plan to do is, you know, in the cases of an applicant where it's not, say, a resident adding a garage or something like that, but it's a new construction
or if it's a industrial commercial kind of thing, then that they were going to require certain level of testing." And that that then may mean that certain things that we would ask under protection have already actually already been potentially answered from the process that if they're going through
the board of health first, you know, and so that would be or if we're in a situation where we there before both of us then which has already happened in our case that we were definitely willing to let the board of health pursue the environmental testing aspect
particularly because they have the teeth for that and we don't, right? And so, you know, but I I would imagine it's just a matter of coordinating on those things to sort of agree, okay, you know, they're gonna you're going to do this, so we'll you know, we'll do this in respect to that and that sort of thing
be the kind >> discussion I imagine have. >> Okay. >> Don't really know though. >> We'll see. We see. >> Thanks. >> Should be interesting. All right. Um for myself uh no concom
meeting uh this week. Uh October is staggered between the two. So next week is concom. Um I do have an update for you all on the zoning articles. I did present it to select board and fin. Uh the select board unanimously
um supported all of our articles. Uh there was one person absent. Finom supported all of them. um unanimously except for Kate's Corner. Uh that vote was six to one. >> Was it just Kate's Corner or was it six
to one? >> I thought it was was it was the two. It was the zoning and >> Kate. He voted in favor of the zoning. >> Okay. >> I thought so too until I watched the video again.
I believe it I believe it was six to one on Kate's and then unanimous on the rest. >> Did they give a reason? >> Um, >> Anita, take that. >> Hold on. Let me just go look up the thing. Hold on. Hold on. I just got a text. >> Trying to help you before you go to town
meeting. So the um yes uh Steve I believe um he lives in that area um and his concern is that so his view of of zoning is um we want
to make it uh ideal for what it should be in the future. Mhm. >> Um, one of the things that myself and uh uh Jim Clansancy pointed out is that while that's true, you can't change the
zoning so that the current use is essentially prohibited and reduce the um the uh property value um and the opportunities for that to sell. So you have to kind of balance the future and what's currently there and kind of make
stepwise improvements over time. Uh if you were planning everything from scratch, it'd be different. Um but because we've got to work with the areas that are current the uses that are currently there, it takes a little bit more time. Um, so he wanted things to go
further and he felt that that um that current zoning um in Kate's Corner would be still detrimental to the neighborhood. >> So he wanted it to go beyond what you were trying to do. >> He didn't want industrial in there.
>> Gotcha. >> Like he wanted >> No, he wanted no manufacturing. >> No manufacturing period. Um, which I think like I I had said like when you guys remember when they first came here like Yeah. I was I would have wanted residential as well, right? Like
we all would have wanted that whole area to be residential, >> right? >> Um, >> and again, if we were zoning from scratch, it probably would all be res, >> you know, we wouldn't have put >> this office building there. Do you think you're going to get other people during
town meeting that are gonna >> say similar >> potentially, >> but it'll be the same response that we can't um decrease the the property values of current land owners by changing the zoning on them under
their feet. >> I just hope that person that came here spoke in favor of it. Has anyone reached out like to? Has anyone reached out to that person? >> Cuz he had a couple people he said he would try to get to go.
>> Evan, did he ever contact back? >> Anybody? >> It was the guy with the mills, right? >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, managed growth strategy. John, Mike, do you have any updates?
>> No. Other than we're going to try to get together either >> phone or in person this weekend and >> try to get uh see where we want to go for the first meeting. >> Okay, sounds good. Um and I guess we'll continue the path forward. Um
and then we'll see what happens with the grant re-evaluation. Um, I think at the very least we can look at a NEMCOG option, um, and see what we can do with what we've got
in terms of scope while still trying to keep to the original intent. >> Could it almost be phased if you only got so much, you do peace and then do peace later? >> Yep. Okay. Anything else on managed growth strategy?
All right. Any other topics before we get to meeting minutes? All right, meeting minutes uh for July 23rd. Has everyone read them?
>> Indeed. >> Any changes or edits? >> Move to approve the minutes of July 23rd, 2025. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by John. All in favor? >> I I
>> approved. >> All right. So, as we mentioned, the next meeting date is October 22nd, right in the middle of town meeting week. Um >> Oh, goody. >> Yeah. >> And isn't that the night of the uh of
the session? Traditionally, that that Wednesday night has also been the uh >> No, next Wednesday. >> Next Wednesday is the prep session. Oh, they've actually moved it around a little bit. >> No, it's always the week before. >> So, the springtime, you guys had something you all ran to.
>> Yeah, typically it falls sometimes it fall some sometimes our meeting falls >> at Wednesday. Sometimes it falls within >> We've had more than a few planning board meetings at >> Yeah. I think last year it fell right at the prep meeting.
>> This year it falls the week after. >> It was funny because my other half was there for his first time and he's like, "Your whole planning board's here. Cool. >> And I'll be there again uh next week. >> All right. Um so I will take a motion. >> Which thinking of making that? Because I
I'm going to be in um Boston during the day. So if it can be 7 instead of 6:30, that would make it a little bit easier. My daughter's defending her thesis. So >> congratulations. >> Congratulations. Exciting. >> Um any concerns with making it seven?
>> Um which day? 22nd. It's a long day. >> It's gonna be a long night, but yeah. >> Okay. 7 o'clock it is on the 22nd. >> All right. I will take a motion. >> At the risk of having made every single
motion tonight, I think I move we adjourn. >> All in favor? I >> Good night everyone.