Let's get started. Uh, good evening. It is 6:30 on Wednesday, November 12th, and I'm calling this meeting of the Chford Planning Board to order. My name is Chris Lali, and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight, we will be following the posted agenda. Uh, we don't have anyone
on Zoom tonight, correct, Evan? So the meeting tonight is in person um and it is being televised live and recorded by Chelmsford Tele media and will be available on their website and on YouTube. Um Anita is on her way. Um Mike
will be a little late today. He said he'll be here probably around 7 o'clock. So we're missing those two at the beginning. All right. Um first on the agenda is public input. Public input shall be
limited to statements from the public relating to any issues within the jurisdiction of this board, but are not the current subject of a pending public hearing before us. Public comment on any public hearings will only be heard during those hearings. Is there anyone
from the public who would wish to speak? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item. Uh 285 Mil Road conceptual project presentation. Well, good evening. Um, and thank you for having us here tonight. My name is Doug Roby and along with my brother
Brad, we are the owners of 285 Mil Road. Um, I want to introduce two other members of our group tonight, Greg Mikolitis and Jared Gronden, who are the engineers that are working with us, working with us on the site. Um,
so our family has owned 285 Mill Road since 1995. Um, we've enjoyed being a part of the Chelmsford community, um, and have been fortunate to have kept the property mostly at least during that time. Um, and with a mix of good
tenants, uh, from high-tech groups to healthcare and to a school. Um, this last group, the Lighthouse School, ended their term with us in August. Um and now and why we're here tonight is we are
trying to determine what our next course of action is going to be. Um our first option would be to lease uh the current building. It's a twostory 31,000t building. Um that has its own challenges. Although the property um is
appealing on the exterior, it it is in need of some uh some interior work. Um, and so the second option would be to possibly move forward in a new direction that would involve tearing the building down and building a new facility for a
daycare use. Um, as well as a smaller retail or restaurant user. And why date why daycare? Um, because we have been approached from two national chains that have showed interest in locating at our property.
This uh this course would see us construct a new building of around 17,000 square feet or roughly half the size of our current building. Um such a a development would come at great cost to our family, but it would also give us
long-term stability. So, we've come before you today in this preliminary fashion to see if uh this new development is feasible and if it is something that uh the planning board would be supportive of. And with that, I'd like to turn our
presentation over to our engineers, Greg and Jared. Thank you. >> And for the record, Anita is here as well. >> Good evening, Greg Molytus from August Consulting. Um, I just want to uh before
I turn it over to Jared, um, who go over the the site plan with you, uh, proposed site plan. Per my discussion with Evan, I just want to make it clear, we're not here tonight looking for a finding of applicability. Um, we're we're simply here, as Doug mentioned, we're in the feasibility stage. We're trying to
evaluate options. Uh, really looking for your folks input. Um, we went to TRC. That was pretty very valuable. Got staff input on the technical stuff. So, I just want to make it clear. We we understand the process. We'll be back um if we're going down this road for the final
applicability and for a commercial redevelopment project. But uh tonight we just any input you could could provide us would be valuable. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um my name is Jerry Gran, the civil engineer for the project with Allen and Major Associates. Um so this is map 329
lot 3792. Um we're in the limited industrial district as well as the route 129 business overlay and the community enhancement investment overlay. Um so the project team met with the technical review committee on October 1st and we
have revised and come up with this layout based on some um comments that we had received and we wanted to get your input on it. Um so tenant one would be an anticipated daycare user. This user would be approximately 12,000 square
feet with a um 5,000 square foot outdoor play area. And then tenant 2 is a retail or restaurant user of approximately 4,860 square feet with an 840 foot patio shown. Um, but this outdoor space is
only going to be necessary if if required by the tenant. Um, to our understanding, I mean, the parking and the dimensional requirements meet the town standards and ordinance as shown here for the daycare and retail user.
Um, further verification would be needed for a restaurant user based on the tenant program and whatnot for parking. Um, I also saw that in the zoning there is a reduction allowed um based on shared parking. So, we would do an uh we
would analyze both tenants sort of programs and see if that's something that would be applicable to the project. Um, we're going to try to use many of the same grading and drainage paths um out there on site to date, assuming that
the existing infrastructure out there is still feasible and um we're able to use that as well as the underground infrastructure. Um, we've gone through all the truck turning with um some of the comments that we've
gotten from the fire department in the TRC meeting as well as some trash receptacle vehicles. Um, so we're here to sort of get your input on the project and see um the feasibility of coming in for a formal site plan review submission
and getting any comments from you guys up front right now. So, >> okay. Thank you, Evan. Do you have any input? >> Um, I would just say for purposes of tonight, um, and moving forward, keep in
mind that the, uh, daycare would likely be a do use and under the, uh, 129 overlay. Uh, retail and restaurants are a buy right use. Um, this would obviously, as the applicant
has indicated, uh, would still trigger the the CEO process for purposes of of a of, um, process. Um, but essentially, you may be looking at a um, a 129 in a
COID by process that complies with um, likely complies with setbacks. >> Okay, >> that's all I have. Thanks. All right, we'll go around the the board. Uh SHA, >> um just I guess for later purposes, you
know, the what are the abutters of the property in the front? Um >> Sera, could you pull the mic? >> Hey, Mike. >> Thanks. >> Um >> I can share. >> I guess some of the things on there is, you know, who are the abutters of the property um that would have impact to
it. um snow storage on the property that wouldn't impact any landscaping if it's there. Um also just trying to see um if any trees or anything like that need to be removed. Um where are you placing them on the
property? Um things like that. At the moment I'm not seeing other stuff, but I could add more by the end. Marcy. >> Um, so in looking at the plans, like I'm just a little concerned with the restaurant and the school being attached
to each other. Um, and the safety of the kids and the parents and everything coming to drop off kids at daycare. Um, as to specifically like and it depends on is what type of restaurant are you looking at putting in there? Is this going to be one that's kind of opened almost all the time or is this one
that's going to be sort of open more in the afternoon or evening when the daycare is sort of out of there? So that's just in when you have a restaurant in a daycare, people coming in and out all the time. So creating a traffic mess in the parking lot and on to Mil Road. So that's >> we would analyze that and that the
Robies are actively working with their broker and it's not it's not verified to be a restaurant tenant. I mean it's just sort of a little bit of >> No, I know it's it's still a conceptual. So that's just is it's posted there. That's just sort of like where I I'm just a little concerned with.
>> Okay. We'll look into it. Thank you. >> I mean, I think I like the I idea of the playground with the kind of forest setback. Um I I assume that's with the
playground on the far right. Is that right? >> It is. Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, I like that. And >> I mean it does look like a awful large sea of parking but um um hopefully that could be >> that is currently considered just
>> Right. Right. So hopefully the synergies could make some changes. I would have concerns um about, as Marcy said, the drop off and pickup times in terms of um
chaotic parking lot flow. And I think that would be heightened if there was any thought of the restaurant being a drive-thru. I'd be much more comfortable with a sit-down, not drive-thru, you know, silverware kind of restaurant. I think
it would be nice to have a a new nice restaurant of that sort as an amenity in that area and it would be a bonus to the town. And um and I think also the location just off the highway is probably good for a lot of parents in
terms of commuting to and from work. So I basically like the idea. >> Thank you, Anita. Um, so I agree with um, Dra. I'm not in favor of a drive-thru at that
location with the with the the daycare next to it. >> Yep. >> Um, and if this I would probably want to put a some sort of condition >> that so long as there are daycare next to it, there's no drive-thru. >> Exactly. >> That would be how I feel. However, that being said, you've got a big parking lot
there and have you thought like again there might be a way to put two entrances into that parking lot? >> The town would allow it. I mean, possibly we're utilizing the existing
curb cut. Um, but that would have to be up to you you guys to allow that. >> I don't know. like maybe there might be a way to even though the building is connected >> to make it two separate entrances so you have the safety right of our concerns
about a daycare next to a restaurant or a busy restaurant or even a drive-thru. Um if there could be something that could completely >> separate that >> separate it that might be something interesting to think about.
We can look into it. >> Okay, John. >> Yeah, at this early stage, um, you know, I I like the overall concept. I think it's improved as over, um, the previous proposal for the site, if I recall, was the, um, you know, fast food use. It
went to town meeting. Town meeting was not supportive. So, I think this is a better, um, use for the site. I I would agree with a lot of what my colleagues have said. I won't, you know, repeat it, but the main concern would be the drive, you know, preferring a sitdown
restaurant or a small retail store versus a a drive-thru with with the um, you know, with the daycare there. >> Yeah, that's what this proposal is showing. We're not showing a drive-thru right now. And, uh, we know that I mean, the restaurant use and the retail use are both by, right? The drive-thru would
be allowed through a special permit through you guys. So, um, that's our main sort of thought is to go with a with a pad site, no no drive-thru. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, in general, um, I think it
looks good. Um, the one concern I would have is the pinch point where the drop off line exits and potentially crisscrosses cars going in and taking a left into the restaurant. >> Yep. So, I'd want maybe a traffic flow
study done internally on that parking lot. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> When it comes forward, but >> we could >> and we Yeah. I mean, we have to look at the potential tenants operational hours and whatnot to sort of analyze all this. So, I mean, this is still early and we're still trying to shop this around a
little bit, but I mean, once there's more details, we'll definitely be analyzing all that. >> Yep. In general, it looks good to me. >> Thank you, >> Joel. I mean general I similar concern about particularly would want to be able to see that traffic turning people entering
the site um are able to be able to enter and be in the site and off the road fairly quickly so that there's certain amount of space and the way that you set up the internal flows that encourage people to get into it because I would be concerned about a left the left uh turn
line backing up because it's a little bit restricted the road is restricted there if I recall. and also to prevent what was happening with the lighthouse school, which was that the vehicles were parked basically backed up along Mil Road um seeking to enter from the from at least my right to
the left. And so would want to make sure that there isn't any that it's structured in such a way that vehicles get into the site without backing up on either either end of Mil Road. And the other thing I didn't know, and this is more just my lack of knowledge, is I don't know if fire needs more than just
a single front access. I don't know if they need some sort of side or back access as well. So, that would be something I would be interested to know. >> Okay, >> that's it. Okay. >> Would you be interested in exploring an entrance from
129 >> instead of Mill Road? >> There's uh the grade change back there is pretty crazy. I mean, that's probably you're it's probably six feet from 129 to the back of the building. >> And you have that on-ramp on the route three right there.
>> That's right. >> I would not want to mess up with that. >> Yeah. >> So, I think we're kind of fixed to where the building's sitting um in the parking area, but um we can definitely look at other entrance options if that's viable to have two curb cuts if you guys think
that that would be something that you would be sus susceptible to. Okay. Any other questions or comments? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Next item is 42 Grove Street ANR. Excuse me. >> Um, I'm Eric Lindstead. I live at 42 Growth Street. Tonight, I'm here just seeking your endorsement for an ANR of two parcels of property. One of them being 42 Growth Street, one of them
being an adjacent parcel of land that I already own. Just looking to combine the two. >> Okay. Evan, do you have any comments? >> No comments. >> Any I'm not going to go around the board, but any questions or comments from the board?
I did have one question. There's a a line >> on lot 10 that says registered slashrecorded. >> Yes. >> This one right here. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. uh that there were there were uh
there's a couple of parcels of land that make up that one. >> Did you speak into the microphone for >> There's a couple of parcels of land that make up that adjacent property. Okay. >> Uh one of those is land courted. >> Okay. >> One of those is what >> is is is is a land is a piece of land court property. >> Oh,
>> went through land court. >> Yeah, it went through land court >> to put those together. >> Yeah. At some point back in the 40s, I believe. >> I see. >> So, it's going to So, you're looking to put all of that together? >> Yes. and talking together. >> Okay. All right.
>> Yeah. >> I just have a real quick question. That paved drive, is that outside of the property >> to the right? >> Which one? >> On the right hand side that runs up next to the existing dwelling number 42.
>> There's a microphone right above it. >> Uh yeah, this is this is actually this is actually my driveway right now. Uh, and it does cut over the neighbors. >> So, like, do you have an easement or something? >> No, I don't. I don't. It's been an existing condition like that for again
40 years. >> What are the What are the two parcels that you're looking to combine? >> This one right here. It runs here and this one. >> So, the two big parcels. >> Yes.
>> Gota. So, there's a lot of driveways that go outside of the property. Yeah. >> All right. Any other questions? Uh, for the record, Mike, uh, has arrived. Um, but since you weren't here for the beginning of this, you won't be voting. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Um, I will take a motion then from someone other than Mike. >> Oh, Mike always does ANRS. >> I know. >> I can move it. I just can't move it. >> That's true. If you want to move it. I move we uh approve uh this ANR at 42
Grove Street with no decision as to zoning. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. Sorry. >> Second by Anita. I heard her first. All in favor? >> I abstension.
>> Uh six in favor and one abstained. >> All right. Thank you. >> You've been approved. Thank you. All right. Um, since we have a continuence for one of
the public hearings for Chsford Mall, um, why don't we get that one out of the way? Um, so I will take a motion to continue Chumsford Mall to December 10th. >> Move that we uh continue the uh Chserve Mall uh hearing until the 10th of
December. Second >> motion by Mike, second by Deerra. All in favor? >> I. >> That is continued. Moving on to 295 Actton Road, Fire Station number
five. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. I hope everybody's well. It's good to see everybody. Uh certainly thankful for being here being in this position because uh I think as we show you our plans I think a you'll see that a lot of time consideration and
collaboration have really gone into looking at our fire station needs our firefighter needs and kind of designing a station that will meet the needs the safety needs of our firefighters. Um and certainly looking forward to showing you and sharing these plans with you. Um,
but I also while I'm here, um, just want to thank everybody for the strong showing of support. Um, from the town manager, Paul Cohen, the select board, finance committee. Last fall, the town meeting overwhelmingly voted for this
project. Uh, and certainly the voters. We have the town has 11 precincts. All 11 precincts voted for the fire stations project. So, I can't thank the public enough. Um and then more most recently we had zoning board of appeals last month for engine 5. Uh and that passed
and I think largely because of the strong showing of support from the neighbors who came out to the meeting to support our project. So I am certainly mindful of the strong support we have and again we are here to share our designs and get your feedback and try to
answer any questions you have. So thank you. and bracket guy Ryan fire chief. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Chris Broles. I'm with GPI. Um uh thank you for the introduction. Um on behalf of the town,
we're here to discuss 295 Actton Road um fire station 5. Uh as you can see, this existing fire station is in the residential B district. Um the existing station was built in 1966, one story, about 2600 square ft. The
project proposes to uh uh raise that existing building and proposed to build a 8700 square foot uh twotory that's gross floor area twotory um fire station with two bays. Um as previously mentioned, we were in front of ZBA to
receive a few variances for setback. Um maximum floor area ratio and maximum building coverage. Obviously, due to the existing site um constraints, there's there's not a lot of room to provide a fire station that meets the needs of the community. Um so, we did get uh approval
for those variances. Um so, tonight we have a this is the proposed plan. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Um proposal includes uh new new driveway for the uh fire station. uh associated parking in the front and in the rear of
the uh parcel as well as um improved uh landscaping um which are further in the set. Um you don't have to scroll to it now but um all the proposed landscaping uh majority of is on on a butter's properties and there's a lot of been um
uh coordination with those um abutters to come up with that that landscape plan. Um due to the the size of the site, there's not a lot of room for landscaping beyond, you know, bushes and um grass on site. So, improved landscaping around the property. Um
obviously some new utilities for the site. Um as well as an improved storm water management system on site, which is kind of non-existent now. All the storm water uh meets mass DP's uh 10 stormwater standards. Um and although we
don't trigger the um uh local uh stormwater bylaw as far as uh the more um detailed requirements um we did submit for administrative land disturbance review and um we did actually meet um a lot of the local bylaws um just as best practice for for
storm water. Um so there is uh a variety of uh best man management practices on site including um a slotted drain um catch basins an underground a couple underground infiltration systems um and an infiltration trench. Um there's also
uh new sewer lines out to the the the main in the street. Um one is coming from the uh apparatus bay which collects um runoff from uh vehicle washing, anything like that. um that goes into an oil water separator and the other one is
for sanitary. There's also a diesel generator on site as well as um rooftop solar um and we have received a number of comments from the town um storm water wise and and just in general. Uh we've
reviewed them all. Um we've reviewed most of them with the town already. Uh this this plan obviously doesn't incorporate those comments. However, um we have reviewed them all and our you know I'm assuming our following meeting will incorporate all those those comments. None of the none of the
comments were um that uh most of them are minor in nature um that we could easily uh address on on site. Um I think with that I oh the other thing that's it our architect is here as well as our landscape architect um if you um have
any questions for them as well. But at this time, um, that's it and I'm open to questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, we do have some departmental letters. >> This one. Okay. The first one is from Jose Negron,
building commissioner. Actually, not to the board, but to um the applicant. Mr. Broyals. be advised should the planning board approve of this project. ADA compliance inside and outside the building shall be met per 521 CMR and all Massachusetts code adopted code to
include IBC IMCC current additions. A combination accommodation for parking areas shall meet provision chapter 195 section 17. Minimum parking requirements one space per 200 square feet of net floor area and one space per dwelling unit for one
bedroom. two spaces per dwelling unit for units with two or more plus one space per every three units or fraction there respectfully Jose Negron uh the water district uh Chelmsford Center Water District dear board members the Chelmsford Center Water District has no concerns with the proposed fire
station project please note that the contractor must coordinate with the district for the cut and cap of the existing water service water district will also be providing a new fire hydrant at this location backfollow prevent vention devices will be required on both the fire line and
the domestic water line. And then from the fire prevention office, that was actually one question I had was were they actually going to review it? Yes, they did. Uh both of them. I >> hope so. >> Yes, they did. Good for you. Dear
members of the board, regarding the variance request for the construction of a fire station at 295 Actton Road, the fire prevention office provides the following comments. All applicable codes and standards shall be met for the construction of the new structure, including but not limited to NFPA
standards, Massachusetts general laws, CMRs, the Massachusetts state building code, and the town of Chelford bylaws. A flammable combustible storage permit shall be obtained and renewed by annually for this office from this office for the on-site diesel generator. A fireflow test shall be conducted and
submitted to this office for review. The hydrant currently located in the front driveway shall be replaced with a new hydrant that meets Chumsford Water Department specifications. Vertical granite curbing on site shall be replaced with sloped or mountable curbing. With these conditions satisfied, this office supports approval
of the variance request. We respectfully request that this letter be entered into the public record and incorporated into your approval process. Sincerely, Josh Abbott, Captain Fire Prevention Office. and DPW. This is from uh Tony Rapuchi, town engineer. Site plan review.
Outstanding DPW engineering issues not addressed. Provisions for an enclosed dumpster pad and dumpster should be depicted upon the plan sets. During construction, care should be taken to maintain separation of at least 10 ft horizontally from the edge of sewer services to the edge of water services.
where a horizontal separation of 10 feet 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 loss chapter 9 section 9.8. Pavement detail on C-600
should reference super pave mix design, not top and binder. Total mix depth should be 4 in minimum on site, 1.75 SSE and 2.25 SIC respectfully. And I hope you know what that means because I do not. Recommended storm water management
conditions. Sewer manhole detail on C-600 needs to be changed to a 26-in standard cover and frame. Cleanout is required 10 ft from foundation at transition from 4 in to 6 in pipe if allowed by plumbing inspector and DPW inspector. Cleanout may be placed in the
4 in prior to the transition. This cannot be done without approval from both parties. Recommended storm water management conditions. Storm water management conditions were discussed on October 27th, 2025 for standards 1-1 through 7. Additional test pits are
required in the infiltration areas to be witnessed by town staff can be accomplished after approval prior to drainage installation. >> Excuse me. >> And then there are a number of recommended general conditions of approval that look pretty standard.
And I think that is it. Chsford Police Department had no concerns. Okay, Evan, do you have anything to add? >> I do not. >> Okay, we will go around the board at this point. Um, we'll start with Mike.
Any questions, comments? >> Good to me. >> Okay, Joel. >> Yep. Um, so this is a mix of redevelopment and new development. Is that correct? >> Yeah. Is that reflected in your in meeting the storm water standards?
>> Yes. In the storm water, we've noted that it's um a mix of redevelopment, new development, but this is meeting all new development um requirements. Um I believe when it comes to like the water quality volumes and recharge volumes, we we state in our report, you know, the 08
times whatever, but in reality, we're providing way more storage. So, um we're meeting new development, but we don't need to necessarily. How um how many test pits? Have you done test pits in the recharge areas in the infiltration areas that
>> Yeah, we did um test pits um that they're on one of these plans and and the test pit logs all over the site. Um I'm not exactly sure where all of them are, but it's it's possible that you know there was it was noted that one another one needs one uh another one needs to be uh done in an area of the
recharge. So, um, if you look at the, um, the drainage plan, if you go up a couple sheets, Evan, uh, right there, um, there's a recharge system in the front and one in the back. I know we did test pits in the front and the back. Um, it's possible that one doesn't land
right in the same spot. Um, if I recall, uh, the majority, the soils were all pretty similar on site. So, um, we don't have a concern with doing another test pit and getting varying soil conditions. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um, so we have good soil, good good separation from ground water.
>> What is the separation that you have from the bottom of your infiltration bed to seasonal high ground water? >> I don't know that off top of my head, but I know it's at least it's it's greater than four feet. >> It is greater than four. Okay. >> Okay. >> And uh if you did find that there was something that you didn't expect in the
soil. Uh it looks like you may have some room to shift it around if you needed to. >> There's really not a lot of room. I would say that if there was a change in the um drainage design, we we'd have to come back to either the town um administratively or not. But um we could
make revisions to the size of the chambers either bigger um to account for um uh groundwater separation or uh you know just infiltration rate. Okay. >> So um we do have some flexibility. You're right. >> Okay. >> But we'll we would evaluate that when we
get the results. Now is the so I remember during the town meeting it was explained why the station is actually over on one side or is that is the property that small? I just don't recall because there's a structure. Is there an existing >> There there is an existing structure um
that I think you can see on this plan. Um this one is just obviously larger than it so it's kind of engulfed. Um it it's obviously hugs one side to provide access to the rear of the site. >> Um >> Okay. >> Yep.
>> Uh and then you you aren't um you don't consider yourself a LPL. I know that firefighting foam used to have PAS. Uh does the current is is the fire is there going to be firefighting foam stored there or is there going to be some sort of a firefighting chemical or material
stored there that has PAS sources? >> So that station used to have foam. We got rid of that what they used to call legacy foam. >> Yeah. >> Because of the concerns with people. We got rid of that many years ago. Okay. >> And currently there are no plans to store foam at that station. >> Okay. Okay. So there is no there is not
going to be any materials stored on that would qualify as a pollutant of some kind or something like that. >> Just outside of household stuff to maintain the station. That's it. >> That's all right. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um I think I think that's all I have right now. >> Okay.
>> Um my only comment is just on the just the architectural design. Um and again, you know, I again I'm kind of a traditional guy. my views may not be reflective of everyone. Um, when I look at the design, it's it kind of strikes me as modern or or and I know you're
trying to strike a balance with, you know, this building needs to be around for another probably 50 to 75 years serving the town. So, I know you're trying to be forwardlooking. I'm just wondering where it's kind of close to some South Chumsford Village, would it be would it be advisable to try to put
like a different facade on it and try to make it a little more I'm just trying to head off. Again, it doesn't have to I'm only one person in town, but I'm just trying to think sometimes in the past when public buildings go on and public projects, residents tend not to focus on it right away and then when it starts
under construction, they see the pictures, you don't want to get, you know, negative comments. So, you brought that up because that was my comment and I actually have pictures of nicer, better looking ones that I would like. So, I'm so glad you >> know, that's my only just trying to head off a potential problem with again I
live on a different part of town, but I'm just trying to head off potential issues. >> Thank you. Um, so I'm Brian Ellio with the Galante Architecture Studio. Um it it is somewhat of a modern um fire station, but the but the the colors and
the tones and the pallet is still very residential. Um we kept the scale very low as as low as we could to to try to meet the needs of the of the station. Um and so, you know, what you're seeing here is is a kind of um you know, we're
using a metal panel. It's very durable. Um and and and we're also using a um it's called a high-pressure laminate. So it's kind of a wood look looking material. Um it's actually made out of wood. It's a
it's a very pressed pressed wood. Um and so yeah, I mean it is a a very modern looking building, but um but it still has that residential scale. It still feels very civic. Um, it's very open with the with the glass hope hopefully
to be more welcoming. Um, I mean, we studied we studied many different looks and I feel like this is this is just the direction that the the building committee wanted to go. >> Is there a reason why there's a flat roof on it?
>> Like is that better than like a pitched roof that would look more like a >> It's really to keep the scale down. um it is less expensive in the sense that um you don't have all of the extra structure and the extra volume to kind
of heat and cool or try to control the the the air flow, you know. Um so it's it's just very trying to be very efficient and very cost-effective. I don't know if it's if it's better per se. We can handle we can manage the
water better. Um, the flat roofs also allow for us to put solar panels on the on the roof a little more easier than having a pitched roof. Um, so those were a lot of the drivers to try to keep the the profile as low as possible to have
as many have as much space for PV as we can. Um, and it's easier to control the water coming off of the roof going into the storm drain um with a flat roof. I mean, I'm all for saving money and keeping the cost down considering we're
trying to build three of these, I think. Um, but I I kind of agree with John, especially in this neighborhood. I would have I don't know, maybe something a little bit more architecturally because this will be big. It'll be different. It'll be bigger in the neighborhood. I think it'll like people
it'll stand out. to your point, people don't normally pay attention until it starts going up and then like and this is going to be there for, you know, a very long time. And I rather do something that's maybe a little bit more pleasing to that area and kind of looks like it fits and I kind of like this,
you know, something like that and I get it that it could be more money, but just something that >> but I get it. There's a budget. >> Anything else, Joe? I need it. >> Dear, >> I'm good. >> Marcy,
>> um how many parking spaces do you need for the station? Because it looks like there's only five there. >> So, as um we got a letter from the um building commissioner that dictated parking. Um however, in this zone, it's
um it's it's really up to the building commissioner. So, um we only have so much space. Um there's we provided as much parking as we physically could for um uh visitors and um the the the fire
station is um we've worked closely with them to make sure that you know we we have enough parking for everybody. Um I think we're just con constrained on on site with um >> this question because it looks like on the like on the plants I'm only seeing five in the back. So, you're thinking about how many
>> there's there's uh one or two. There's a handicap in the in the front, >> right? So, but you're thinking about how many firefighters going to be working at that station. Does everyone who's working there going to be able to park a vehicle there during their shifts? >> So, yes and no. So, right now the we
have two firefighters stationed at that. So, we design buildings obviously try to go 50 years out. Um but you're correct. There are six bedrooms, five parking spaces out back. If we are fortunate to get that sixth firefighter out there at some point, um, yeah, they would have to
probably pivot inside the station, that one vehicle. U, which is why we wanted to make sure we had access to the back of the building to get a staff vehicle or a personal vehicle in the back. Okay. >> To get in. There's a garage door back there. So, >> all right. No, that makes sense. >> That's kind of No, but that was brought
up. So, that's kind of the thought process. >> All right. No, that makes sense. I'm just I'm I work in a building where there's not enough parking spots for the people that work there. So, it creates a problem in the neighborhood. I don't want to see a fire station. You know, we spend all this money on the town and that you can't put the employees who
need to be there. They can't park there because there's really no parking on Actton Road or, you know, the side streets around there for these uh people to park their cars for them to be there for 24 hours to do their shifts. >> So, there be did did I hear there' be six people like max on the ship?
So it's designed for 50 years. So there are there's going to be six bedrooms, but there's not going to be currently six firefighters there. >> So the bedrooms, how many how many like I guess my question is how many would be there on a shift? It would be six. >> So right now it would be probably two,
but you designed it for 50 years. So you know, because the question comes up, why why six bedrooms? >> We did that with engine two. When we built engine two, we have three firefighters there, >> but we build it for 50 years. So we have six bedrooms. So it' be total maximum you looking at six correct or because I
know like my son right in his fire station they they have like two or three B like they'll like two of room. So I wasn't sure if you're thinking >> so you've designed it because NFPA calls for four members on a truck >> but you also have to think about storm coverage when you add additional staffing. So that's where we get to the six
>> to the six. Okay. So that's your the five parking spots. Six. Okay. >> Sita, >> where's the visitor parking? It's where you want. There's no designated parking spots for anybody. So, um it would be, you know, the
accessible accessible spots in the front and then the other parking is in the rear. >> So, a potential visitor could block the front of the fire station with their car if they're going there. Where are they going to park, though? >> In in the rear. There's there's parking in the rear.
>> Well, no. I see the five, but you just said there was going to be so many people on there. >> Where? >> Right there. There's the handicap one as well. >> Oh, I see the handicap. No, the one next to it is actually a hashed off do not park. >> Oh, okay. >> Right. Is that what I'm saying? Correct. So, there's only there's one handicap spot in front.
>> Yes. >> And you have five spaces in the back. And nothing is designated as a visitor space, and potentially in the future, you're going to have one car parked inside, five spaces out back, >> depending if there's somebody there who needs a handicap spot or not. And then
if a visitor comes, they could potentially block your door. I mean they could because they can park anywhere. I guess that's just a concern of mine. The other thing that's there that I just do you want to comment? >> Yeah. So if you look at the lot right
now it's very tight. >> So there's two firefighters out right down there. Yes. Occasionally family members will come by to visit but they don't sell and we are very vigilant. You cannot block the stations. There's signage out front. There'll be signage in front of these that you do not block at our doors. So, um, even with the
deliveries we get next door, I think people get it not to lock the doors. So, we we do a little more, um, vigilance for the the members who will be working down there, but I think we do a pretty good job of managing it. And >> how how big is the space to the left of the building in that alleyway?
>> Oh, it it is dimensioned somewhere. Um, >> it's right there. >> It's right there. >> 14. >> Yeah, >> 14. >> Okay. And to the right of the building, I know with the previous building there was 13.1 ft to the Abutter's line and now there's two and a half. Is there any letter from the Abutter stating that
they're okay with this? >> So the to the right was at the ZBA. He has um endorsed this project. He has given strong support and there is a letter there's a legal agreement right of entry agreement between the town and Mr. Ericson.
>> Is that Eric >> DBA? He did speak in >> Does that ever get referenced in our stuff? >> Huh? >> Does it ever get referenced in our documentation? >> We can, but we haven't yet. >> Okay. And then, um, I guess a question just recapping off of the design. Does
anyone have a picture of what it currently looks like for that house to the right that now it's going to be abuing this new design to the left of what that might look like kind of like picture- wise? just because in North Chumsford, I knew where they put the fire department there after it was built
with a more modern design, a lot of people didn't like the look of it. So, I don't know what this is looking like next to each other. Um, like how out of place the two designs are next to each other. >> I don't I don't think we have any existing photos in any sort of
presentation, but but we have site photos, so we can we can definitely kind of track some things down. Um, I'm not sure what shows exactly in the renderings. >> I didn't know if I had like Google Maps or something to show the front. >> Is this the side that faces the Aba?
>> Yeah, that's the side. >> And there will be like like um Chris mentioned before, there will there will be landscaping along that side. Um, >> what will the landscaping look like day one? like how long will it take to cover
in >> landscape architect? >> Hello, I'm Barry Hos the landscape architect on this project. What we've proposed is um a narrow growing western arborite which grows two to three feet a
year um and it has more of a compact footprint than some others I believe and I don't have the plant list in front of me right now but I think we were calling for seven to eight footers the day they were installed. Um, and then the
columnar deciduous trees next to them, uh, would be probably in the 12 to 14t tall range when they're the day they're installed. >> And where are those? So, there's those bigger >> the the large the three larger, um, canopy tree type symbols. Uh, those are
kilometer swamp white oaks. The remainder are western uh, arborvite. in the height of the building versus the height of what the arborites are expected to get to. >> The arborites can get 25 feet tall or perhaps a little more uh under good
growing conditions. It's always a guess as to how big something's going to get because it depends on the local environment, but it will they'll equal the height of the building. I believe buildings. So it I think over time you could expect they'll be equal to or greater than the
height of the building >> to kind of block the side. But then on the front view, I guess that's kind of just one of the things I'm interested to see what it looks like for what's existing today to the right. I don't know what's to the left of the fire department today. I haven't been over there. What do you guys have on that
side? >> So we we have a similar approach on the on the other side. the um western arbor of ID. Again, the again the neighbors have been very gracious in terms of allowing us to plant on their property. So, we've tried to minimize the footprint we're taking up, but provide a
four-season screen that will grow relatively quickly and densely. Um so, it's a it's a similar western iberite type concept with uh a few native shrubs closer to the street so that we maintain sight distance down the road.
Um, I can bring something up. >> Who maintains the landscaping? If it's being installed on neighbors properties then over time if something happens to it is that the neighbors responsibility then
or so it's my understanding for probably for the first year year and a half two years um the town will do what they can to take care of it especially with the strong support we got from both neighbors um beyond that I think it's
probably up to the owners. That's why they're very heavily involved in this process picking out um the type of you know plants and trees and stuff that they want. >> Okay. >> And with all the projects of this type,
there is a guarant initial guarantee on the plant material so that should anything die within the first year, they'll be replaced in kind. >> Right. Right. Okay. Looking at this picture here, how much further up is the front of that building coming from where it kind of is there on that Google Maps? Like
>> like how much for more forward >> is it kind It looks not like not too much maybe like another 10T >> 15. >> If you go to the site plan, um it has an overlay of the existing and proposed. Keep going to the next keep going after
that one right there. So yeah, it's only it's a few feet more, four or five. It's it's not that much farther forward, but it is a little farther towards the um street. >> Okay. And if you can just go back to the Google Maps. So just I mean it looks
like the existing one today kind of reminds me of a house with a garage like open, right? And now this new one is going to look like a very modern design next to that which seems like it will kind of clash with the current neighborhood just from viewpoint. So
I I don't know that's just my thought there. >> Chairman Levali, could I comment? >> Sure. >> Uh David Sanden, ownus project manager left field. um regarding um you know architecture. I know it can
be very subjective uh but we uh have presented this project to the permanent building committee I believe three times. Um I know twice uh it has come up uh and I have to say that with the constraints of this property this parcel
this site and fitting the program um you know Galante and Associates it's a matter of fitting the program within a geometric volume and uh if we were to if they were to take the approach of doing a conventional sloped roof the height of
the facility would be drastically out of scale and fabric within the neighborhood. Uh and I, you know, they have um looked at the materials as Brian indicated with the tones and also the verticality uh and the direction of the
siding. Um so I just want to say it was reviewed um a few times with the permanent building committee. >> Yeah. Because if you look go to the left, look at the left side like go to the property to the left. Go up one next to it and look at that house. Have I guess my question is this there's like
four or five neighbors on this street obviously have they've been invited have they've seen have they do they know this design I know your the butter has and if they're okay with it >> so all the abutters all of them I've been in touch with them multiple times so they have my direct contact they've
been invited to the meetings um and they've strongly supported this project >> and they're okay with the design the way it is if they're >> Yep. and they they've showed up to you know not only ZBA but they showed up to the permanent building committee and like was said we've gone through the
design phase three times I think if you saw the first iteration was a lot more glass um based on the feedback um they kind of try to bring a more home warming feeling to it and um this is probably the third or fourth probably design
iteration of of this project >> so a lot of feedback a lot of conversations have gone into it until we've kind have got to this project. The other thing is our other stations are flat roof. So for our members, the firefighters, if there's going to be solar panels, we always think about
service. We also think of issues and if we're going to be putting our members on there, we do prefer a flat roof, especially if there's drainage issues. We go up, we maintain our own stations. Um so we would prefer a flat working surface for safety. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um any other question questions or comments? Okay. So, um I really like this this plan. Um I think that knowing that the building committee and the neighbors have been incredibly involved in this, um I've been following this for
a while. I think that um I I actually like the design. Um >> house. >> I Yeah. Um, I to me it's fitting of a fire station and I think that I'm a lot more comfortable knowing that
the that like I said the building committee and the neighbors have been involved quite a bit um in this project. So, I don't have the concerns that other board members do on the design. Um, I think that
we're at a point now where we do, I think, need a little bit more, um, final letters from DPW. I think I think we need updated designs uh, that incorporate that information.
Um, I don't think we're ready for a vote tonight. Um but I think that >> did you want to is this a public meeting we open? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um but I think you've gotten some feedback um from the board and I would like to hear the feedback from the
public if there is any here as well. >> May I add one more thing? Sure. Sorry. I I did forget to mention we have uh formally requested a few waivers as well. Yes. >> Um so there was some setback for front part front parking um front landscape buffer. essentially the same setback
requirement and buffer strip reduction on the side as well as um the requirement for a sidewalk along the frontage. Um so uh with the exception of the sidewalk, the other ones were due to maximizing parking on site. Y so I want didn't want to forget to mention that. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yep. Thank you. >> There are any members from the public who wish to speak on this project? >> Good evening. I'm Paul Ericson. I live at 291 Actton Road. from the director butter on the right hand side. Um I have supported this project from day one. I
know the importance of what the firefighters need, what the town needs, and that um speaking on behalf of the way the building looks. It wouldn't have been my first choice. Let's just put it that way. Um I would
have liked to have seen something a little bit more fitting into the neighborhood. The blue house to the left I think was there since the late 1800s. Was a blacksmith shop originally and all that. And then you've got the um Parley farm across the street which was
formerly the weight farm and that and I made a comment that another meeting that Charlie Parley is probably rolling over to his grave right now knowing what this is going to be. But that being said, um I think that the town has done its due diligence. I think that the chief, the
bu permanent building committee, everybody um has done the absolute best they can and I'm looking forward to working with everybody and getting it done and out of the way. So, thank you.
>> Hi, Lind Princeton Street North Ch. I wasn't going to say a thing, but um when you're talking about the uh landscaping on the side there, excuse me. I'm in I was in the same situation many years ago where the builder um had to put the uh
trees around my land and we actually picked out the trees and stuff and to this day we had picked out beautiful pine trees and stuff and to this day they are useless because um I guess I should have been smart
enough to put in the uh my conditions that they took care of the trees. because as pine trees go, they grow up and if you don't keep chopping them and trimming them, there's nothing on the bottom. So, just to, you know, throw
that in to make sure that and they also uh when they planted the trees, they put them on the edge of the boundary. So, they have to come on my property to cut them and trim them. So, might be something to make sure that they're set back a little bit or something.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the public? All right. So, at this point, I think you guys have everything you need for our next meeting. >> Um, at this point, I will take a motion
>> to continue >> to >> December 10th. >> September 10th. >> December. >> December. >> December 10th. Okay. Move to >> go back the two. >> Motion by Mike, second by Deedra. All in favor? >> I.
>> All right. Thank you guys. Thank you. Next item is 260 Old Westford Road, Fire Station 3. >> Good evening. Chris Broyals from GPI. On behalf of the town, uh we're here to discuss 260 Old Westward Road Fire
Station uh three. Um this is a uh on a 20 acre parcel that contains um Robert's Field. Um it's kind of located to the uh upper right of the the property to the right of the field. Um this site is located in the public
district as well as the aquafer protection district which is a groundwater protection zone 2. The existing fire station is one story um and it's about 2,700 square ft. The proposed is a one-story 4,800 square
foot uh two bay fire station. Um there's also uh some wetlands to the the east of the uh site. Um and we have submitted to conservation for uh no intent to be being within the buffer zone to those wetlands.
The uh site improvements include um uh new parking and driveways uh as well as improved landscaping and new utility services. Uh all new storm water management uh system as well. Um the storm water uh
meets the 10 stormwater standards to the maximum extent. Um the standard three is for infiltration. Um due to uh PAS that was found uh in the groundwater um we
have elected to not infiltrate at this site. This is something that we'll be talking with conservation more about. So storm water is um detained on site and we'll get water quality that way and we will then discharge from there. Um just
like station 5 uh we also do not uh trigger the local storm water bylaw um extensive uh requirements. However, we are we did submit a administrative land disturbance permit. Um and as I
mentioned before we but we are meeting additional storm water requirements kind of going above and beyond. Um storm water uh is controlled by a slot drain like a trench drain, catch basins, uh yard drains, uh water quality units, um and uh
underground detention systems as well as a rain garden. Um there will also be a sewer line uh again from the Apparass Bay. um that will go into an oil water separator as well as a a new sanitary line and a uh new diesel generator as
well as rooftop solar. Um there will also be uh geothermal wells installed in Robert's Field to the um left of the proposed fire station. Um as previously mentioned, we've submitted a notice intent to conservation. Uh we have not
been in front of them yet. Um but we are on a uh meeting coming up. Um as well as the administrative land disturbance permit uh for DPW. Um we have also reached out to the uh >> um water department. Uh I believe one of
the letters that was uh read um was from the the uh water department. Uh because we're in the groundwater protection zone, um we needed to notify them and they did uh respond with no comments. Um and uh as previously mentioned with
station 5, uh we have received a number of comments from the town and we have spoken to them um about those those comments. Um and and they uh again they're um things that we would address and they're not uh detrimental to the um
the existing uh proposed development um as far as meeting those requirements. Um and uh as previously mentioned um the architect and landscape architect are here as well to take any comments um at this point and uh that's that's all.
Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Joel. We have some letters for this one. >> Yes, we do. Um first one is from Jose Negron. It's going to sound eerily familiar. Mr. Broles be advised should the planning board approve of this project. ADA compliance inside and
outside the building shall be met per 521 CMR and all Massachusetts code adopted code to include IBC IMC IECC current additions. >> Accommodation a combination accommodation for parking area shall meet provision chapter 195 section 17.
Minimum parking requirements one space per 200 square ft of net floor area and one space per dwelling unit for one bedroom. two spaces per dwelling unit for units with two or more plus one space for every per every three units or fraction thereof respectfully Jose Negron
and then from the Chumsford uh center water district as mentioned dear and board members and this is for this property not the other property although they sound exactly the same >> the Chsford Center water district has no concerns with the proposed fire station project please note that the contractor must coordinate with the district for
the cut and cap of the existing water service in addition the water Service to the rear storage area garage must also be properly severed with district staff present on site during this work. Backflow prevention devices will be required on both the fire line and the domestic water line. Sincerely Brandon
Canada, superintendent and from who is this? Fire prevention office. Dear members of the board, this office has reviewed the plan submitted for the special permit at 260 Old Westford Road and offers the following comments. All
applicable codes and standards including but not limited NFPA standards CMRs MGL's the Massachusett state building code and the town of Chsford bylaws shall be met in the planning and construction of the proposed fire station. Separate permitting for fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be filed with this office. Review of those
plans and sign off on the building permit will be required. Site access is sufficient. Any future changes to the site plans will require resubmitt of updated truck turning plans to this office for review. A fireflow analysis shall be conducted and
submitted to this office for review. Vertical granite curbing on site shall be replaced with sloped or mountable curbing. This office supports approval of this project subject to the above conditions. We request that this letter be included in the public record and considered as part of your approval process. Respectfully Josh Abbott,
captain fire prevention and from the DPW again from uh Tony Rapuchi. Site plan review outstanding DPW engineering issues not addressed. Provisions for an enclosed dumpster pad and dumpster shall be depicted upon the
plan sets. 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 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 loss chapter 9 section 9.8. I think we'll all be able to recite that one after a few more times. Pavement detail in C-600 should reference super pave mix design, not top and binder. Total mix depth should be 4 in minimum on site
1.75 SSE and 2.25 SIC respectively. Recommended storm water management conditions. Sewer manhole detail and C-600 needs to be changed to a 26in standard cover and frame. Cleanout is required 10 ft from foundation at transition from 4 in to 6in pipe if
allowed by plumbing inspector and DPW inspector. Cleanout may be placed in the 4 in prior to the transition. This cannot be done without approval from both parties and recommended storm water management conditions. Storm water management conditions were discussed on October 27th, 2025 for standards 1
through 7. No stor signs need to be placed near the detention system. And that is it. >> And Chster Police Department had no concerns. >> Thank you, Evan. Anything to add? I have no comments. >> Okay.
All right. Any questions, comments from the board? Sertha, >> when is this going to Com? >> 25th. >> Yeah. Next meeting. >> The drainage that's going out to the wetlands I find highly concerning on
this because I didn't see that in the previous and it's dumping right out into there. So, I do find that problematic. want me to speak to that at all or >> if you could. >> Um so we have maintained existing um drainage patterns on site. So today
under existing conditions water does sheet flow into the wetlands. Um so we're maintaining drainage patterns. Um and so uh the storm water that will go into the the wetland um under the proposed conditions will be uh treated
uh for water quality and the reduced in peak flow. So we are reducing peak flows as well as um addressing um water quality. Um so in all senses the the water that drains already into the storm um wetland now will be um a better
quality and uh less volume um and rate in the future. >> So it will be an improvement over the current >> that's better way to say it. Yes. An improvement over the existing conditions. Correct. >> What about all the salt and everything used on the property? Is this a bigger
parking area or anything? I don't know that that'll be discussed with conservation. Um there may not be salting um uh allowed especially within the buffer zone. Um but but again there's um uh there's there's improved
storm water features control um so deep sump catch basins, water quality units. So um even if there's a an oil spill, things like that um all that stuff's being captured and and and and um before discharging into the wetland. So it's an improvement over existing conditions. So
um even if there was salting and sanding >> and there's um an order of what do you call that thing with the work of maintaining and cleaning >> on and on and >> is there an O and M >> there is an O andM yes >> Y >> that's all I have for now
>> nothing John >> no just a comment you probably know my thoughts on the design but I I will say I've known Chief Ryan for many years and if he and the permanent building committee have done the outreach to the director Butters and they support it
then I will I will support it. >> Joel, >> um so first of all I want to commend you for not recharging into an area that has PAS but I am curious about the fact that you have PAS in the groundwater here but
not at your other site where there also was a fire station. So >> how did you come about how did you come to the knowledge that there was PAS in the groundwater? >> Uh someone else might have to speak so if I misspe let me know. Um there has been um consultants on board you know
not us civil engineers doing this um this work um so they have taken groundwater samples on site um and so it's uh the um the PAS levels that were detected in the groundwater are just above the reporting level. Um, so
because they're in a zone 2 wellhead protection district, um, so they need to not notify mass DP. >> So, um, so, so I think it just through the process of design, we were, we were told, um, that that was, um, the case and so we >> Okay. What, uh, when was it reported?
What year was it reported? >> I I I don't want to misspe, but I I would assume this year because I mean >> Okay. >> Yes. This year. Yes. So was this done as part of a due diligence on the part of the fire department? >> Okay. So you did the same process on both.
>> So the town has elected to do the engage in this process and that's how we found out about the the PAS issue. >> Okay. >> So we are um as discussed u working with mass D. There is a plan to address it. >> Right. And so you um so you engaged in
the same process on the other property as well but did not detect any PAS there >> but you did hear. So we there was trace amounts on both properties. >> Okay. >> Five and three. >> Okay. But there but that was but that was not in a knack for
>> that was not an act for area and that's why it didn't trigger notification. >> Right. And there's I mean I don't want to give you misinformation. So but there's you know we are working with Mass E for both projects. >> So >> okay. Um, and so you're currently
engaged with I assume you have an LSP working for you in some respect and that person's engaged with D on the Yes. >> resolution of this. >> Correct. >> Is is the resolution of that going to be interfered by construction of the fire station?
Um, in other words, if there's potential remediation, is the construction of of this firehouse going to interfere with that? >> That's not my understanding. No. No. In fact, I think we in fact for engine 3, >> we are in the process of trying to bring
in geothermal. So those discussions been, you know, how do we, you know, address going through that process of digging the wells um putting that system in while building the station. So it's my understanding it
can be done. >> Okay. But you're co you're coordinating with your >> It's coordinating. It's it's not going to interfere with the process. Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Um, and is the board of health aware of and involved in this? >> Board of Health has been updated. They
have weekly meetings with me. Um, so they are actively involved. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Anything else? >> I I don't think so. >> Mike, >> I'm good. >> All right. I'm good as well. Um, so I at
this point we will open it up to the public. Any members of the public wish to speak on this project? And there are none. So I think we're at the same point on this one. Um updating the plans, getting clean letters from
the departments and um we can continue to the next meeting. Uh by then we'll also have an update probably from the uh conservation commission um if they're hearing this on their next meeting.
So I will take a motion. I move that we uh continue 260 old westward to December 10th. >> Second >> motion by Mike, second by Deedra. All in favor? >> I I unanimous and it is continued. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys.
>> Thank you and happy Thanksgiving if I don't see you. >> You too. >> To you, Chief. >> Thank you everyone. All right. So, next item on the agenda, 191 195 Riverneck Road.
>> You already done the continuence? >> Yes, we did. For those who have arrived late, we did continue the Chumsford Mall uh discussion to uh >> December 10th. >> December 10th. Thank you. Just want to make sure no one in the
audience is hanging around for that one. All right. So, at the last meeting, um we talked about uh finishing uh gathering all of the information. Um we did ask the board members to submit
proposed conditions uh to Evan and those have been submitted and attached to the um agenda. At this point, I would like to have the board members take a look at those proposed conditions.
um see if there's anything that any questions, comments that people would like to ask of other board members. Um clarifications and then at that point um we'll see if
the applicants would like any comments on these as well. Well, I just want to comment that I made a mistake and neglected to submit my Mullen to the town clerk. So, I will not
be voting. So, will be voting in my place. >> Yeah, thank you for that. Um, that reminder. >> Any comments from the board? >> I just have a question about some of them because I noticed they were in question form down at the bottom. Is
that just because they weren't changed around or >> um I think so Evan copied these um direct from the emails. Essentially my take is
that people are hoping we can establish these things as conditions. Um wanted to throw the idea out there and then finalize here. Mike, >> well, I have one comment on a comment
here u uh on the hours of operation stuff. It wasn't at all clear to me why no weekends was necessary, seeing as as I understood it, most of the safety questions that we had really centered
around uh you know, bus traffic, truck traffic, and kids on the street. Monday through Friday. It would seem to me that the weekend just not particularly relevant to this to the safety. I if the idea is just to limit the
project, >> that's what it does. But but I don't see that it >> so I'm the one that I know was your comment. >> That was my comment. Um and the reason why was again this was this is in a it has to go by residential neighbors. People are enjoying their properties.
The properties are very close to the street. So if someone wants to enjoy their backyard, they don't want to be hearing trucks. Um when this got zoned IIA back in the day, the intent was for office buildings that ran Monday through Friday. So that was why I was thinking
from quality of light for the neighborhood. Yeah. for this again Monday through Friday. >> Anything else from folks? >> I don't have a question. I just have a comment because my my full input was
what is written there and then I added the comment that but this is not a condition that would enable me to approve this project. Um, and I felt that was important to add because my putting this condition here
is not something that uh that is going to make the project acceptable to me. the is based on at least what I've heard and what I've seen uh that uh I think this project as proposed will have an adverse
effect on neighborhood character and uh >> I'm sorry adverse effect on >> on neighborhood character and uh because of the uh the heavy vehicles >> and um and so uh in my mind uh I would
not vote to approve this project But if the rest of the board was going to vote to approve it, I would at least want a fence around the lower part of the site. So, I just wanted to be clear. I'm not communicating that I'm in favor of of approving this project by by putting a
condition in here. >> I have a just another question off of it off the outdoor lighting and the shielding. Is that something that we can ask for or not? Because like I noticed it was a question on there, but I don't know the answer. The lights are required
in the in the lighting bylaw to be um shielded. >> Okay. So, that was the as >> and not to go into the neighboring properties, not to correct shed light. >> So, that's built into the >> And what about this nighttime business
operations? Was there any clarification or is that something they would they just comment to? I guess >> we could discuss it and see if we want as a board to propose that condition and then see if the applicant is amendable to that. >> Okay. Because I think what I read on
here at least was it seemed like somebody was saying 5:30 a.m. to pretty much 2:00 p.m. was for truck traffic. Is that on the one comment? >> So this is again I'm kind of going off I'll just repeat like what Joel said, right? Like if I'm only one person. My
concern is the the truck traffic and the impact to the neighborhood. I've been pretty clear about that. I was pretty clear about that with River when Davis came here with Riverneck Road. Um I think I've been pretty clear with that with other neighborhoods in concert. Um
so if this were to be, you know, we would have a list of conditions and what's concerning to me is around the safety of the neighborhood and the school buses, then I would like a condition. But it's, you know, still to be discussed. This is >> Yeah. I was just curious because I saw
like the 5:30 to 2 and then I was just seeing the other questions. >> I was trying to figure out when when the school bus was going by. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The challenge though with that is that the school buses are almost the entire day >> all day. Yeah. >> There's a very small window without buses.
>> Yeah. I was trying to understand. So, thank you. I just want to remind >> say that was I know my the one thing I put in there was specifically about the hours of operations. It doesn't show up here, but that's okay because a bunch of a lot of us put in the hours of operations. That was a concern to me as well in an uh order of conditions is the
hour of operations, especially for those trucks, the heavy trucks to be moving um too early in the morning or too late in the evening during the time of buses. Um kids sitting on the road that's concern. Yeah, I think
I think historically we have done some limit of operations. Um, but I think in this case limiting operations around the school buses is going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible because that really limits most of the
day. Mhm. >> So I I actually can't see us conditioning that. Any other questions, discussion? All right. At this point, I will open it up to the applicant. Um any
feedback, concerns, questions on these proposed conditions? >> Uh yes, Mr. Chairman, for the record, Douglas Duchaine from Fineran and Nicholson representing the applicant. Um yes, we we were provided a copy of these comments or proposed conditions
um and we have been through them. And I would like to first start off by saying, as you'll recall at the last meeting, uh I did provide a presentation to the board as to why we believe this project meets your special permit criteria and
actually went into some detail to describe how that was accomplished. So, as you know, we have been through site plan review, uh, traffic and safety peer reviews, fire and police have weighed in, sewer has weighed in, we've satisfied the environmental aquifer
protection requirements, we've, um, satisfied, um, buffering and fencing. So, um, we do believe we've met all of those criteria, uh, and have explained to you why. However, um we did um we do appreciate the fact that um those
comments, your comments, your proposed conditions were shared with us. And I said we um we did uh go through them quite uh extensively. And so I guess what I'd like to do is uh just run through the top and we'll provide you
our thoughts and input on the conditions. Um first with respect to whether only trade contractors would be allowed um to the um be allowed for the front contractor building and contractors with heavy machinery will be
prohibited from the front building. Um that that I don't quite understand that. Um clearly um we want to be able to operate any use within that building or within both buildings that are allowed by right in
that zone. You've heard me say it a number of times. We're in an industrial A zone. So, we we're just asking for permission to to um a special permit for the outdoor um contractor's yard
and so to how do you limit the front building contractor yards? I mean, they're not going to have tractor trailer trucks or any of the bigger equipment we have, but it is possible that one of those small trades persons might have a backhoe, uh,
pallet jack, you know, some of that kind of stuff. So, um, we don't see where the board would limit what we do in that front building, um, to, you know, at all. We should be allowed to operate whatever use is allowed by right. That's
all we're asking. And if we were proposing to do a use in that front building that um required a special permit, we got to come back. So I don't understand where you're coming from in limiting what we
do in the building. All we want to do in the building is what's allowed by right and what would be allowed by our special permits. So um I I don't quite understand. I've never seen a condition that
you know somehow limits by right uses with respect to the snow storage comments. We're 100% in agreement with that condition only on impervious services and you know uh the snow maintenance
will be included in the O and M and we will only store snow in the areas that have been approved. So with respect to the second condition, we're we're in full agreement. Um external maintenance of machinery and vehicles,
um we are fine with a prohibition that that will not be allowed outside. Any maintenance of vehicles will be done inside. Um, and if it's things like washing the the equipment, that's why we have the
drains in the in the internal bays so that that water will go where it's supposed to go. It won't go out into the outside. So, we're in full agreement with the condition that external maintenance uh will be prohibited from the site except for inside the
buildings. Um, as I have comments 45, five, six, um, they are a requirement that we install all of that traffic safety
um, um, signs and lights and and uh, crosswalks. We're in agreement with all of that. That was suggested by your um, traffic peer reviewer. I will remind you that the peer reviewer
determined that we would not be um detrimental to the overall roadway or the safety of the roadway that the roadway although people cross the center line the roadway is built and is wide enough that trucks can be cars and
trucks can operate safely on the roadway. So that those roadway improvements are not even a mitigation to a problem we're creating. It's my client actually improving the
overall safety of that roadway for everyone. It's not mitigating what we're doing wrong. It's actually just to make it a better situation for everyone. And so my clients are in full agreement uh with doing all of those um intersection
and signal improvements that are provided here. Um let's talk a little bit about the um parking lot fees and the sidewalk fees.
The town has a policy and regulations that outline what people are required to do when they're doing projects in town. And all we're asking is to be held to that policy and procedure. So, for
instance, um the parking fee as we've calculated it would be somewhere around $23,500 and it's written right in the town's policy that that money is to be used for traffic safety improvements.
So, our parking fee would be about $23,500. As I've just agreed, my clients are voluntarily going to do um $36,000 in traffic safety improvements.
Um so I have to believe that paying $36,000 for all those traffic and safety improvements is uh far superior to the town than us giving you $23,500 and letting you do that work. So, in
terms of the parking lot fee, I think we've more almost one and a half times satisfied the required 23,500 by agreeing to do over $36,000 worth of traffic safety improvements. And again, those improvements are not mitigating
something we're putting on the road. It's mitigating existing conditions of the road. So, I think using that money in lie of the parking fee is uh very reasonable. And as I said, the town's going to get almost two and a half times what they would have got through the
parking fees. As far as sidewalk fees, again, the town has a very clear policy and has acted in um the similar manner in all projects that I've seen in town and that our engineers work on and that is you are
responsible for providing enough money to install sidewalks along the entire length of your frontage. Um you'll recall that Mr. Durk originally suggested that because we are increasing traffic by 16% that we should pay 16% of
the estimated two and a half $3 million. It's expected to cost to um put sidewalks along the whole length of the roadway. Um an interesting concept, but it is far outside the scope of anything this board has ever done with respect to
sidewalk fees. So what we are suggesting to do um and after Mr. Durk suggested that we then sent him all of the information on our frontage and our our sidewalks and um estimated that the cost
the sidewalk fee to put sidewalks along our frontage would be uh 39 a little over $39,000. Uh Mr. Durk subsequently agreed that that number was correct and that if that was what the policy was for the town,
that is what we should pay. And that's what we're suggesting we will pay. We will pay the $39,394 that your peer reviewer uh uh agreed would be the cost of putting sidewalks along our entire frontage. So, with
respect to parking fees and sidewalk fees, we are not only agreeing to pay what the town has um consistently applied to projects in town, but by doing that $36,000 in roadway safety improvements, we're exceeding the
parking fee by it's almost one and a half%. So, those are what we would agree to in terms of conditions on parking and sidewalk fees. Um, hours of operation.
Again, we are not asking to operate outside of the hours that other businesses are allowed to operate in this town. We are in an IIA zone. You don't have specific regulations that talk about when businesses can open and
close. what you have is a noise ordinance and that we are required to meet that noise ordinance in early morning and late hours. Um we see no issue with us meeting your noise ordinances.
Um, you know, the operation of this is set in the back and you know, if you draw a line from there to the residential homes that we're trying to uh protect, it is a significant distance. And the fact that
we're going to be operating uh safety inspected registered vehicles and equipment, you know, they have to have mufflers, they have to have the sound. We will meet your sound requirements with respect to our operations, but we
don't understand the basis for limiting those hours um beyond the the the noise regulations and the other um restrictions that the town imposes weekends. I I you know, the fact that we're trying to protect um you know, the
concern of the board is that we're going to have traffic during school hours and bus hours doesn't apply to weekends. And although my clients don't regularly um work on weekends, um some of those smaller contractors up in the front
building, they're going to work on Saturday. Heck, you might see some of them working on Sunday, but they're certainly not going to violate your noise ordinances or cause any trouble to the neighborhood coming and going. So, we can't agree to limitations of our operations.
Uh especially if it's intended to keep our trucks off the road at the same time that the school buses are coming and going. Um, let me remind the board that our client, um, the way in terms of a typical day,
um, we're going to have three drivers that are going to report to the site around six o'clock, maybe a little after 6. And on a typical day, almost every day, we're going to have three vehicles leaving the site in the
morning, three trucks, and three coming back somewhere between 3:30 and 5:30 at night. Now, recall that what my client does is they store their equipment on this site
and then when they have a job, they move it. So they will be leaving the site once, moving the equipment and the trucks and leaving them at the job site. At some point, whether that's days, weeks, or months later, yes, they will
have to come back once and they'll be there until they're sent out to another job. So the only trucks that are coming and going every day are three trucks. and that's the drivers are taking the trucks going to the job sites and
working on the equipment. So, we're not going to have multitudes of trucks leaving the site in the morning and coming back during rush hour. At most, it'll be three or on that odd chance that it happens to be a day where we're moving equipment to a job, you know,
that might be another truck and trailer leaving on that day. But that's not every day. That's only going to be when a job is started or when a job is ending. We'll be bringing stuff back. So, um, again, we we we we want to be
able to operate our businesses under the same terms and conditions that every other business in this town is is required to operate on. Um, as far as the fence, I I believe we have proposed fencing around this entire
site. >> That's what I thought. I just couldn't remember. >> Yeah. Oh yeah. And buffers. And buffers down both sides along the back along the front. >> I prefaced it with I I don't remember because I haven't looked at the plan later whether >> I just want to assure you >> that yes, there is provisions for
fencing around the whole site. >> Thank you. >> Um someone said that all loading and unloading of trucks uh or delivery trucks must be on our property and is prohibited from taking place within any public way. We certainly can agree to that condition. we wouldn't be allowed
to do that in any event. Uh can we establish limits on the hours of operations? Again, um we don't generally do night business. However, as you know, my client does work for a number of municipalities and if they have an emergency
or in the case of snow plowing, they they need snow plows to go out on odd hours. Um we're going to have to do that. But your bylaws provide exemptions for that when you're working for municipalities >> and safety that you can leave your site
coming going. And that's all we're asking for in those emergency situations will be leaving the site. Now, what would be leaving the site? If it's a a repair or something, it could be a truck and a piece of equipment. If it's a snow
emergency, these guys have six plows. They have six trucks that would leave the site to go plow roads, but that would only be in a state of emergency. You know, where they have to plow the roads, not every day, nothing like that.
And again, your own bylaws and noise ordinance, which actually restricts operations of equipment and trucks, has a provision for municipal work. So, we couldn't necessarily violate your noise
ordinance at 2 a.m. in the morning because we have a client that needs something done. But if we have a a municipality that needs their streets plowed or they have a waterline break or something, your own bylaws allow us to um to violate your noise ordinance and
get out of get off the site at night. So again, we're just asking to have the same requirements that your bylaws and your policies require. Um, last but not least in terms of um conditions, um,
outdoor lighting, uh, we're all set with we we'll agree to any condition that says we have to meet your lighting laws by shielding and and blind. Of course, I mean there's no condition there. So, I mean, of all these conditions, um, we've
agreed to the vast majority of them, and we're with respect to sidewalk fees and parking lot fees, we just ask to be treated the way you treat every other project, and we will more than satisfy that. As I said, we're
we're happy to pay the the cost of the sidewalk along our property. We're happy to pay the parking lot fee, but I would suggest to the board that rather than hitting us up for the parking lot fee of 23,000, you allow us to do $39,000 or
$36,000 worth of traffic safety improvements that your peer reviewer suggested, not to mitigate our impacts, but to just make it safer. And we've agreed to that. Other than that, the
only thing that we can agree to um is limits on the type of uses we can have. All we're asking is to be able to you do the allowed by right uses and we can't accept unreasonable restrictions on our
operation hours because you really don't have a bylaw that allows you to do that. Um and um you know it's all based on the noise and again you know you you keep pointing
to we want this stuff done. We want to limit your hours so that we can protect the public and the traffic safety, but the truth is we've already shown you that we're not being detrimental to the to the traffic or safety
or the road itself. That's just a perceived er issue that is not being generated by our project but it exists today. It's the the fault of the town or whoever. Okay. So
again, I think my clients have agreed to all the reasonable conditions you've asked, the conditions that you've placed on other similar businesses in the IIA zone and that are detailed in your bylaws. So, we'd ask the board to
finalize these conditions so that you then have a basis for voting on this project. Um, I guess erroneously I left the last meeting understanding that we would in fact have conditions to negotiate and to
discuss with you and that those conditions would be part of a draft notice. and we were fully expecting that the board would take a vote tonight and quite frankly I think it's your job to finalize these conditions based on our
input and then vote this thing. >> Thank you. I do want to address a couple of the conditions that you had pointed out since they were my suggestions. Um the first one, the trades contractors. Um the reason why I was suggesting that
is because one of the properties that you had uh talked about in um your testimony was the West Drive um as being an analogous uh uh use to what's currently proposed
for the front. I took a look um at Google Maps, a few dates, and I saw no heavy machinery. um being used in that area. Uh no asphalt, no heavy construction. It's
it's really the trades um the trades type of contractors. And that's why given the traffic study and how the traffic study was done as using those
types of of models, um I didn't want to see additional heavy construction being added in there um and adding to the heavy issues on uh Riverneck Road. Well,
when you say heavy construction, remember that our our if we get the special permit for the outdoor storage, the only outdoor storage associated with the front part of the building is a very limited space. >> Right. >> Right. Very limited.
>> Yep. So I >> which is why I'm surprised that you didn't >> agree to this one because >> well understanding what you're suggesting because what I thought you were suggesting is it could only be trades people right what if a small
light manufacturing you know a machine shop wanted to go in there I don't think you'd have a problem with that I mean they don't have big equipment they probably wouldn't even store anything outside >> I would consider that I would consider that one of those trades contractors, a machine shop.
>> Okay. So, h help me to understand how you could how we would draft that condition about limiting the use of the front building to trade contractors only. How wouldn't it be better to write the condition as a prohibition like
saying the following >> uses aren't allowed out there? And then how do we define that? >> I would be fine with that. Um the the ones that I've listed here as examples are the typical ones that you would see those more heavy machinery, dump trucks
and things like that. The heavy construction, asphalt, and landscaping. >> Sort of just to simplify this >> the the the outdoor contractor's yard. Um the decision could contemplate that
the outdoor contractor's yard which is the heavy machinery. Yeah. >> For our definition >> is only for the rear part of the site. >> Okay. The front allows any uses allowed by right and specifically is prohibited to
include um >> asphalt >> the the the heavy component related to outdoor contracting >> which is the out which is the outdoor storage of heavy equipment >> heavy stock >> and you wouldn't consider a mini
excavator or a a pallet jack from it? No. Chris, I mean, >> yeah. >> Are we are we okay circling back to this? Like, can we get through the rest of them? And if this is where you guys are hung up, I mean, >> yeah, we could. >> We could chat. I mean,
>> yeah, >> obviously restricting what machinery is there is going to limit the tenants. But, I mean, if we're going to get through this whole meeting and and this is the make or break, I'm willing to >> hear you guys out and come up with a happy medium for the both of us. >> Yeah, we could circle back. >> Okay.
>> Okay. I also wanted to address the sidewalk um construction and the um parking fees. I in my number seven I did probably not eloquently
mention that um I would because of all of the work that you would be doing for four through six. I agree that the parking the additional parking fees wouldn't be collected. Um, however, on the sidewalk construction,
typically when we look at a project, it's really difficult to see where the traffic goes. There are multiple ways the traffic could go. And so looking at
the sidewalk contribution, it's really easy to say because there are so many other paths that the traffic can go, the only true path for all of the traffic is right in front of the property.
This site is very different because there are only two directions that this traffic can go and it's all on Riverneck. So 100% of the traffic being generated from this project is going
onto river neck guaranteed. And so that's why I proposed a different way of approaching this than typical projects because typical projects you don't have this scenario. Typical projects it's
multiple different ways that the traffic can be dispersed and spread out the impact. Whereas this, all of that traffic is on Riverneck. And because of that, the
percentage of sidewalk on Riverneck is negligible for this project. And so that's why when the peer reviewer said that typically a fair share estimate is based on traffic volume,
that would be a good way to do it for this project because all of that that traffic we're guaranteed to be on Riverneck Road. And so the 16% increase is what I would consider a fair share for Riverneck.
$385,000. >> Riverneck's a very long stretch of road. >> How is it that when we approve a project on Bill Ricker Road and the traffic leaving the site has no choice but to get on to Bill Ricker Road
and go right or left. The same way we have no choice but to get on Riverneck and go right or left. Yet, when there's been sidewalks required of those projects, we've never said, "Hey, what's your percentage cost of the
whole, you know, the whole Bill Ricker Road sidewalk that needs to be built?" We we've never approached >> Bill Rick Road's not building an entire sidewalk. Mo, a lot of that's already built. I know, but it it it it's not like we've
said, "Well, whatever isn't built on Bill Ricker, you need to pay your fair share of that entire cost." I mean, I just to say that this is a different scenario that all of our traffic has to go one way or another on Riverneck.
That's true of every project. >> No, it really isn't. I I >> I've been doing projects here for 30 years and that's the first time I've ever heard that law. >> Well, then maybe we should change how we do things. >> But $385,000 for
>> Could you come up to the microphone, please? I just and Evan can Evan hasn't been doing work here as long as I have, but $385,000 for a site zoned IIA industrial that purchases a site with frontage on a
public road in the town of Chumsford has forever been charged based on the frontage for sidewalk. Either we build it or we pay a fee. The rest of the traffic mitigation we've provided in the 39 $36,000 worth of traffic impact that
we've proposed for the site. $385,000 to build on a industrial piece of land in the town of Chumsford. If that were to be applied to every project, >> you just would never see anybody building here.
>> It'd be ridic. It's completely >> over the top. Um that's just I don't know if Evan if you can think of any other project bel this but the methodology has been consistent um as the uh as the applicant
articulated the 385 to put into context would be more than what 255 Princeton paid which was 250. Um the town has no history of
charging um that that amount that scope and scale um for sidewalk contributions um you know editorially within the scope and scale of this project. I mean that number is it's that's a
crazy number. Well, so is $2.5 million for paving or for sidewalks on riverneck. That is a crazy number, too. >> Agreed. Agreed. But that's a presumably that's a town a town desire.
So So that that's why the historic methodology has been consistent. Every project is going to going to pay, but it's based upon their their frontage. Maybe there are alternative uh methodologies to consider.
>> So I just I'm just not sure that you >> but a project that's going to increase say traffic by 100 to 200% would pay the same as a project that would increase traffic. >> The town's my understanding is the town's always assumed that it's the
town's responsibility to maintain the roads. >> Yeah. >> Let me put this on a agenda item to revisit this. >> Yeah. Now, when it came to like um an extremely um a use that had extreme increases of
heavy truck traffic, then I I could I could see where you would um have a discussion where you're um considering that particular impact. >> Well, that that particular impact would be more because we're doubling the number of truck traffic. I tried to be a
little bit more reasonable than that. Let's agree, but it's not it's not it's not in the scope and scale of let's say a 270 Bill Ricka or what Davis Company brought to town. It's not a large number of of heavy truck traffic, >> but it is compared to what's on there
now, >> right? And your your peer review your peer reviewer indicated that uh you you would visibly see >> uh more trucks. >> Yeah, it's double. >> Yeah. So, I think I think you may I think we may be struggling with the the distinction between visibility and
roadway impacts. And then the sidewalk contribution doesn't really address either of the two. You understand what I'm saying? It'd be different if the town had a a like a a roadway impact, which would be questionable. But what we do have is a is a sidewalk contribution. And so the
like I said, the methodologies been consistent. Um, you know, Riverneck Road is a is a unique situation compared to other parts of town. >> But whether it's a unique situation or not, I don't think we can
um start implementing new methodologies, >> you know. I mean, I don't think that's >> Well, I'm just going based on what the peer reviewer had initially suggested, >> right? >> Yeah. I mean, in hindsight, um, ideally that never would have made
it to paper because it's not it's just not consistent with anything the town has ever contemplated, >> but it's obviously something that's consistent with other towns. >> It very well could be. We'd have to do that research part of, you know, further
consideration. I mean again like we may want to revisit our policy because you and I were just at a tri board meeting on Monday where you know we're facing $3.5 million deficit and and that's for a level service and the town needs to be
looking at you know everything including permits fees and this stuff right so we may >> within reason I can tell you a 385 on top of all the other ass >> but I think we need to revisit this policy I think. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> We need to bring in
>> um >> I mean ideally DPW would be at the would be at the table. Again, I don't even know to what extent >> uh DPW gets copies of your peerreview memos, >> but you don't have anything in writing
from them that they agree with any of the recommendations. you know it's that that may be uh it may be maybe it's assumed that whatever the planning board approves is is what gets implemented. Um fortunately the you know the uh
recommendations for uh Carly Riverneck Road are fairly uh straightforward in nature >> but imagine if that was more involved you'd likely need DPW involved. You need the slot board involved because they have the roadway and roadway
commissioners. >> Mass do not not fortunately not for this one. I I can appreciate the board's wanting to, you know, reconsider this policy and, you know, maybe change it and, you know, that that's your right and you certainly
have the ability to do that. But I'm asking you to apply the current rules to this project and I think overall we are more than meeting your typical requirements. I' I'd be willing to withdraw this one
at this point um and go back to the proposed based on >> percentage of frontage. >> Yeah, I don't like it, but I'd be willing to do that.
>> Thank you. >> You ask questions or >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I have a couple. I just cuz I needed some clarification. Um, does the applicant have Sanders? >> We do. >> And do you plow both municipal and private? >> Uh, just municipal and for the state.
>> And another question is off of kind of like number one that we had. I know that we were going to come back, but I just am curious because I think the intent is that no additional heavy equipment would be coming and going from the property. So, are the people that are in those front areas, are they allowed to have
equipment in the back for storage? >> Um, for the front building, you're saying >> for the front the front buildings, like if one was to have something that had more heavy equipment and things like that, would are they allowed to park it in the back area or >> like where our proposed building is? Um, I would say no to that.
>> Is that goes a little bit off of number one with the clarification? I think I think the intent is no extra equipment coming and going from the property besides what you're talking about, but I don't know if that's what your intent was. >> So So in other words, the outdoor contractor special permit if granted would only apply to their company and
their business, not to the least businesses in the front. Is that what you're >> I think so. Like we don't want any extra equipment up in the front like either like not like you want them parking a loader up front. It's it's having the prop the stuff coming and going is what we're trying to prevent. up here or the back? >> Whoever whoever is renting that front
section. >> You talking about like >> No, she's talking about those businesses. >> These businesses pardon me. >> Talking about this businesses. Now, the the permit we've asked for for the outdoor storage is obviously with respect to my client's
business and heavy equipment out back. >> Correct. But we've also asked to allow outdoor storage for these bays as well, but it's very limited. See, it's a it's a 16 by 25 ft bay. Each
one of these gets one of those. >> And I got that, but is the intent that they're going to be able to have heavy equipment there? >> No, they Well, they might have a small piece, no heavy equipment. That's back to where we were chatting about. >> But materials, right? So, this plumber
might keep a rack of pipes there. >> No, I get that. And when I'm thinking heavy equipment, I'm thinking a loader, an excavator. >> I think what my client has said is we are willing to >> a dump truck, >> draft a condition >> that won't allow us to to park
>> heavy equipment, >> you know, big trucks, >> back hoes, all of that. And that's why I was saying the heavy equipment is not allowed as a as part of the by right use. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's I just want a clarification because you had mentioned if somebody had a loader, how are we going to prevent them? But it looks like it would
be prevented. >> And again, I think my client has said that we would be willing to agree to a condition that the only outdoor storage associated with these bays would be materials and light equipment associated
with those trades. Okay. >> I think that's what we're all trying to get to. I think yeah I think >> we can agree to that. >> I just want to clarify >> if you guys are thinking that the big heavies that we would have in the back would be here that's not our intent is to rent to somebody with because it basically that one machine would take up
the spot. I mean if they wanted to I guess they legally could leave it inside. It's just the outside portion of it which would take up the whole bay. But the intent is not to rent to somebody with one big excavator. I mean >> and what if they have plow equipment and everything else? >> Well plows are Yeah, plows would be allowed. I mean that's something that it would come with like
>> they'd be coming and going but it' be a pickup truck. >> We distinguish between light and heavy. >> Okay, that's I'm just asking clarification questions. >> And I think we can come to an agreement on a restriction for heavy outdoor equipment storage in that in the front building.
>> Okay. And then another thing I just wasn't clear on is when we were talking about four, five, and six on the top portion of the conditions on four, five, and six, the intent is that they are fully paying for and designing for all
of those excluding any of the other money that they're talking about paying because I heard mention of some >> Yeah. So the parking fees, these would be done and paid for in lie of the additional parking fees.
>> Okay. So they would be paying for all that. We don't know what the cost is. >> Yes. 36,000. >> That was 36,000. Okay. I just thought you guys would throw that number out. >> No, we've actually had estimates. >> Okay. Sorry, I missed that. >> And that is comparable to the 23,000
that we would just normally pay to the parking lot fee for s for road improvement. And what happened if that came to be more >> than the 36? >> But they're paying for it. >> They pay for parking, >> whatever it is. >> I'm just understanding this my >> Yeah. And I think the condition was
proposed. We would do all of this and we're just telling you we got some estimates so that we at least had a ballpark of what it was going to cost and we got very detailed estimate. It was like 36,000 and some change. >> Okay. And then the we talked about the sidewalk one. The only other question I have because I'm not familiar with it.
What is the bylaw with the noise ordinance that talks about the municipality exemption? >> So the the noise bylaw has exemptions that go beyond municipal work. Any contractor that's doing um emergency
work is is exempt from the from the noise bylaw. >> What makes something an emergency? >> To perform that work >> to per to yeah to perform the work. Um, I'd have to bring up the provision, but the way we've the way we've uh interpreted and administered it is if
you're a plumber and you provide a 24-hour emergency service, you are allowed to uh come and go from the site. Generally speaking, coming and going from the site in and of itself
won't violate the noise bylaw. Doesn't generate noise. Um, but if you were if you were a contractor doing let's say assembly and for some reason there was an emergency that
required uh assembly work that would certainly generate generate noise. So as I mentioned the typical emergencies are contractors that are coming and going as part of a 24-hour uh service service coverage. But again, the typical
comingings and goings in and of itself don't don't generate noise, which which explains why the town doesn't have a hours of operation bylaw. Companies have, you know, third shifts, whether they're office, manufacturing,
and that that um that activity in of itself doesn't generate noise. >> And um I think when I asked earlier about the Sanders, how many did you say you had? >> Uh we have six that leave that yard during snow operation. They have plaus and sanders mix. Okay.
>> And no salt or sand or any liquid is stored on site. We work for municipalities in the state that supplies the salt. >> But your vehicles would have it have the salt in them ready to go. >> No, >> no, no. >> They leave empty. >> We're not allowed to leave. They think they call it they think they steal it. So every time you leave whatever site
has to be emptied and they do a visual. >> Okay. Thank you. So if they were doing work for Westford, they'd leave empty truck, go to Westford, salt storage or sand storage, load up there, and and if they had any left by the end of the day, they got to bring it back.
>> They're not allowed to take it. >> Oh, interesting. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? In terms of hours of operations, I think it's going to be challenging to do any
restrictions on this one. Um, unless folks disagree. >> I just have a quick question on that. Is there anything to be done for left or right for hours like limit direction to prevent
something? I don't >> I'm not sure what that would >> like for example the paving company in Westford, right? They're only allowed to take right-hand turns or I forget what left-hand turns during so many hours because they're preventing the traffic from heading one direction versus the other.
>> Yeah, but we have the problem with the neighborhoods are on both sides. >> Yeah. Okay. I was just asking the question. >> That's it. >> It's a long road, so you're hitting a lot of neighbors. Gotcha. So at this point I think unless people
feel strongly we would not do any special conditions on hours of operations. >> I would agree. >> Okay. Um so all of the other conditions were agreed to except for the the sidewalks.
Um and the I think we've got a decent um draft of number one uh for the trades. Um the fence is there.
So I think we have a decent draft of the conditions if people are okay with that. Um, at this point, this is still a public hearing, so I would like to open it up to the public uh for comment.
Okay, there being none, >> oh yes, >> good evening. Uh, Eric Finny, Clark. Um, I spoke last week and raised some concerns. Um, I'm a little troubled by the hours of operation, like no conditions. Um I I understand that, you
know, it's the coming and going. There's no, you know, cons uh concern about it impacting like the noise ordinance. Um but uh I I learned that the on the Commonwealth website, you guys operate a
247 services. Um I I'm concerned about that. Um you know, the neighborhoods are actually close. The uh proposed site is 0.2 two miles from my street. Um I I
will hear the noise. Um I hear ProAV with some of their trucks that have backup lights. I can hear backup lights over on Apollo um in that complex. So I don't agree with that. Um and I have
concerns and I ask you to to be considerate of that. Um, the other thing is, um, I've learned that there have been other contract yards proposed in town, uh, near with a close proximity to, uh, residential neighborhoods, and
those have been denied. Um, this one's pretty close. Um, I appreciate the, uh, owners willingness to work with the town and make, you know, amendments to their project. I really appreciate that. Um, but still I I still have concerns
because you know, you know, say they come in and then they leave, somebody else comes in, they may not be as amen amendable to the neighborhood. So, I ask that you take take that seriously. Um, you know, we've been through this before
with other projects. Um, I've been a longtime resident here. Um, I know something has to go in on these properties. I just ask that we make something that's going to be a a good fit. Um, which is laid out in the zoning bylaws. You know, that any projects
coming in, you know, should not be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood and businesses. Um, and and that's what I ask you to do. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, to clarify, the 247 is the emergency response for the municipalities, uh,
which we just chatted about. Um, I do hear their concerns. I understand it. Um, I do, I guess, feel for them. I mean, I'm I'm willing to meet with the abutters and residents yearly if they want to schedule meetings to hear concerns or stuff that comes about that
they want hashed out or I can work on or we can work on with tenants. I mean, I'm not here to build this and and I'm out of here. I'm here long term. You know, building one, like we said, is phase one. Building two is, you know, a couple years down the road. So, I'm here. The intent is not to build and sell and you
know I hope we showed uh I hope you showed you that uh that's what's going to happen or the intent. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Y >> any other members of the public wish to speak. >> All right. At this point um I think what we'll do is we'll close a public
hearing. um take a motion to move to a vote and that will uh include deliberations and discussion and then we will actually vote. >> I would I would like to clarify my position in the open hearing.
>> Okay. >> So that the applicant has an opportunity to respond if they want to. Um, so I've come to the conclusion that I think that this project will, as I said, have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. I'm basing that, of course, on the
special permit section of our bylaws. Um, and I first want to say that when you look at the table, the zoning, the the use table, that there are a lot of uses that are as right in industrial area. There are very few that are not.
and contractor outdoor contractor yard is one of those. Now that went through town meetings. So that means the town has commissioned us to view contractor outdoor contractor yards carefully because it's not as right. So
it's something that we take seriously. And the particular part of the of the special permit criteria is that shall be granted only upon its written documentation that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the town or
the neighborhood in view of the particular characteristics of the site and of the proposal in relation to that site. And then one of the things the of the list of things that we are to consider, yes, there's traffic flow and safety including parking and loading.
It's number two, but number four is neighborhood character and social structures. Neighborhood character is the one in particular that I'm focusing on. So this is based on the facts and figures that we were given. uh and in
fact there was a mistake in the original presentation where it was briefed to us and I specifically asked what is the daily truck total and I was told that it's 40 and so then when I asked what is
the application going to provide and they said and the answer was 20 and so I made the comment of oh it's a 50% increase um so that was a confirmation that it was 40. But then we've had several
traffic back and forth between traffic engineer and our peer review. And in no case did anyone correct that that was the average uh daily truck trips until we got our third peerreview letter from Mr. Durk in which he commented that the
the daily truck average daily truck traffic is 80. And so then that's why I asked in the hearing what is the average daily truck traffic and then I was told it's 80. So I understand okay now I understand
the number is 80 that's the number is given and that the number that this is going to add is 20 and that also additionally with 80 that is uh if I recall 2.8% 8% of the um of
truck traffic to total traffic and that this project then would make that 3.5%. And that Mr. Durk also mentioned uh in traffic exclusion studies that they typically look at impacts between five and 8% heavy truck heavy truck traffic
to total traffic. So we are we are in that general range. Um but in particular what I want what I uh I had when I heard that there was going to be that addition of truck traffic. We
had heard from uh neighbors and by the way I do want to clarify that this is not a I I don't consider this a mixed zone. Where the project is is I think relatively a mixed zone because it's
high in residential. But then the impacts of this project are not just felt by what's happening on that site, but it's also felt by what that site contributes in terms of traffic on the road, which for as was as Anita
mentioned earlier, there's quite a length of riverneck road that is residential only and public property. So there so the significant portion that we're discussing is residential. It is not
IIA. And so therefore, it's very reasonable for us as we consider this particular proposed use for this particular site that there are these unique characteristics where the impacts of the site are going to be felt on the
neighborhoods that are not in IIA and are not abudding IIA because they're all along riverneck road. But in particular, I want to cite that I queried or no, we heard first I want to say that we heard
that currently neighbors are experiencing that they are let me use the words of uh of Mr. Durk when I asked him particularly because he made this comment uh about the impacts of of truck traffic
and I asked him what he means by what constitutes more noticeable and in his response he said that even if there is a small number of additional tractor trailers you will notice that more just given the size of those vehicles and how
imposing they are in relation to if you had 10 passenger cars going by etc. So Mr. Durk acknowledges our peerreview acknowledges that there is this this uh possibility or this likelihood
of that it's going to be noticeable. And so then the question becomes well how notice when in it being noticeable does it become adverse effect on the neighborhoods through which these trucks are going and does that outweigh the
benefits of the project? the uh benefits that the project provides. And my feeling at the time was that even with 20 or even at 80, given that the neighbors have already cited that they
are noticing the effects of heavy vehicles on Riverneck Road, that adding that many vehicles per the IT uh was going to have make it not just noticeable to them, but
actually bring it to a point where it affects their sense of their neighborhood. In other words, it's not hard to imagine that if you live in a neighborhood where you have certain amount of traffic going by, you get used to it, you accept that as part of your neighborhood, but then if that changes and you you're particularly if you have
either uh a lot more trucks or in the case of where I live, if you just have a whole lot more cars, that's going to affect the quality of that neighborhood. And we actually heard that from uh the Riverneck Road residents um with respect to the um the warehouse that was
proposed. more than one person said, "If this project goes in, I'm moving." And so, these are real impacts that just aren't quantified. Now,
that's why I specifically explored this idea with Mr. Durk in particular. What I what I asked him was, well, actually, I phrase it in a qu in a form of a negative. I said, "You don't actually determine adverse effects on
neighborhoods, do you, as part of your traffic traffic uh study?" And he said that the way he answered was, "Well, uh that considers on what you're looking at." But basically, he referred to the only thing that really uh where it's
involved in um traffic engineering is when you're looking at truck exclusions. Now, we're not talking about truck exclusions here. That to me seems like a a very extreme kind of thing to prevent truck traffic on a road. We're not talking about that. We're talking about
whether the addition of these trucks on the road is going to make it perceptible to the neighbors, noticeable to a degree that they feel that it's just not their neighborhood anymore. Um, and so I was trying to probe with him, is there a
metric? Is there something? For example, we if we were to make a decision that we think the level of service is not going to be the level of service that you say it is, then I think it would be justifiable to say that we're being arbitrary because, you know, you've given us a standard, a number by which a
standard is accepted that's used to evaluate it. But there are no standards in our we have standards in other parts of the bylaw with relation to acquer protection. you know, if it's uh so much land disturbance uh either in terms of
square feet or percentage or that sort of thing. Uh but in this case, there is no standard established for what constitutes adverse effect on a neighborhood. And so there's a certain amount of judgment that this board has to apply when it's considering that. But
nonetheless, I wanted to explore and I felt that that was the case, but I wanted to explore that with Mr. Durk. And what he said was basically that what he described in terms of truck exclusion is the way the metric has really done as it relates to traffic engineering. And
he said that that when they evaluate in terms of impacts, they're really looking at safety of the roadway etc. But it's not an exact science in terms of measuring it. And it's that point in particular I want to point out. It is
not an exact science. That means that as a board member, I take the position that because there is no metric by which I can really evaluate this and yet my own sense and the discretion that I'm given by the town to
make that conclusion, then really I don't have to prove that that's the case because there really is no exact science in terms of how it's measured. And so if you disagree with it, then you need to rebut that in terms
of providing some way of identifying that in fact it's not the case. And so I I have the advantage of presumption in that sense and I'm exercising it. There is no way that you can actually prove
that it will not have an adverse effect. And I feel very strongly that given the numbers that we've been given, the increase that this proposed uh project will will provide, the impact that I think it will have on the neighborhoods along Riverneck Road is going to have an
adverse effect that outweighs the benefits. And that's why I would say no. So, I wanted to say that before we closed in case you wanted to rebut that in some way. I that's why I'm that's why I said I tried to as soon as I knew that
I had an issue with it is why I raised it if you recall at the end of that meeting and I waited at the next time to see are you going to rebut that in some way and no it wasn't rebutted and so I want to give you every opportunity to respond to that before we go into
deliberation I mean I I wish >> was that on one of your list for the questions on the Was that like in here just more elaborate with what >> it's not well no it's not a condition
>> okay it's just your reasoning >> it's a it's my reasoning >> for why I would vote no and that I wanted to do that before we close the hearing so that if you wanted to say no you have the wrong numbers or something like that then you could do that
>> I think and we're Just understanding my knowledge of the bylaw too, a contractor's yard, an indoor contractor's yard is allowed by right without a special permit. And that if we were to put essentially a building on
the site, we would not require the special permit that you're using the criteria for. We would only be using the criteria under the APD for lot coverage and we would be a byite use. And so the established criteria would have to be
the difference between a project that would be allowed by right versus a project that would be allowed by special permit. And how much more adverse the effect you think that that would be considering that there are certain uses that are allowed here to create truck
traffic on this road that that would not be a deciding factor for. So in thinking about that, understanding that this is an IIA lot in an IIA district, understanding that we are crossing through residential neighborhoods, the
standard of care there is safety. Jeffrey Durk responded with his letter which essentially said he believes that with the improvements that we've provided, that this is acceptable, which we've provided those, this is a public road within the town of Chumsburg.
people are allowed to drive trucks on it. We've talked about the amount of truck traffic that this in particular, we've actually used a standard within our report that is actually more than Commonwealth utilities currently provides for the amount of vehicles
considering the IT requirement um which is over and above what they which is what we found on Progress A which is where they are today. understanding that they're looking to grow here. I think what we're providing you as far as an additional standard of
care is understanding that Chris and his family is a local business. We started this process with meeting with the abutters and we've met with this board at every juncture since the beginning of this. The site is five acres. It's in
the IA district. It will be developed. You know that you understand that it will create tax dollars. will create jobs within the town of Chumsford. A contractor's yard is what we're finding within the town of Chumsford is something that people very much need.
This is this is multiple people have reached out to me regarding contractor's yards. If we were to put a roof over this equipment, it would be allowed by right, but we're not and I understand that. So the idea as far as a standard of care to look at and a comparison
you're looking at is not that we are adding trucks to the road but that we are adding trucks over and above what you think a byite use would allow to happen on this road that would be outside of this board scope. >> So what we've provided
>> except for you site an indoor contractor's yard that's a different land use code. >> It's a different land use code. >> It has a different number but we are using outdoor contractors. We are using it numbers >> and the reason is because that's an acceptable standard. We can all have
ideas about whether we think it will be more, whether we think it will be less, >> so forth and so on. But you live by the sword, you die by the sword. >> If it favors you, I have to go along with it. If it favors me, you have to go along with it. We all have to agree that that's the standard unless you have
specific information that shows that it's otherwise and you haven't done that. Well, Commonwealth utilities, if they were under a roof or not, would provide the same amount of traffic. They would have the same amount of vehicles. >> That may be true, but again, we're using we're not considering Commonwealth
specifically in terms of the number of trucks that are going to be added to the road. The way that we do it, the way we all have agreed to do this is to use the IT numbers. So there may be specific cases where we have specific insights
that would cause us to think one thing or another and that's possible. But our decision, my decision, my the information I've given you >> is based on the IT established numbers. >> Understood. >> And the only way that that can be
different is if you rebut the IT numbers. And I don't think you have done that yet. And I don't think you're going to do that. No, it would not be to rebut the IT numbers because this is looked at holistically as a special permit based on a certain number of criteria and
there are other aspects. We've already talked about the budget tonight. >> True. >> But it only takes one of if there's one that has an adverse effect. >> No, it says overcoming. There's employment. There's keeping a business in the town of >> It's a balance. That's correct. It's a
balance between adverse effect and positive benefit. talking about a few trucks a week, a few trucks a day going down Riverneck Road, which is a public road that anyone can utilize. >> That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the impact. >> I am going to start closing this out.
>> That's fine. >> I I just have one quick comment, Joel. Um uh we are seeking a special permit and so you do have to do this analysis as to whether or not we are going to have a detrimental on balance whether we're going to have a
detrimental impact on the neighborhood. >> But what I hear is that you are considering this a residential neighborhood and I don't think that is a correct metric. At best you got to say it's a mixeduse neighborhood. It's an industrial zone. There are trucking
companies. there's other businesses. They're all in the neighborhood. So, while you can determine that we might be having some effect on the residential uses, that doesn't necessarily equate to the the whole neighborhood. You need
need to look at the whole neighborhood. >> And more importantly, you say there's no metric for measuring detriment to character. Well, there are um safety,
visual impact, safety impacts, um noise. There are all sorts of impacts that are measurable. You seem to say that people seeing more traffic, just seeing more trucks go by
or noticing more trucks, >> noticing >> somehow is going to be so detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Now you're assuming that everyone is going to that noticing
a few extra trucks is going to be horrendous to them and you know cause them to move or destroy the character of the neighborhood. The truth is we have had I think less than five people
neighbors come and and complain about this project. If you think that's a a true sample of the neighborhood, I can't agree with you. I can't agree with you. You know, we got a few people that I I don't want
to see more trucks and and you think that that is so detrimental that it outweighs all the benefits the project has provided. I I you have the right to make your decision >> and and I just w want to make sure that
you are >> analyzing that question >> on the right basis. You can't just look at residents. You got to look at the industrial uses and whether our extra traffic are going to have an impact on their character. It doesn't have to have an adverse effect on everybody for it to
have a sufficient adverse effect on the neighborhood to consider it to be something to be denied. >> Okay. >> So, if if one person >> this needs to end soon. >> Well, I I you know, I can't rebut something that you know there's
obviously nothing to to discuss. You've you've decided how to analyze this and you're saying you can look just at the five residents that have come here and say that we're destroying the character of the entire neighborhood.
>> That's your decision. That's your decision. >> Well, Mr. Duchaine, you've been doing this a long time and you know >> that having five residents out of a neighborhood is actually a pretty strong representation. >> Okay. you forget that we met with dozens
of neighbors before we even came to this board. >> Okay, I need to close this out. All right, so at this point we're going to close the public hearing. Um move to discussion, deliberation, and a vote. So I will take a motion.
>> I move that we close the public hearing on 191 to 195 River. >> I second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? I >> I deared you cannot vote. >> I can vote on whether to close the public hearing. >> True.
>> It's unanimous. >> Unanimous. Um all right. Uh just as a reminder, Dudra, you also cannot participate in the deliberations. Um so uh at this point um we will
deliberate and I will take it around the uh board. I'll start with Mike. >> Any comments comments before we close? Well, my analysis of this
is actually fairly closely in tune with the argument that we heard tonight. It's not the first time I've thought of it that a uh an enclosed contractor yard is by
right and an exterior contractor yard is by special permit. They say, "Why is that?" Well, what is the difference between an interior and an exterior yard
that we would want to look at and regulate? So, I'm just I'm just going to look at the differences. The differences, as I see it, are primarily visual ones.
I mean, contractor yards are ugly. They can be a bit smelly. You know, they're I know what they look like. We've all seen them. Well, in this particular case, the contractor yard portion of the project
has been stuffed quite far back. Uh I think in a reasonable a fairly reasonable effort to get it away from the public eye, get it away from the public nose. and uh
and get it away and get the noise associated not with the traffic in and out but with the operation of that yard itself. Get that away from the public. And I think the layout of this property
basically does this pretty well. It puts it in the back. If it was a reversed and you wanted to put the trades guys in the back and the contractor yard in the front, uh I would uh very much object on uh to uh granting the special permit.
However, the way it stands, I see there may be differences in the traffic numbers, and you made a very good point there, but I don't imagine that they are so different between a closed yard and an open yard in terms of
the trucks actually leaving the premises and returning to the premises. I can't imagine that they are so the difference there is so big as to make a a material difference in uh in deciding between one or the
other. For that reason, uh I'm inclined to vote for it. I'm not wildly happy with it. Uh but, uh it is an industrial area. the town. It is the will of the people
of the town of Chumsford that industrial activities be placed in something like this because they have called it an IIA. Now, they did this back in 1960 something. Maybe
it wasn't the wisest move. Maybe they just didn't look forward enough. I don't know. But with the rules that we have right now, uh that is the will of the people of Chumsford. So, um I will with some
reluctance vote for this. >> Okay. >> Joel, do you have anything else? >> Yes. Um first of all, there aren't any specific criteria or direction that causes us to exclude certain things to consider in an
outdoor contractor yard. So, and and I fully respect Mike's opinion and again what I was laying out was not necessarily that the board must say yes, but that the board has the discretion to
be able to say no and why. And I don't know what the numbers are difference between them. So, it's purely conjecture on both of our parts. But I would tend to think that you would tend to have and it bases this on you know basically how
they're able to extract features out of the data in such a way that they can differentiate you know groups of data in a statistically significant way to be able to say and I think that by and large you do not have outdoor contractor yards that are under large in large buildings like a hanger
or something like that. Um but nonetheless uh I to me that's that's not uh that's a moot point. The fact is the numbers that we do have I think are what could I think likely I think will have a
detrimental effect on the neighborhood in terms of their sense of their neighborhood which is what I'm what I'm basing this on. Um I think too that just in general you know that uh that we in considering the kinds of
decisions that we make on these things. I think we do look at uh not we do look at the overall impacts and in this particular case I think that when they made the northern portion of riverneck road IIA I think they made a mistake
>> because the access is through residential and we have by the way also in IIA special permit for the planning board when somebody wants to use their property as an access to IIA.
So there is even encoded in our bylaw this consideration that there are going to be impacts uh when you do that and it needs to get attention. So I think consideration of these kinds of vehicles that are going
through areas that are residential is something that's valid and reasonable for us to consider. Um and so for that basis I just want to reiterate that that if you recall in Hilddrth the
argument that I made there was that we didn't have any def definitive way that was standard established way to assess safety. So that we then said okay well in our best judgment that we think because of the increases that were going
on there that it was going to cause a safety issue. In this case, I'm not talking about safety issue, but it's a similar argument. There isn't a there isn't a metric by which we say this will or this will not have. And that then gives us
discretion. And so then therefore, I'm exercising that discretion and saying no. >> Okay. Thanks, John. After um studying the special permit criteria, uh my determination is that the adverse effects of um locating an outdoor
contract yard at this site will outweigh the beneficial impacts and so therefore I'm inclined to vote no. >> Okay, Anita. >> Um well, I think Joe Joel sum summarized the neighborhood impact and the um so
I'm not going to go there. One thing though I do want to bring up um is the f is number six the financial impact and while and I want to bring up the example of 270 BA road um like I said we had a
tri board meeting this past Monday and Paul Cohen were at a you know shortfall for for level service budget and one of the you know one of the things he brought up was 270 Bill Rucker Road while We got a new permit for it because
in that just a bracket this is the new warehouse that distribution center that's going up on road. Well, we got permitting funds. Great. We took down a office building that is taxed at a
higher rate than a warehouse. So, we got a one-time bang. Um, and now we have to make that up. We don't have those funds. And guess what? like we can't, you know, we're looking, we're meeting in a month to try to figure out what do we do and there's a
lot of things on the table. So, when we look at this and they say and they get up there and tell us, look at the, you know, all the extra jobs. Well, no, there aren't any extra jobs because they're already in Chertford. So, okay. So, that's an impact. Um, yes,
we get a one-time permanent fee. I love, you know, I like the building that they put up front, you know. Yes. You guys like, you know, you want to build take down an empty lot and maybe build something like that. I liked how they did the um
the landscaping in front. Sure. what I don't think um but when you look at the impact of a contractor yard and all the negative effects the property values or the impact of those home property values where our
town most of our tax income majority of it comes from residential property taxes are going to have a detrimental effect and you can't just look at it at that one piece of property
And you can't look at it one time. There's an opportunity cost. There's a cost that those properties, you know, the next person when they go to put them up for sale is not going to want to spend. Those are not going to appreciate in a manner that's going to keep up
with the town to cover our expenses. So, I don't think the I don't think there's a compelling argument from a financial oo, you know, this is going to give us a lot more money. Let's do it. And on top
of the negative impact to the town, to the neighborhood. Um, you know, I just don't see the windfall in cash. I think it's we have to be really careful when we look at these and we hear, "Oh, peritting fee, great. New building, great." Well, what does it do
to the rest? >> Okay, >> so I'm know. >> Thanks, Marcy. Um, so looking over all the documents and listening to all these um I think Joel hit right on the head there
with the you know impact um and listening the traffic setting and things that are going on with that to what's this going to provide to the neighborhood. Yes, I understand that this um is going to go in an IIA area, but this is a has been pointed out many times. This is a mixeduse area and we
have to look at both, but is is IA, it is residential and it's not going to be of much benefit for the residential area. It is going to create problems and havoc and right now I'm a no. Okay, Serita,
>> I understand and hear what like Joel and everyone is saying, but I also have been hearing and listening to the property owners and all the stuff that they're willing to do accommodate and it makes me think about other people that are going into this area. I like the idea of the safety features they're willing to
add because if they don't do it, who's going to do it? Um the fact that they even are saying that they're willing to talk with the abutters. I mean they put up a good picture but in reality we did look at those other areas and they do look different. So there is concern with
it looking that way. So I'm I'm back and forth because I understand what Joel's saying. I understand what Anita is saying. I understand what everyone's saying. And I I live close to a road where there's trucks and I feel the trucks when they go by. So, increased truck traffic, people's houses
will shake, they will move, and it's not a good feeling to have that, but at the same time, the amount of traffic that they say is going through, it sounds like more, but regardless of what business goes there, there'll still be traffic. So,
I'm leaning more towards I'm borderline more towards a yes than a no, but I'm feeling the no. So, >> okay. Um, from my perspective, I think this is an interesting project. Um, it's to me it's a tale of two two different
projects. I really like the front half of this project. I think that that does provide value to the riverneck. Um, and I disagree with you, Mike, that the aesthetics is the only difference
between an indoor and outdoor contractor yard. I think this project shows you the the actual different impacts with the outdoor contractor's yard. You have heavier machinery, you have heavier trailers carrying that machinery to
different sites. Um looking at the types of trucks um in that back site, not only do you have the front loaders and those types of machinery, but you also have those flatbed trailers that have to take
the the equipment to and from the site. Those don't stay on the site. Those come back to the property. And so those are the types of heavy trucks that we're going to see on a regular basis on Riverneck. We're not going to see
we're probably never ever rarely going to see the front end loaders themselves. We're going to see those big trailers that carry the front loaders from sight to sight. Um, so
I think that part of the reason, and I agree with Joel, part of the reason why that outdoor contractor yard is a special permit is because of those heavier impacts than what we would see in an indoor contractor's yard. Um, which is
what we had discussed in that first condition. Um, definite different impacts. I also go back to the crash data. The one thing that stuck in my mind is the
crash data that showed a lot of the failure to remain in lanes. What I didn't see in that crash data is which way they went off the road. Did they go off the road on the same side or did they cross the center line and go off
the road in the other direction? I really wish I would have seen which way because the applicant assumed it was the same side. I'm not sure that that's the case. Um, and when you add double the number of
heavy trailers like we will see. I'm concerned that that's those types of crashes are going to increase because you're going to see people trying to get off the road to avoid those large trucks.
So, I think to me, if this were a project that proposed that front half, I'd be all in favor of it. Um, because I do think that's what would bring the jobs in. The back half is where we, I think, see
the heaviest impacts to the surrounding communities. and the access to that property even though that property is NIA is completely through residential. And it's unfortunate because I I I
want to I I want to do a good turn for the businesses in this community. But with these outdoor contractor's yards, we keep seeing a location location location issue that
keeps putting them right next to the residential areas and I I wish we had a better alternative. Um, but I I I think I'm going to be a no on this
one. So, >> we have to take a vote. >> Yeah, >> I think we might as well. Yep. >> We're going to need a motion. >> Yes, I will accept a motion. >> Uh then I will move to grant the special permits
uh for 191 through 195 Riverneck Road with conditions as described. >> I will second it so we can get the vote. >> Yeah. Yep. Uh motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor of granting the special permit.
>> I. >> Mike and Serita. All in favor, all opposed to granting the special permit. >> I >> Marcy, Anita, John, >> Joel, and myself.
So, special permit is denied. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. May I do you guys want to convene with your client? >> Yeah, we'll do 13.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is 133 Princeton Street. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good evening. For the record, Douglas Duchaine from Finner and Nicholson representing the applicant. Uh you'll
recall in the last meeting we um we had a pretty thorough disc uh discussion regarding the uh changes that were made in the construction of the building and and um why and how things came about. Um and then the board gave us a
considerable amount of information with respect to your feelings on those changes. Um and I think um we especially focused on the fact that uh we had removed a number of windows and we had modified the front facade of the
building to a point where the board um felt that we were you know beyond the scope of what um what they wanted to see in in originally approving this. So we went back we left the meeting with your concerns and your thoughts. So, we went
back to um have the the the building uh design uh modified to again try and address your concerns. So, what we'd like to do right now is I'd like to have our architect essentially just go through with you um these renderings
which are reflective of the changes that we we made. um new changes we're proposing to make to to get the board comfortable with the design um and also just point out that the things that we've u done to make uh this building uh
attractive. So with that Jim Mr. Okay, there you go. >> Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Jim Jazokus, Jazokus Architecture Incorporated. Um just keep it brief and short. Um
based on the board's comments from the last hearing, uh we're proposing a few um modifications. These renderings are depicting those changes and uh quickly point them out with the speed above. Uh unfortunately, they're kind of dark in
the >> renderings, but you get the concept. Uh we added a couple more windows here. Um, and on the other side over here and we also incorporated the landscape that was
always intended to be just that. So, uh, any questions? I'd be happy to address them. Thank you. >> So, that's the front. Added the windows in the front. >> Yes. Before that was handled here as well. So,
>> so they've got more windows in the front. >> Yep. Balance that off better. Couple over here. And then where's the side from Princeton station? That's the other side. The Princeton. >> The bottom left. >> Bottom left. >> Okay.
And that's the back. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Which one's the back? >> That right. Bottom right. And those are real windows because I remember you guys were talking about fake. Are these real? >> These are real windows in the front. They there'll be full windows because of what's behind
them is stuff you don't want to see. Uh the stairs cross bracing. So they'll be full windows. >> What's the texture? What's the what do they look like? Are they >> they will look like the other windows? >> So there would be like >> there'll be windows but full windows.
>> Okay. >> They just look dark. I don't know what those >> I just find it doesn't have windows in the front. a lot of um say Cumbent Farms or whatever, they build those ranch style structures and they have those little windows up top and they just
basically block them out. >> What would it would it be like a reflective glass type? >> Um there's a variety of different ways of doing uh typically um the glass itself becomes reflective. Uh
sometimes they'll cut a little hole, put a a little light in it, but sometimes most often they're just painted flat black. >> Okay. >> So then this these pictures aren't really accurate then for that. No, >> because they look like they're clear windows. >> Actually looks like the building see-through.
>> Yeah. >> Just trying to understand what it looks like. >> Yeah, they'll be glass. Um, >> yeah. No, I think what Jim's saying is it's a glass window. It just won't have anything behind it. So, when the sun reflects off of it, it'll reflect like
any window, >> but there's not going to be like somebody inside with a light on that you can like see through it into anything. You never will obviously, but it is still glass and looks like a window. >> So, it' be like a glass with a shade drawn on the inside. Okay. Okay.
>> Thanks. >> That makes a little more sense now. Guys, if I could just um add too, I mean, one of the big concerns that I heard was that, you know, at least what we had built here just didn't reflect
the look that you had originally approved. And so, again, we we restored the windows. I I think, you know, from the front view, we're pretty close to what it was before. But we've also as you
know done some improvements with this corner um you know with this the moldings the way the sign is presented now it'll be presented above all the windows consistent so that this whole corner is as windowed as it was originally.
>> Um we did replace windows here that we had taken out and there is a window here. We have not proposed to put windows back in here only because as I understand it,
you really can only see that, right? When you're driving down the road, you you you can see this, but you really can't see that there aren't windows there. Um, and you know, we've got a car dealership right here, which is the same on the other side. We we
hadn't proposed as many windows because facing Princeton because there's a pretty good vegetated buffer there. >> You cut it all down. >> Yeah. I'm going to say I was there the other day. All the trees are gone. >> Well, we've got to put the landscaping back in.
>> Those were big old >> Yeah. >> So, actually, that was one of the questions I had. Did you guys did your clients cut down all those pine trees along between Princeton >> or was that Princeton station that cut
those? >> Bob France with MTL Construction. Those trees were on Princeton's uh property and they were the ones that cut them down. >> They did. Okay. Okay. >> Which ones were those outside of that left Where were they?
>> Our property line is >> Here's Princeton. >> No, no, no. Sorry. It's down here. See this tree line here? >> Yep. They cut them off in the way. >> This is where the trees were. It's off the property. >> Yeah. I just wanted to confirm that it wasn't you guys that did that.
>> I I guess the point is they don't seem too concerned about seeing our building. >> I guess not. And that's why I wanted to ask that question today. >> Whereas we know that the gentleman on the other side had some concerns. >> Yeah. So, we did replace the windows there. We fixed that corner, made it put
the awnings, you know, just to make it all look more attractive. >> And, uh, I think we've achieved that. And again, I all I can say is I'm sorry that we found ourselves in this situation. Um, but I do think we we've tried I think if
you take a look at this building as it's now proposed, in my opinion, I like it a little better than the original building, but we've certainly replaced the glass and the front of the building. So, >> I I like the front and the glass. My concern now is with that third story in
the back, >> right? the renderings that you had shown last time. >> I don't know if they were. >> So, to me, this looks like a an elevator
shaft of a warehouse. The renderings that I saw the last time that I had asked about um >> Oops. >> back. It would be on the agenda, right? >> Yeah. >> Which one is it? renderings 11
>> previous documents first architectural plans I think uh third one from >> yeah yeah that is what I was more expecting so if you notice that third floor it's set
down a little bit more of a homey porch style it looks like it's a gathering space. >> Sorry. >> Um bottom left. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> And that is the rear elevation. >> Yeah. And if you look at the top right one, it's a lot lower than the elevator shaft. In the new renderings, that third floor
is raised up to the height of the elevator shaft. You mean the >> the sign that says wine on the on the >> No, this they want to have the wine tasting that wasn't on the original plans. >> Right.
>> You're talking here. It's the level. >> Yeah. >> Where before it was kind of cut down. >> So it adds a full third story to the building as opposed to >> 3/4 or half story.
And as I took a drive by yesterday, >> that third floor is visible from both directions over the other buildings as you're coming from the bridge near the establishment. And if you're coming
from the other direction, it's visible over Princeton station. >> Yeah. And that wasn't that wasn't in the original plan. This is all new. Yeah, I saw that. >> So I am not happy with how that one looks. And just just so you guys know, I've
received multiple calls on this property. Multiple multiple calls >> saying what? >> One of them actually said it's marginally better than what was there before. >> Oh my goodness. >> Yes. I'm just
>> I can My name's Bob France. I'm with MTL Construction. I can speak to your comment regarding the chimney. >> Yeah. Um, first of all, this is not a full third floor as you know. It's just a small um
area for uh number one for the elevator and number two for stair uh rooftop access which is required by code. >> We have a stairwell coming up to the roof and that's part of
uh where's the other's the old one? You show me the old elevation. >> What am I looking for? >> The third one down. >> Third one down. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, in fact,
this is what's there now. So, it's not at the elevation of the chimney. Um and the again the purpose of this is for the um elevator access eress and for the
stair rooftop access. Um and uh if you look here you can see that the um elevator shaft is higher than the structure as proposed. So, so we had asked for these designs to be
the final proposal. >> So, are you saying that this one is the final proposal and not the final >> one that we're seeing tonight? >> Go back to that. >> So, hold on a second. >> Somebody's doing magic
>> rendering. So >> in answer your question >> you had the right one. >> Yeah. >> No, no. Just hold on one second. >> Show them both on the same screen. >> Look at them go.
>> Do the do the window window. Is that Oh yeah, I'm just doing window to window and then Yeah. >> No, no, no, no. But if you do you do the do this window and tab right, it'll give you the option to put both on the same screen. There you go. >> There you look at that. >> Wait, how do you do it?
>> Okay, now just click on the other one. Yep. >> Oh, wait. It went away. You might have to come over here. >> Go ahead. You got it. Close that. >> Just jump over. >> There you go. Now, click on the other one. >> This fine. That'll work. >> That'll work. >> That'll work. Okay. >> So, you see in this rendering, you're
correct. Does not reflect this. >> Um, in fact, here's the U elevator shaft. Hard to see from here. >> Yeah, you got to go back to the other one. >> Yeah, go back to the other one. So, you can see the elevator shaft is it's, you know, kind of hard to see, but it's a
darker color. >> Yeah, the darker color, >> right? >> And you're correct. We will not It's not the intention to be that height of the elevator. In fact, it's going to be lower and that was the intent of >> Are there actual prints for >> penthouse area?
>> I don't know. >> No. >> No. Could we get correct prints then for all of this? >> Did your building permit reflect what you're describing? Uh, it does not. It
reflects this, but um, you know, I we had resubmitted to Jose a revised plan to satisfy the requirements. So the revised plan includes the bottom
right one or the upper >> it's more like it's this. Yeah, it's more like this. >> Can we get one that's the right what you're going to build? >> Sure. >> Why isn't that plan reflective of that?
I I guess I'm I'm confused myself. So >> you guys are all saying that you you you were better satisfied with the elevator shaft in
this building when they were smaller and different heights. Is that correct? And yet now you're seeing a picture here that makes it look like that that building is now raised up to the height of the >> Yeah. So that in the in the newest in
the newest renderings >> it looks like a box. It looks like an elevator shaft. >> It looks hideous. >> Whereas when it was >> in the old renderings >> when it was this >> that was acceptable. >> It looks like a porch. It looks like
>> a nice >> meeting space. >> You You've got to answer the question for me. >> Okay. >> Is this what we propose this to look like when it's done or is it going to look like that?
>> Great question. >> So, >> I'm sorry. >> So, at this point, >> it's getting late. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Again, just real quick question in case they have to do something. Did they do any change to the lighting? And if they did, is there a new lighting graph
to show what's lit, what's not lit with the plus minuses? >> I don't know. >> No changes to lighting. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Before we go, I also noticed that there was a new monument sign being added and one less tree.
>> It looked like there was a tree being proposed in that spot. >> So, should still be there. tree should be gone. >> Okay. It looked like it was. >> Well, we'll make sure they're both there, right?
>> Apologize for asking to continue, please. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um >> motion to continue the motion. >> Yes. >> I move to continue uh 133 Princeton until >> December 10th. And I would like this to
be the last Yeah. >> continuation. >> I bet we're not the only ones. >> Oh, hold on. Wait. Sorry. >> Oh, yes. We need public input. >> Sorry. >> I'm almost falling asleep. Wait. >> Sorry. >> All right. I withdraw my motion.
>> Withdrawn. Right. Public input. Sorry. My apologies. >> Okay. Here I am back again. Um, first I want to apologize. I've been trying to keep up with all this, but
when I watch it on TV, sometimes I not know when it's coming on or when people step away from the microphone, I lose what they're saying. So, I apologize for asking questions that you've already answered. And I'm here tonight to
represent the natives of North Chamster because we are very upset about this. Um, so when we heard the natives in North Chams that a liquor store was going in, we thought, okay, it's going to be
normal size. And we thought, another one. I mean, we have one at Drum Hill. Now, this one, one in the square, and one in Tingsboro row. That's four in a row. Um, so we're kind of, you know, surprised about that. Okay.
So, I'm 99% sure I now you could correct me on this. When they come, my voice is like shaking here. When they come to get their permit, they don't come to you guys first, right? >> No, >> because they do. >> They do. >> Well, I'm 99% sure I was watching that
meeting and they didn't have their plans that night. They said they'd drop them off at the town hall in the morning. So that put like a red flag in my brain and I've been watching this. So then I heard there was a cease and desist and then I saw they were still working on it. So I
thought that was all done and then I caught it that it's still going on on TV. So here I am. Um, so I always felt like you have to have something to give it
up. And all I keep hearing is that there was supposed to be a basement in the first floor to this. So, I'm sorry, but like the last meeting, there was a lot of oops, we're sorry. Oops, we're sorry. I don't know how this isn't their first time at the
rodeo here. My grandson at 11 years old, he knew that you couldn't build down there a basement. So, I was kind of like insulted about that whole fact that they had to come to the meeting and say, "Oh, we've given up the basement. We've given up the basement." To me, they never had the
basement to give up. Um, so now you take that building that was supposed to be the basement and the first floor. So, you've raised it up and it's humongous and the elevator should have gone from the first floor
down. Why is it sticking up onto the third floor? I'm also sure that I heard at one of these meetings. I think it might have been you, Chris, that asked the question, what is going on on the third floor? And I thought I heard 29 people were going to be allowed to go up there and have their little drinks.
Am I wrong about that? I thought I heard that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So why isn't that being discussed? So I always thought a liquor store is you go and buy your beer and you leave. Were they going to buy the beer and go up there or they're going to sell beer or wine or whatever up there on the
third floor? >> It's it's for tastings. A lot of liquor stores and wine stores do tastings for clients. >> So it's like a little party thing out there. going to have chairs and >> no >> no it'll be it's also not in our purview
that would be more of the border select board um in terms of the usage of that space but we would be doing uh just the design >> so I understand the tasting thing they can go up to the third floor and
taste their products is that mean >> yeah it it's like uh Sam's club samples like grocery store almost. >> It's a lot of money for tastings on the roof, but >> they all do it. >> But anyway, >> no judgment. Okay.
>> So, >> I get what you're saying. >> So, that's why the elevator shaft is so high >> so they can go out and do their tastings. >> I don't That seems a little sneaky to me. Um,
so the second floor is all for storage, right? So I would assume that the walk-in coolers and such are going to be on all the first floor. What's going to be on the second floor? Just like beer cakes and boxes of wine. So would that be like a tasting and let's let's tap these beer
cakes like Budweiser Brewery type thing? So, this whole second floor is just for boxes and storage. That seems >> we'll have enough of beer to >> fix the state. Um, do they have to did they have a um a tie
in for the sewer for this or was that what they were doing out front? Oh, they had a tie in already. So, they don't have to put a sewer. It It's connected to the sewer. >> So, what was going on on the friend when they were digging that big hole out there? What were they doing in there?
>> Yeah. In infiltration, storm water. >> Oh, okay. So, will they be fix You guys be fixing the road better because it's quite a dip there when you dug up out to Princeton Street. >> We'll we'll keep track of the concerns.
>> Okay. Uh this is all my my neighbors and stuff that were >> um yeah, one of my questions was the trees to the border there, but since you said Princeton, um I'm surprised Kevin wanted
to do that down there, but um and you also brought up I that was another one of my comments that you know you you can see this from both sides. guys, please. >> Uh, I'm a North Chancer girl. You know,
we're watching this and you know, it's just I guess most of my comments from my friends and relatives are, "Oh my god, this thing is so huge. What are they doing down there?" I It's bigger than the state liquor store for CR. Can they
come in later and put like some come in for permit later for doing like something extra on the second floor? They would have if it >> they could, but they would have to come before this board and probably the select board for the liquor license. >> Yeah, it would have like if you're
talking like if it if it has something to do with alcohol, then they would have to go in front of the they would have to go to the state to get a different license. That's a >> the license is only to sell. >> Okay. I guess that's my questions now. All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Now, I'll take a motion to continue. I move that we continue 133 Princeton Street to December 10th. >> I second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? I. Unanimous. >> Thank you everyone. >> Oh, did we have to actually move to
close the public hearing first? >> No, we're continuing to. Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next item. 152 Steman Street. I can really say good evening right now.
>> It's almost morning >> already. Good evening uh board members. My name is Bruce Haskell with Langden Environmental. I'm the engineer for the redevelopment of a solar PV facility uh at the old Glen View landfill, capped Glen View Landfill at 152 Steman Street.
I'm joined by um >> Excuse me for a minute. >> Excuse me folks. >> Thank you. >> I'm joined by uh uh Anthony Shaw, who is the uh pro with Progeneration Energy, who is the developer who's available who
is uh listening in uh on um Zoom. I just wanted to give you just a twominute overview of the project. If you remember, we were here in August and we're talking about the cap Glen View landfill, which is on the Chelmsford Line in North Chelmsford. And we're
talking about a project that will put solar panels on the top plateau with battery storage and then recap or reconfigure the side slopes on the south and and uh east side to allow for a new capping material to be put down and a a
cap to be put down into that into that area. Um there um at the last at the at when the hearing was opened uh we heard some comments from the the fire department and the tax collector uh about the project and the we have sorry
should I should I wait a minute or >> no to keep going? >> Okay there. So um and you know and I think the we've addressed some of those comments. The town also retained Weston Samson uh to do a technical review for both this board and the conservation
commission. >> Sorry. >> And sorry, this distracted me for a second here. Um and to uh look at the storm water design as well as the site plan and general landfill capping
considerations um out there. Um, we've addressed the fire department comments and submitted a document to them. Essentially, their two um comments are just not acknowledged are to upgrade the access road for their
ladder truck. Uh, we provided a turning area on top of the landfill plateau where the truck could get up there and turn based on the type of truck that it is. We also upgraded the access road to the top of the landfill um um to show
that how to get to the top and to widen it so that the truck can get up there safely and get back down the road um safely out there. We also thickened the thickness of the road um based on potential for damage to the underlying
final cap um that's out there. Um it's a couple sheets down from that. continue down. Yeah. So, just to just to orient everybody. Um, just to orient everybody here. Route three runs in here. Low landfill.
Chelmsford Line out there. These are various office condos that are in Chelmsford. Steedman Street is actually a little bit off this plan over in this direction here. Um the entrance to the site is actually through um the old low landfill entrance. Okay. So I may have
mentioned last time this was part of the old pre city of landfill site out there. Um that's how it became to be a landfill. So essentially the battery storage is here. We developed a turning area here for that the truck can get up and turn and get back down the road. As
you can see, maybe it's uh we've also widened the road in that area to allow for the truck to get up and safely um up there to the standards that are the fire protection standards out there. We've submitted that information um both to
the town's consultant, Weston Samson, and to um the fire department for review and comment. Um out there, I think Weston Samson has actually responded that appears to be adequate. There's another sheet that actually shows the standard turning radiuses um and the
like for that, you know, to demonstrate that um you what goes on there and things. Um the other uh request that the the fire chief had made was to have a um demonstrate a fire do a hydrant test. Um because of the with the entrance being
in LOL, um the hydrant that we're going to actually test is going to be in the city of LOL and we're trying to schedule that. There's quite a lot of discussion back and forth about what was the best hydrant to hook off of and do that. And we hired a consultant who's an expert in those things, has been communicating
both with uh the fire chief and and um fire department in Chelmsford and the water department in LOL to get access to that. So that's in process. I would anticipate that will happen in the next week or so. We'd be able to report back the results of that um um to the um to
the board. Um the Western Samson has two sets of comments that they've provided and I think um Nick Ames from Western Samson is here and he can u u provide any more insight there. Uh the first was a general site plan and there's been a
couple of back and forths on that. Um there's two remaining comments that I read from reading the response that I received earlier this week. uh one is uh about the grain size of the gravel and how big the stones are out there that we could certainly accommodate that and
agree to that and the other one is dealing with some erosion potentially where that new cap interfaces with the old cap um that's out there. Um that one I really need to go out and take a good look at. I think the design works but I want to provide some additional justification or or if if if necessary
um clarifications as to what is going to be done there. um the storm water review with the conservation commission for the conservation commission. Um I think our our proposal as originally presented is generally compliant with the storm water handbooks. There was a couple of questions there um and the town of
Chumsford's uh bylaw. Uh we did submit some revised plans with some revised details that were there. Um and then we're awaiting a response to our response, sort of a confirmation whether we we hit all the buttons or or not. We have presented this project informally,
I'm going to call it, to the conservation commission out there. They did not they opened the public hearing some time ago and uh we came in two weeks ago or so, presented the pro uh maybe a week or two ago, presented the project. Um but the the uh um proof of
mailing had not gone out in quite in time, so it was more of an informal presentation. We haven't gotten um all of their comments back out there. There was one other comment that we had uh related to uh the project which was um
the a view from the the residence that's on the residence of at Steedman on 140 Steedman Street in the back. And I don't know if Evan if you could pull up that cross-section that we did out there. >> Uh what what attachment? >> Uh was it one of your PDFs?
>> One of the PDFs there. >> That was giving me all kinds of problems earlier. >> Oh, okay. Well, essentially, we did a PDF uh a cross-section from the residence to the landfill, and her question was essentially, are you going to cut down all the trees? We're not. They're all in the wetlands and the brook that goes through that area. So,
we're not going to cut down the trees, but it sort of graphically shows that um out there. She can see from the back the condos, there's a back set of of town houses there. From that back set, you can see the landfill out there. Um, and she will see some of this uh um the cap
the new capping area, but um again it's she's not going to see we're not going to be taking down any trees or any buffer that she currently has. Probably this time of year she could see it um fairly well. So, you know, with that, we're still, you know, working through the final details here. Um you know,
we'd like to try to move forward with this at your probably at your next meeting after speaking to Evan briefly. Um and you know, make sure we have all the responses. Um, and frankly see if the if the board has any other questions or comments that they want to see
addressed um that I might have missed or um anything new. >> Evan, I'm assuming by then we'll have a clean letter from the fire department. >> We should. Yeah. Um we we'll send this once we get confirmation from uh project
engineer that the final plans are submitted, we'll submit we'll send those back out for distribution. >> Okay. Uh, as Bruce mentioned, uh, your peerreview consultant, uh, Nicholas Ames is here. >> I think you've sat here for >> um, you want to come up to the
>> Sure. >> Yeah, sure. >> maybe, uh, do a a high high level, uh, summary of your review to date or maybe highlight the outstanding items. >> Sure thing. So, I appreciate you guys having me. Um, Nick Ames. I'm a civil
engineer with Wesson and Samson. Um so our peer review for this project was really in our guarded general engineering practices and construction methods for installation of solar arrays on landfills. We do them all throughout New England. Um
we have prepared to date three different memorandum or letters with our peerreview comments. The initial one was dated October 10th had 26 technical comments. Um the applicant has since sent us two separate rounds of
responses. Um so we've provided two additional letters on October 21st and then again this past Monday on November 10th and our letters are formatted to have the previous comments with our responses per each date. So to date, um
the applicant has really satisfied 25 out of the 26 comments that we had. Um comment number one in our memo, as Bruce had mentioned, we just had a recommendation regarding the stone size
for the gravel subbase below the battery storage pad. Um, the reason we're recommending a smaller stone size is just because of the uh potential contact with the flexible membrane liner. That's the impermeable layer for the landfill
cap. Uh, the larger stone sizes could be more abrasive or potentially puncture that liner. So, the smaller uh 3/8 inch or or less is really a D recommendation in their landfill technical guidance manual. So, that was just a recommendation on our end. And then the
only only really outstanding comment that we had was in regard to comment number 14. As Bruce had mentioned, it's a uh concern with erosion. So the way the existing landfill cap is constructed, it's um about 8 in of top
soil that's grassed over a a sand drainage layer over the impermeable highdensity polyethylene flexible membrane liner. Um, so under existing conditions, storm water will hit the top soil layer. There's some amount of
surface runoff, but for the most part, runoff will percolate through the top soil layer into the sand drainage layer and then run laterally off the cap. The way this um closure turf system is designed is that it has a geomposite
drainage layer that's essentially at the surface. Um there's the the geo composite and then a impermeable HDP liner directly below that. So there's really no amount of uh storage in that geomposite layer. There's no soil. I
mean there's a small amount of sand infill. Um but this is why I mean the the manufacturer generally recommends a curve number runoff curve number of 95 which is almost similar to an impermeable surface. So my point is with
the closure turf system, most of the the runoff flow is right at the surface. So when that closure turf system at the downs slope interface with the existing soil cap, you're having a a significant amount of flow discharging from the closure turf geomposite drainage layer
at the surface right onto the grass. So our concern is over time there could potentially be erosion issues at that interface. Sounds like Bruce is going to be looking into that further. Um ultimately we're just looking for some sort of justification um for how erosion will be avoided at
that interface or perhaps some sort of tweak to the design to make sure there's not going to be any long-term you know maintenance headaches for the town especially if the closure turf system is going to remain in place after decommissioning of the solar array because ultimately you guys are going to be the ones that have to upkeep that and
maintain it. >> That that that's not the case. This is a private landfill. This has nothing to do with the town. That's what >> Oh, really? Okay. This is this is a private landfill. The town has never owned it or they have no responsibilities to >> interant.
That's an important clarification. Thank you, Bruce. Appreciate that. Um, regardless, it it's still a concern with erosion on landfill cover systems. Of course, >> somebody will have to do it. >> It's a fair comment. I just want y Thank you, Bruce. Appreciate that. Um,
so those were our outstanding comments. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions that you guys might have regarding our our uh peer review letters to date. >> So, Nicholas has also done the stormwater peer review. Y >> it was referenced that it was primarily for Concom as you know the planning
board is also >> uh doing a storm water review. >> Do you want to do a high level on that one? >> Yeah. So in general we found that the storm water design was in compliance with all 10 of the mass DAP storm water
criteria. Uh we had one comment asking about the assumed runoff curve number for the existing condition um to which the applicant didn't respond to us. They actually used the same runoff curve number that was used for the design of the landfill and the sizing of the
existing basins. They also provided some justification as to why that number was used beyond that, but in our opinion, that's certainly a fair number to use. Um, many of the technical comments that we had in our peerreview letter to the conservation commission were exact
copies of the comments that we had in the the letter to you guys. They there was some overlap between um the the jurisdiction there regarding some of the potential for erosion. Um and then we just had some limited comments regarding
the construction phase controls which are really I would say more in Cong's purview. Um so in general I think the application is technically sound. Um our main concern right now is really that comment number 14 that we had in our
letter to you guys. Um, one of the things that would help us for the next meeting is, um, if you do, I noticed in a couple places you had a couple recommendations for potential conditions, um, of approval. If there
are any others that that you have related to some of these reviews, um, if you could submit them to us before the next meeting, that would be helpful. >> Absolutely. >> Could I just ask >> Yeah, >> Mr. Chairman. Um yeah, I just wanted to ask um if um the the owner or the
owner's attorney can contact the tax collector's office because I have not had any contact from anyone and there is a large balance outstanding. So I'd like to see that taken care of before we can otherwise I'm going to ask the board to make it conditional any >> we'll have some obviously the owner is
not the the develop progeneration at this at this point but we'll we'll have some contact me with you to make that they are committing to pay the back >> now just because otherwise I would ask the board to make any permits or um approvals conditional upon that because
>> um and Anthony sheriff I'm just say that is that is perfectly acceptable except able condition here given the amount of money the pack >> tax absolutely >> absolutely okay >> thank you >> any other questions comments >> I guess I have one question which is
that I know there's been some incentives for solar and that a lot of them are expiring is are you going to be able to participate in any um >> I I'm I'm I'm can't say I'm just the engineer but Anthony could probably
answer that a little bit better out there so Anthony, >> you're on mute. >> You're on mute. >> Of course I am. Um there's been quite a bit in the news um uh regarding renewables in general. Um however
underneath all of the you know >> hala blue so to speak um renewables are still very strong and uh fortunately in Massachusetts specifically some of the programs that have been developed like mass smart program uh 3.0 0 was just
released. Um very very wise, very sound, very stable um incentives that uh allow for projects like this, especially projects that use land with uh no other use. Um it makes those uh projects uh
you know favorable and and feasible. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Yeah, I have a question. Um, are the materials being used in the panels anything that would be considered hazardous waste when they expire and then need to be uh
>> no >> disposed of? >> No, they they can all be disposed of at there's there's different services. >> So no lead cadmium or whatever. >> Not at the not at the level there is low low levels not the level hazardous material. >> Great. So they don't have to be specifically handled that way. No.
>> Thank you. >> Other questions or comments? My only question or comment and I'm going to pitch it again just because you talk into it. >> Yeah. My only question or actually comment is because I was at the meeting on Monday and I'm a little concerned
about the town's budget. Um any you know if you want to reach out to the town and any contribution of electricity to offset some of our buildings. I think love to entertain something like that as a great you know business in our town. really want to maybe reach out to town
manager or something we can do. >> I think last time we did we did commit to talking a little bit about you know purchase purchase agreements and things like that if that could benefit everybody. >> Yeah. >> Um the other thing I was thinking about um as you were talking about the gravel
road um one thing that I'd like to see in the O andM um for approval is the snow maintenance of that gravel road. Um and making sure that that path is cleared for any emergency vehicles on a regular basis.
>> Yes, it will be. Yes. >> Okay. It'd be good to have in the explicitly laid out in the on M. >> Sure. Sure. Provide something for that. >> All right. Anything else? This is a public hearing, so any public
still around who would like to comment? I know there's in their beds. >> So, I will entertain a motion. >> Do you want to uh close the public hearing or do you want to leave it open and just continue? >> I think we need to leave it open and continue. >> Okay. In that case, I move that we
continue 153 Steman Street until >> Well, I was ask2, isn't it? >> It's 152. >> 152. Yes. >> Right. Are you guys going to be ready on the 10th or do you >> I don't see any We're hopefully in the
final, you know, runs of everything out there. Yes. >> December. >> December 10th. >> I think it would be a pretty quick one on the time. >> December 10th. >> Yeah. >> Second. >> All right. Motion by Mike, second by Deer. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. >> Thank you. Have a great night. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time today.
>> Have a great night. Nothing left to have. >> Last one. Uh, last public hearing. >> 10 Independence Drive. >> Can you guys pass that tablet this way? We got another broken one over here. Just any
>> You guys have it all lined up over there. How many? >> She keeps going black. Like literally, I can't open any of the documents for the next one. >> Are you sure it's not you? Should we be giving you another one? I'm not sure we should be. it. Well, this one now also tells me the hour is 2206, so you know.
>> Yeah, it is. >> Good evening. >> Military time. Yes. >> Hi. Sorry. >> Good. Good evening. Uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, I'm Adam Costa with the firm of me Talman and Costa representing Ronnet Hospitality, the applicant for a special
permit for property at 10 Independence Drive. Uh, I think the good news is it does not appear we have any opposition tonight. Um we were last before you uh three weeks ago and we presented our application to convert uh the second floor and a portion of the first floor
at 10 Independence Drive to 15 apartment units uh combination of one, two, and threebedroom but primarily two-bedroom apartments. Uh and also to add a small uh takeout pizza restaurant as well. Uh we reviewed with you that evening the site plan for the proposal. We also
reviewed floor plans for the proposal. And as we uh concluded the first session of the public hearing, the board made, according to my notes, four requests of the applicant for in additional information or updates between that meeting and tonight's meeting. Uh we believe we have addressed those and made
additional submitts. Uh and I'm going to briefly speak to them and then to the extent the board has specific questions about the site plan, uh Hushi Ashar, who is with Taj Engineering and is the project engineer is in attendance tonight. he can get into the specifics as they relate to the site plan. Uh and
Ashook Patel who is the principal uh with Ronnet hospitality is also in attendance and he can address his communications with the superintendent of schools to the extent that you have questions about that topic. So let's uh touch upon that one first. There was some discussion that occurred three
weeks ago about the location of the uh the bus shelter for the school bus uh sort of at that circular um conclusion or or uh culde-sac uh at the end of Alpine Lane. Um we did have communications with uh the
superintendent of schools, Mr. Lang. Uh and I have a quote here. We did submit a copy of the email uh correspondence we received. I didn't see it linked on your agenda, but we did provide it to um to your your town planner. Um but I'm going to read read you uh the excerpt from it. He indicated that he had reviewed the
bus shelter location. He generally okay the location, had no objection to it. He said the bus will come up Alpine Lane. We'll go around the circle. We'll pick up, drop off, assign students at the bus shelter location, and then we'll proceed out of Alpine Lane. Um again, my client can speak more specifically to the
particulars of that conversation. My understanding is that um it was explained to him that at least one member of the board had some concern about children navigating the parking lot area. Um and I think that the feedback received was well that's was appreciated. That's a challenge whenever
bus stops are located within multif family developments. Whether it's a development of this sort that has housing in connection with uh hotel uses, but also much larger multif family developments that may have many more cars coming and going particularly at uh early morning and and late afternoon
hours. And so that was not a concern for the superintendent of schools as I understand it. So we have made no changes to the bus shelter location. We're certainly happy to continue to discuss that with the board. Um but uh we would prefer and I suspect the board would as well that we would defer to the
um to the uh recommendation or the approval of the superintendent of schools. Um two other comments that were received relate directly to the site plan that you see on your screen. Uh the first comment related to uh snow storage areas. You'll recall that we had designated for snow storage uh really
all of the green space on the site around the entire perimeter of the site. those green areas that are adjacent to uh the parking spaces. Um some of them larger than others um including a sloped area sort of on the in the south uh west corner of the site. And the concern was
that if we used all those areas for uh snow storage, particularly extensive snow storage, that that would cause uh damage to those areas, particularly if those areas were planted with anything more than grass and quite frankly even the grass. Uh and so what we have done is we have removed uh the snow storage
markings from many of those locations. It may well be that as the parking area is plowed that there are small storage uh limited storage of snow in those small areas. Um but the idea would be that we have continued to mark locations uh in sort of the center islands. The
island that's sort of in the center left side of the page there. You you'll see it still says snow storage where the arrow is. Uh there's also snow storage areas more toward the center of the page again in the island uh between there we go. Um and so those snow storage areas are still marked, but we've also
designated uh on the easterly end of the site uh if we sort of scroll over a bit um other way. If we sort of scroll toward the secondary entrance to this site over the far end, there we go. A little further north, you can see that there's a notation there on the plan.
And I can't quite read it um from there, but I can read it on my copy. Um it says snow storage areas um if full to max will be removed offsite and the area is approximately 15,500 square f feet. So that's a sizable area for on on-site
snow storage. Uh and as we had indicated at the last meeting, we would certainly commit to a condition of approval that in the event that the snow storage exceeds what's available on site that we would relocate it from the site. Um, you had also requested that we
provide a utility plan specifically to address certain comments that were made by the Department of Public Works. Uh, we had not provided a utility plan. We had represented to you a few weeks ago uh that utilities are already in existence at the site. Um, but that we would provide a utility plan showing those existing utility connections. Uh,
and we have supplied that plan. It's difficult to see because as is often the case with utility plans, uh the underground utilities are sort of marked in a fainter gray color. Um but they are all marked on this uh on this plan. So that is a full uh standard utility plan.
Uh again, Hushi Afar can speak to that, but I understand it was quite challenging for him to complete it because again, these are existing utilities and we thought that we might easily find records on file with the town of those utilities and just simply placed them on the plan and instead he found himself on site digging around and
finding the utility connections so that he could mark them appropriately. But they are all now on the plan. Um and so the final item uh that had been requested and again this also speaks to uh existing conditions to a certain extent was that we provide a full landscape plan. Uh that took the longest
and I apologize. I know that you had asked us to sub make submitts to you the Thursday before your meeting. We made this submitt to you uh on Monday and I made a further submitt this morning. Uh but in any event, you can see it there on your screen. This is a full uh uh standard landscape plan. Um it's
colorized. It shows locations of proposed plantings. What it does not show is uh pre-existing plantings that were on the site to a certain extent before the hotel redevelopment. Um because layered with the additional plantings that have been proposed, there was just too much on the plan. Uh but
you can see this is a comprehensive planting plan. All the various species both of trees and of shrubs are shown on the right side in a font that you probably can't read. Uh but they're all listed there with great specificity. And then they are tallied at the bottom in terms of total numbers. Um uh most um
with maybe a few exceptions of these trees and shrubs are already have already been planted. Um and of course we would agree to warranty these in the event that any of them die, we replace them. Not just because that's what you want to see, but that's what guests of the hotel, guests of the restaurant,
guests of the or residents in the apartments will want to see as well. So um those are the four topics that we had left with a few weeks ago. I did see on your agenda that there were um links to a few additional documents and I know you routinely will read through those but I'll just sort of get ahead of it
briefly because I think it's a it's a short conversation. Uh we saw that you have a letter from uh the board of health simply indicating that uh for these apartments the applicant is expected to submit sewer calculations pay for any INI increase site anou and
connect to the town sewer system. the connection's already there of course from the prior use but we would pay the applicable fees and we would provide any INI fee as well so no objection there uh we saw that the Chumsford water district provided its departmental comments simply stating that it had no comment uh
we also saw that a letter a fairly routine letter was received from the fire prevention office within the fire department uh simply referencing not so much zoning issues but uh building and fire code issues so we've got to comply with NFPA standards uh sprinkler systems, for example, mixed
occupancy requirements. Because we have commercial cooking in connection with the the restaurant, we have to provide appropriate fire separation. So, we're aware of all of this. Um to the extent that you see fit to condition your approval, that's fine. Whether you quite frankly do or don't, we're required to comply with these code standards anyway.
Um and then I think the only other uh letter was one received uh again departmental comment from the police also stating that the department had no comments. Um, so with that again, I'll turn it back to the board, but if you do have specific questions about any of the four topics I've addressed, uh, happy to have either Hushi or or Ashuk address
those for you. >> Okay. Thank you. Evan, do you have anything to add? >> I do not. >> All right. Any questions, comments from the board? >> I have a question. Um, we have a um, sustainability checklist.
Um, I'm just wondering if you have seen that or have any um input and if you would be able to comply with any of the um sustainability efforts. >> I don't know if I forward that to them
because there was no new construction. >> Oh, I thought it was >> most is internal. I mean, some parts of it may be applicable, but the scope and scale of the project didn't seem to >> be didn't seem to be completely relevant.
>> Didn't we already send that to them during the daycare? >> I don't recall. I I don't recall it having been provided to us during the daycare review. It could have been. I'm generally, to answer the question, I'm generally aware of the principles because I did review this EIOD bylaw
before coming before you a few weeks ago. um we did not run through to to to determine whether we met any of the requirements in the checklist because again I also looked at the triggers and it didn't appear that we uh would be required to to fulfill those but to the extent that um the board would like us
to do so after the fact I suppose we could provide a brief narrative uh for the record just explaining the extent to which we comply but um that' >> be great >> sure happy to do that >> any other questions comments >> um okay so I always want to brought up the school bus uh issue Um, I it's not
so much I have an concern that the school bus stop is there. It's my concern of kids getting there safely. So, I get it's easier for the bus to come down, go around that roundabout, and get out of there. My suggestion uh might be you take that one parking spot that's there where there's the dotted line that runs down to it. You create
that as a non-parking area. It's a crosswalk and you also put in on that grass area a walkway that is going to be kept clear during the winter because you have that area as a snow remov uh snow storage space so that the kids can safely get from the building to the the
school bus stop. That's my concern was them getting to there safely. You put that now you fill that with snow now they're walking through the parking lot. I get that in large apartment complexes that becomes a problem, but there are ways of finding safe ways for children to get to a bus stop and that it's the easiest way of
doing that. That one parking spot becomes a crosswalk. You add a path in that little area so that they gets cleared during the winter when the snow is there and the kids are able to get to and from because around that area you have the drop off and you have the restaurant. So that's going to be one of
your busiest areas versus the hotel side >> through the chair. Could could you identify for me? You're referring to one parking spot and it being converted to a crosswalk. Which spot are you referring to? >> This one right here. >> The one that's >> above. >> It's got the dotted line that runs through it. >> You'd almost need it to go through that.
>> Yes. Okay. The the the the one furthest to the >> Yes. The very first one on that area. So, as I said, there's a the best way to describe it is the dotted line runs right through it and it runs right to the school bus stop. So, >> my my my client and and my clients in here are nodding their heads that that's
okay. We have no objection. We have more than enough parking on site as we've discussed before. >> That takes one spot away. It's not going to be a big issue. But then also, as I said, in that area, that grass area there, uh just adding a little walkway that's going to be cleared during the winter so that the students are able to
walk on there with that spot not being filled up with snow. >> That's fine. I would also recommend not putting snow storage there on that island as well. >> That's fine. Could I get just to add to the topic you're all talking about, can I get clarification the route that
children would be walking through this? Like where would they be coming from? Can you just point it out? >> Uh, sure. So, uh, in terms of where they would be crossing, >> yeah, like where are they? >> Which door do they come out? >> Yeah. The entry door. >> I don't know. That's why I'm asking.
>> Is it is it the back? You want you want to identify? >> Yeah. And then also as you're roing going their path, show me where the sidewalks are across where they'd be traveling. >> This is the area where we have the entrance the apartments. >> Yep. >> And they will be walking on this
sidewalk all the way through. >> So is there a clear path from the entrance to the sidewalk to get around the building, >> right? >> Yeah. >> There's I just can't. It's far away. So good. Follow the path. So they go up around there. They're going across. Can you move a little bit to the right because I can't. You're blocking my
view. That's okay. >> And then and then they're coming. >> You're going basically around this this building here. So then you're here. >> Okay. And where's the drop off door? >> That's the drop off. >> No, for the adult daycare.
>> Oh, that's that's here. >> Okay. >> Kind of walking through the crosswalk here. That's >> Yeah. I just was wanting to make sure that there was connection through >> the pickup drop off for the adults is here. Mhm. >> And the kids are here and they'd be
walking >> through. So like Yeah. So agreed like a path to get through for clear clear transfer. >> All the apartment entrance is in the back and there designated parking in the back as well. So >> is there is there walkways that way? >> Is there a walkway going this way? Yes.
Um there's walkway around pretty much all the way to the rest of the building. >> All the way around. That's probably the way they're going to go. Um, I mean, yeah, I don't know. I guess it's the same distance. Maybe a >> little more, a little less. I don't know.
>> All right. Thank you. And then I do have other questions, but >> I have another one. Does it have to be pizza? >> Dear, can you talk to it have to be pizza? >> What? >> I missed it. >> Any other pizza? >> I have other questions.
>> Yes, go ahead. Um, on the snow storage on the upper right, the 15,500 square ft. Where does that end? >> How did you calculate that? >> End end means uh I don't know what you mean by ends
but this this whole area is grass. So we this is all grass and it is the subject property but we have calculated only we can say this square. Okay. So, can you update that to show where the snow storage would be kept?
>> It says it just says it open to me. It doesn't show me where it ends, where it begins. If it you're going to use the whole space. >> So, so we So, so I mean, we can certainly identify it. I I think you can appreciate that when you've got plow drivers in the field, they're not going to know that there's an imaginary line that
>> Well, they should understand this statement of work in the O andM and they shouldn't be putting snow where they it shouldn't go. >> Okay. Is is there any objection to the snow not being in an exact square in that location? I mean, the entire area is grass, right? So, >> if you're intending to use the entire area for snow storage, abudding a
building isn't the best place to put it. >> Okay. >> We can show a dash line if that's what >> it's just for understanding. Appreciate it. >> Since you're up there, I have a couple questions. Evan, can you scroll to the uh
left? No, back to the snow storage. Uh left and down a bit. There are two areas. Um the island with the snow storage right there and then the island
with the snow storage up above it. It says retention area and detention area. Is that storm water retention and detention? Yeah, it has been for forever a retention. It's a low and it collects. >> Okay.
>> And retains or retains retains. >> Okay. Because snow storage is not typically allowed in those areas. >> Um since there is room well okay we can remove it. That's fine. Just
>> for storm water control. We usually ask that um those areas are uh snow storage prohibited >> with signs. >> That's fine. No, we can we can remove it. We were trying to >> make use for for for lighter lighter
storms, but we can remove it. That's not a problem. We do have a lot of room. >> So, in the onm it would be good to also have those areas marked as snow storage prohibited with signs as well. >> Okay.
We can do we can put the sign there. >> So it sounds like that's that would be an acceptable condition if you require that. We can make that adjustment. >> And then while we're here on this picture, the left hand side, that's the lawn area with all those dots in it.
>> In the landscaping plan, I noticed there's limited dots in that area because of new plantings. I just would like to understand the difference because it looks like there's a lot of plantings there in this one. But in the landscape plan, a bunch of them are missing in that spot.
>> This this is not a landscape plan. This is originally when we did this >> the landscape plan came up later because honestly the plants we started planting the the
the plants since September first week of September. So these were very on the site plan not the planting plan. >> Um this were very symbolic to show that there is green this is green area.
Uh otherwise uh so far we have planted 136 trees >> 6 to 12t tall >> and 926 shrubs
>> and over 36,000 square foot of grass >> which we have already cut once. >> So if you go out there you will see these shrubs and trees and and and green grass all over the side. And this is the chart for it with all the botic name for it.
>> Um, >> no. I'm just asking the question because I saw the difference and I was curious. >> Is that an area that they could put snow? >> Would we want snow there or not? If it's no, it's because it's wide open. If it should be no snow, >> I don't think it matters.
>> So, they could put it there if they wanted. Okay. That's all. I just wanted to know what was going there. So, thank you. >> All right. Um, at this point, typically we don't approve a project without a
final set of plans in front of us. Um, with these changes, um, I would like to continue to the next meeting. Um, I think it'll be a pretty brief, >> um, approval next meeting.
um with these changes. So if that's okay. >> When's your next meeting, Mr. Chairman? >> December 10th. >> Yep. >> Be a long one. Don't come till later. >> I think they should go first. >> Yeah, I would like to put you guys first um at the next meeting. >> I mean, can can some of the changes be
administrative? If everything's okay, I don't know. They're not substantive in terms of >> typically we also >> other boards department going >> I know other boards have typically done that. Um we have been burned a few times by doing that. Um one of the prior
projects is a really good example. Um so I typically don't like to to do that. >> I can submit this by Friday. >> It is. So, we will we'll get you guys first on the agenda so you can get out of here
pretty quickly. >> I know. So, at this point, I will take a motion. >> Indeed. >> I have a question. Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Can we see the cyclone, please? >> The parking layout, please.
um these parking spaces around the building and near the entrances and all that are very precious. >> So instead of losing one spot here, is
it okay if we propose a walkway through this island from here to here to the school bus stop shelter? >> Yeah, it is. We have a walkway here. You come, you cross, and then you they can step up on this on the walkway and come
here so we don't lose that one one spot. >> Just real quick question on that. What's in what's in front of those spaces to stop a car from hitting the kid? >> What was the question? >> What's in front of those parking spaces? Are they putting a curbing in there? >> Like a hard curbing like so they don't
go over >> this granite curve. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Everything. >> All right. >> I have another question. Mr. Ch. >> Yes. >> And this is personal.
>> If I have to come here December 10, I have to cancel all my plans, family plans. These uh modifications you asked for is very minor. We can submit it even tomorrow. virtual. You can call in
>> members of the board. What do you think? >> What's the question? Can we do it tonight? >> Yeah. And then >> conditions and then tomorrow all the plans will be emailed to planning board office, please. >> It's okay with me.
>> I'm okay with it. Make it simply a condition of receiving final plans. >> We're receiving and they're accepted though, right? I mean, she has big concerns with that crosswalk. What happens if they do it and it doesn't look acceptable? >> That That's typically what we've run
into, >> right? And that's concerning because it has kids involved, which is dangerous. So, >> I mean, >> could somebody else represent him? >> So, so I mean, if that's the condition, well, then we have to have a meaning to
for her. Yeah. I mean the crosswalk will be exactly like this one that we have proposed. It will be exactly the same thing here coming over and and there will be a walkway >> uh from here to the shelter. >> Are you sure it's wide enough?
>> What? >> Well, it has to be it has to be standard width. >> No, no, I understand. But do they have enough space in there to do it? Because right now they're estimating that they do, but they haven't done the work to guarantee that there's enough space at that corner of that space to still keep
it. So, it needs to be proven, I think. >> Well, it's wider than the parking space. And the parking space is wide enough for the >> the car 9 ft wide >> for an ADA sidewalk. >> 5T of walkway I think I think is probably double the space there.
>> Yeah, we have plenty of room. >> Thoughts? Well, >> I have no problem going forward. I mean we did it before and that but then the chair look you know looks and makes sure
that that the things that are conditioned are >> so what happens if they're not back >> Jose or somebody just >> if they're not then we would >> yes >> have them back >> the condition would fire and uh
>> I I think through you Mr. Chair, I think that you could structure a condition with the specificity that you're seeking. I mean, you could make it specific that the crosswalk has to be identical to the others that exist on site, that the walkway has to be ADA compliant. We have to do that anyway, but you can be very specific in the
condition. If we don't comply, it's like not complying with any other condition of approval. >> We're out of compliance with the decision and we would have to come back for a modification. >> Us, it's the law. >> That that too. I mean if these comments are really non technical I mean I'm
sorry technical I would totally understand but removing a couple of no storage putting a walkway putting a ramp and a walk to the sh >> do you guys trust my judgment? >> Yes. >> Absolutely. >> All right.
>> So let's condition them. Um All right. So the first condition would be the Let's go with snow storage first. Noting the snow storage in that large area. Removing the snow storage from the
school bus shelter island and the two detention areas. >> Retention. >> Detention retention areas. >> And you want sign >> no storage to those three areas. >> Signage.
>> Yep. Um, and then the crosswalk from the curved corner near the building to the curved corner of the island
with a walkway from that crosswalk to the school bus shelter. and then adding the snow storage plan and notes of snow storage and no snow storage to the O andM plan.
>> And do we need to designate that the walkway has to be kept clear on? >> Yeah. In the O andM plan, the walkway from the building to the school bus stop shelter shall be kept free and clear of
snow and debris. And then also the overage of snow in that upper area gets trucked up. >> Yep. >> And we will delineate the big area in the east. >> Yep. >> Sure. Just a limit.
>> And that if it exceeds what can be what can be kept on site that it will be taken away. >> Yes. And that's >> there's a note already. >> This is just a question. Um, so I know winter months are very slow for the hotel. >> Can you come up to the microphone,
please? Thank you. >> Sorry, just a question. So I know winter months are pretty slow for the hotel regardless. Um, regular parking spots if they're not in the immediate vicinity of the building can also be used for snow storage. Is that I don't know what the regulation on that is, right? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Cuz like November to May they're the hotel is not very busy anyway. So there's plenty of parking on site. You know, we >> actually favor that because then the storm water captures the melt. >> Um yeah, there's that's a business thing. It just kind of naturally
happens. Winter comes, occupancy is low, you don't need the parking, so you know, kind of works. >> I think that was even a suggestion at the last meeting was to use some of the spaces as snow storage. >> No, I I I I want to ask because then I don't want somebody to say, "Well, you don't have enough parking." I don't like
not trying to say that but it's just a natural business thing. That's all. >> Yeah. Have so much parking. >> Yeah. More parking than what's needed. >> Yeah. >> But we I mean we typically do that at other hotels that >> we designate, you know, four or five spots in the corner of the block, whatever, you know. So >> just make sure you don't block in your own person.
>> No. So we can do it on that on the far end. I know. >> I know. Okay. So we've done that before. >> All right. Are we comfortable with those conditions? >> Yep. All right. >> Okay. I move we grant a special permit
under 19511D6 for 10 Independence Drive with the cond conditions as listed. And are there any other uh sections that need a special permit on this one?
>> There's only one listed on the >> I believe that's it. >> There you got it. >> Second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? I >> unanimous passes. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much. We appreciate >> the move to
>> All right. Um any quick lesson on updates? We had our LI kickoff with Kleinfelter
and just kind of agreed to agree on what the deliverable is and to whom it's guided and I think I'll leave it at that for the moment. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I missed it. So, I'd love to to uh find out what happened. I had to
miss that one. >> Um All right. Real quick, just the other thing just for in general, um, North Chums tree lighting is December 6th. >> 4 to 6. >> Yeah, >> this Sunday. >> December 6th. >> Oh.
>> Uh, the only update I have is that all of the zoning articles passed a town meeting. Uh, for those of you who weren't there, >> uh, the next step is for the CBLT zone uh, to be applied to other areas. We'll probably start that work in January. Are
we looking targeting April? Are we targeting the fall? >> I think it'll depend on how quickly we can get things done. I'd like to target I'd like to target some zoning in the next town meeting. >> I mean, if it's just the CG light, I
mean, I think by doing those two, we kind of got a >> process down for the >> We've also got a lot of other zoning cleanup to do, too. Um, that I want to start looking at in January. And then Kelly Bey um has a new draft of the
lighting bylaw uh that he'd like to bring back to us after a lot of revision. Um so I'm going to review it with him and then we'll start all of that work in January as well. Um Evan, if you could also update us on
Jackson Road next meeting if there are any updates. >> Sure. Okay. after next meeting. >> I noticed from the minutes that we had talked about that a while ago and it was around this time that we were going to get an update. So,
>> all right. Any other quick updates? >> The ZBA Joel was there and sent out a great some Do you want to talk about the ZBA meeting on >> I I >> 243 Riverick? >> I did not. I >> It was Ruth. It was Ruth. >> Oh, Ruth. Oh, okay. So I can't speak to
>> um so I don't think you guys remember >> on Zoom and so you saw the email. >> No I he was at the meeting. Yeah. Oh >> was there? >> So and then I got I got an email part of the neighborhood that said Joel and Ruth. So I just assumed it was Joel and it was like oh that's a great night
little update. Um if you guys know the 243 Riverneck Road um was putting had put in an application for 40B but we had hit our limit and they were denied. So they came in front of the ZBA asking for it again
which was kind of puzzling. >> They were already they were past their time anyway too. >> Yeah. >> Yes. there there was a lapse in their >> the reason is is because at the first denial
um they're appealing that but then there were some temporary permits temporary occupancy permits that were issued and their position is that those don't count against the um
against the total numbers >> when they filed in September Yeah. So, they're going back again under the the context that those temporary uh occupancy permits didn't count.
>> Anyways, they denied it again. >> Who's who's the the state? >> The ZBA. >> ZBA. Oh, >> the appeal. Well, no. Well, they denied it. No, they moved it to They denied it and then moved the meeting. They actually they open well they declared safe harbor and then they
opened the hearing and they continued it to January February something. Yeah, Evan was there actually at the ZBA meeting >> made a guest appearance. So >> yeah, that was interesting. And then the other meeting that I thought was really
interesting was um the 101 Milro where half the board had to walk out. Why was that Evan? And we were left with like three people on there. I couldn't figure that out. One was uh illegal a butter and two recused themselves for personal reasons.
>> Oh, okay. That was weird. >> Doesn't happen often. >> Do they have to state it's conflict of interest like that or they just walk out? >> They can just recuse themselves. They don't have to give a reason. >> So the one um 01 Milro, this is a one
that the town owned that we sold. We bought We sold Harvey um bought it. This is the one next to the soccer field on Mil Road. >> Okay. Any other >> It got improved. >> It's getting late. >> Well, that wasn't really interesting. I was trying. >> All right. How about you tell us?
>> You're usually rushing me. >> Okay. Fine. All right. >> You can tell us about it next time. How's that? >> Okay. >> There was a board of health meeting, but I'll give a there's there is something that I wanted to bring up, but I'll bring it up next time because it'll take longer. Any gap analysis update?
>> November. >> Staff is meeting to review the first draft November 19th. >> Tuesday. >> Okay. Um, all right. We do have meeting minutes. >> I just want to ask Joel, when is the health when is the health meeting?
Health board meeting. >> When when is it >> when do they when does it occur? >> They typically meet on the first Monday or Tuesday depending of the month at >> it's on it's online in calendar. Yeah, but it's not you can't >> It's on the calendar, but it's not stream. You can't record it.
>> Well, you want to go to it. It's on the currently the next meeting is set for December 2nd. >> It's a It's a stealth meeting, >> but monitor the website because sometimes it changes. >> Okay. No, I want to go. I have an issue. >> Go ahead. >> All right. Anything else?
>> All right. Meeting minutes. Uh September 10th. >> Move to approve the meetings minutes of September 10th. Motion by Mike, >> second. >> Second by Deerra. All in favor? >> I I
>> uh September 24th minutes >> to approve the uh meeting minutes of September 24th. >> Just have uh corrections on the manage growth. Um I can send these to Becky, but it's just last names, which it's probably the AI program that helps with this. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, I'll just give the names. It's the
last names are Arowway, Tivera, >> Rager, and Spawn. I'll just send her spelling correction. Other than that, I have no issues. >> So, motion from Mike with those corrections. >> Corrections. >> Second. >> Um, second. Who said that? >> I didn't need it. >> Anita.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> The last one. Um, I had Becky update because Deardra was both present and absent at that meeting. >> She disappeared that way. >> What happened?
>> Huh? want to defer that or do >> No, no, no. She corrected it and uh posted it. >> Okay. >> Um so, Dearra, you were considered absent for that meeting since you were only on for like two minutes >> and then Yeah, I my my Zoom connection
or whatever wasn't working. One thing wasn't work. My Zoom wasn't working. So, I w I listened to it while I was driving >> on television. [Music] So we couldn't count you as Yeah.
>> So um so you can't vote for this one. >> Uh so motion >> to approve the minutes of uh October 8th. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Marcy. All in favor? >> Abstain. I didn't read them. >> Oh,
>> sorry. I got through the first two but not that one. >> Okay. >> So I just abstained. >> All right. So Deedra and Anita abstained on those that vote. Everyone else voted in favor. I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Motion. All in favor? >> I.
>> Good night everyone.