talking all meetings are televised live and available on Demand by chelor tele media public input public input shall be limited to statements from the public related to any issues with the jurisdiction of the chelwood zoning board of appeals that are not currently
the subject of a pending public hearing before the zoning board of appeals public comment on any pending public hearings shall only be heard during such public hearings and may may be limited to three minutes time our first first uh on the agenda is
an administrative review seven Herbert Road Scott uh Copic just going to talk a little you nailed it thank you oh good I worry about that thanks for having me I appreciate it um looking to do a project at the house I'm Scott Copic I've been
in chumford for for 14 years have two kids in the schools seventh grader and a freshman in high school uh volunteered over a thousand hours coaching kids throughout the the youth programs here in chumford uh been having a hard time the last few Winters with the kids going to the mall
or watching YouTube or not being able to get together with their friends and there's not a lot of spaces in chumford for them to get together and uh so I've uh I've started to look at the possibility of putting a gym off the back of my house which has brought me to
some of the building codes that I wasn't familiar with so I'd like to put in a a 35x 40 gym on the back of the house I think that the uh the things I'm going to run into is that it's going to put my uh my lot over the coverage ratio
over the the 15% I think it is yeah that's correct I think it would probably end up being at 17 or 18 and maybe the the F which I think I'm going to be around the 20 but might be between 20 21 22 somewhere in that ratio
I did a little math and came up a little higher I don't know if Jose has looked at that yet either so I I I came to Jose and uh and uh and I appreciate it we had a conversation because I wasn't sure how it would be so I came in to see him and we went over some of the the numbers I think that some of the numbers as far as
um square footage that you have here and what's actually in the house I think the square footage numbers are a little high um but that's why you know the numbers will be a little fluid right okay um so so I don't think that we're going to we're not going to be at 25 on the F but
might we be at 21 or 22 might be right I I think that that's a possibility um Jose suggested that I come here to to have kind of an informal meeting which I appreciate um I've enlisted an architect and I've talked to some Builders uh to to see what this would look like but
before I got in too deep financially I thought maybe we would come here to see if you know I could maybe get this uh maybe just get a feel for what that's like I don't know if these uh these policies are have any flexibility on them at all uh or maybe there is some
flexibility I don't know if it more depends on how my neighbors feel about it which would be in my favor but but I thought that maybe I would come and and ask you folks what you thought about it uh or or what my chances would be before
I you know spent $10,000 before I came to see you does that make sense oh absolutely yeah it is not uh nothing is cheap anymore which is UN no it's not for sure so look looking at you lot on your
proposed uh plan there you have the setbacks required which is important so it would be just the F and the uh lot coverage um we can grant
um be a special permit correct we can grant a special permit to do both these these things to to pass both um I I would suggest that if uh you know we're going to say you you can I can't do it we really need to know a number want to
engage uh a surveyor and and determine exactly where you're going to put it and and where it's going to be I mean I think you've got to go in the right way personally that you'd have the 40 feet back and the 35 wide to take up the least space
possible but uh you know with the the floor area the cover it's not going to change unless you shrink it it's going to be the number is going to be the number yeah I don't know that I'd see any uh real opposition to it on the board I don't so it's something that could be possible that's correct that's
correct okay you wouldn't uh you know without without knowing real numbers and what exactly your your ratios are right it's hard to to say it'd be no you know it' be a shuing but it it seems to me like it would probably work okay I I
really again I really appreciate the time appreciate your time and Becky I appreciate you you getting me here I just has I'm thinking the best thing about this is that not living space therefore you don't have to do anything with the sewer and that's a monster thing no sewer there's no Plumbing involved we're not adding any bedrooms
we're not adding any bathrooms it's a big open space for the kids to play and selfishly for me and my friends cuz I you know and you absolutely right foot in the belt yeah that's right who's going to play there so it would be of
course my kids their friends their teams myself friends parents how are you going to handle the parking so if you there is a a picture of the front of the house we have enough for six cars uh to be in the driveway right
now right correct um I I would guess that most of the time kids would be getting dropped off or would be coming over uh together I don't I don't know that there would be you know if they had 10 kids there I don't know that there would be 10 vehicles um the the the
neighborhood that we live in I think could could accommodate it but we wouldn't want that happening on a on a regular basis and certainly you can see the driveway there goes three wide and two deep so we could get six cars in the driveway for sure but it's good question for sure
yeah and there's plenty of street parking we're back in the back where there's no there's very little traffic back in I think it's called Farms one if I'm correct there's no there's no you know we don't regulate that at all I mean someone wants to have a party in
their home they can have as many people as they want to go to it and you're not on a double yellow no but you're right the point is to have Gatherings to have kids there that can can be active as opposed to being on their headphones in
front of their computer screens for sure and it is no living space there's no intent or purpose in the no intent to have any living space um in the in the back there is a uh a level where the roof would come over top of it uh it's
about 10 ft out and so I did want to have a lock that would be right above that space that's already there it's two existing bedrooms which won't really be bedrooms anymore so I'm probably losing two bedrooms to do the project um and I would like to have a loft in there but it's not a living space it wouldn't be
attached to a bathroom um so I'm not plan on having any living space does that is that a fair answer yeah good question I think I think that you know the the architect had suggested hey when you do this maybe we could do
it so that somebody down the road when you're reselling it might be able to configure it and put bedrooms in here which I said is not a concern for me it's not this is not an investment to uh increase the value of the property my guess is that if I went to sell it I'm not getting as much out of it as I'm
putting into it right to do this project not at these prices for certain yes do you see any hiccups with this Jose as far as I personally Mr sh I personally is for his personal use and his family
um I I just don't see any concern other than a little bit of far and luck coverage but yeah we'd have to have two special permits for that but uh otherwise you don't see any other I don't either and we're not limited about
how much we can what the the amount of the percentage we can allow over in the special permit rate yeah no there that's a great question do you have yeah no I don't think so I think we could uh question okay but so there's no limitation in the far okay can I ask you another question 10 years ago we did an
addition put this on top of a Campanelli Ranch uh and we had a I don't know if it's a variant or a special permit for the Farmers porch for the setback because that happened 10 years ago does that is there any consideration does that does that change the way that
you would feel about granting another special permit if it's a variance I don't know what it is I think it would actually uh be in your favor a little because now you're a pre-existing non-conforming is that correct would be pre-existing non-conforming Town Council count of
pine on the matter I think the last one we had similar to this one the the other applicant uh was asked to apply for a modification of that special permit or variance it was it was a I think it was a modification on the variance because
variance is the one that sticks and anything for after that how because the variance is the standing and follows the the deed and we can't that is like final follows the deed correct this proposal meets all the setbacks so but if she's saying he got a previous variance for
the farmer's porch yeah I think we have to look don't we have to look at what that variance limitate for the completely separate said special permit well this is a special permit yeah it depend I mean it depends on what the variance was for um but was it a variance or a special permit I thought he doesn't he said he doesn't up I've
just learned some of this terminology may have been a um it may have been I'll look it up have been either because the the farmer's porch encroaches by a few feet on the um front setback so it may have been a 20% reduction in the front set back I'll I'll look it up it
it appears that it's 29 feet uh now but that I really don't this is not going to you know it's not even stamped so it was in the front setback and he's looking to expand in the back then I don't think it really matters now that you don't get a uh pre-existing noncon forming coverage
regardless of where the variance is because it wouldn't be increasing the non-conformity at all right because the addition is going to comply with all the setbacks so it's I think special reir still is doable the lot is currently non-conforming on size but the house
itself so right now it's not in compliance with the F no I'm just saying the lot is uh 0.52 acres in terms of of non-conformity it's a
it's, so so it is a pre-existing pring still do a special permit then to expand it and and that and that is when you can grant a special permit for the far for the F and the percentage lot coverage is based on a non-conforming lot size because it's it's not a full
acre M yeah okay that helps you out I I I thought that was thank you though yeah it streamlines it a little okay any further thoughts or uh so I think that uh I'd imagine you'd be in good shape to come before us with this
proposal thank you very much for the time Jose and Becky thank you for getting me in here appreciate it thank you good night good luck our next uh hearing is a new public hearing four pallet Drive uh by four pallet Drive LLC they're requesting a
special permit under Section 195 A2 flood plane district for a residential parking lot expansion to the existing multif Family Residence the site is locked located in the RM multif family zoning district and identified as
Assessor's ID map 8 block 10 L 10 good evening all right good evening Casey Ferrer with Howard Stein Hudson I'm joined tonight by Kathy Romberg of for payot LLC as well as Matthew Baker I'm an engineer with me a colleague of
mine um so as you mentioned we are here tonight for a permit for work within the flood plane District um we did receive Conservation Commission approval order of conditions and a planning board decision uh last week Tuesday and Wednesday at those meetings um so we are
here now to kind of finalize and get a um permit for the flood plane District uh a brief kind of history on where this comes from so so this this building was constructed in the early 1960s 1961 I believe um and historically has used the
cuac of pet for its parking uh they've parked in different configurations over the years but they've never had on-site parking except for a few parking spaces that were right off the culdesac in basically the front yard of the building um I believe it was 2023 there was a
some sort of response uh fire police uh where they could not turn around within the cesac due to the vehicle's parking there um and then they convened uh DPW fire department and uh sent a letter to the to the applicant stating that uh
they must stop parking uh within within the cesac uh they Sub sub subsequently had a meeting with DPW um and the fire department uh where DPW told them that they must find a way to have parking
adequate for their building building on their property and get it off of the culdesac um and in the meantime DPW would work with them to continue parking safely in the cesac until such time that they could get a parking lot or um Supply parking on their property um at
which time the applicant contracted with us and we have put forth several designs at this point um so we started our first planning board hearing we submitted for in September um through sep member October no November we were battling
trying to convince the boards that this was a requirement of the town the town was asking us to make sure that this happened um in early December we convened a joint meeting between the planning board the Conservation Commission and town officials DPW fire
um to kind of iron out the questions that planning board conservation had as to why the town is forcing us to do this at this time when it's you know historic Le been parked since the 1960s in the culdesac um and at that time we started making significant progress into
finalizing a layout um that both the Conservation Commission and the planning board felt would be adequate for parking the building but also for protecting Green Space the wetlands that are at the rear um and as well as uh keeping Green
Space on the property for children to play at without basically taking an entire backyard and making it pavement um with a few minor modifications since that December meeting the plan that you have before you is has been finalized
and determined this is really what planning board and Conservation Commission wanted us to move forward with um and it's it's as much of a reduction um in impervious in drainage as we possibly could and still meet all the storm water standards and all the
conservation commission requirements and satisfi planning board um so I'll go through the plan with you just just briefly are you control can you just go to the layout plan it'll be down just one yep so right here so let me know if you want me to
zoom in so what we have here we're maintaining the parking spaces that are in front of the building now sorry it keeps it keeps maintaining the parking spaces that we have in front of the building now um expanding the access drive that currently goes around
the building uh and that's to adequately have the fire truck be able to get to the back of the building as right now I believe that accessway is about 14 ft wide which fire department determined was not adequate there was a pinch point of 18 ft but the fire department was okay with that they can get their truck
through and back uh and then once you get to the rear there are seven parking spaces proposed um and what we were what we were balancing was it is still a public RightWay there is still an allowable parallel parking
along the side of the street it's not posted as no parking so what we determined was how much can we safely put in the cue saac without disturbing fire access so we worked with the fire department to lay out potentially where cars could park without disturbing that
fire access so what we determined was there were five parking spaces within the culdesac that we can maintain we're not going to stripe them because DPW won't let us but there is the ability to fit five cars within the Colac so what we had to make up for to get to a total of 16 which is what the
building needs we have seven in the rear five in the culdesac so we maintained four out front that we were originally not going to maintain but we determined to maintain now just to minimize what we had to put at the rear um
so another catch to this is that there's an existing paved parking lot at the rear of our site this is the Castor building or the old Castor building and Castor
had paved over our property line a significant about 5,000 ft of pavement to help their trucks turn around the building so our give to the Conservation Commission and how we were um allowed to minimize the drainage
and minimize the impacts of putting in the drainage was we decided we were going to remove all that pavement that is on our property to remove the perious that goes towards the Wetland so that allowed them to be okay with the drainage that we're putting in to minimize the impact that this project
has not only to the conservation resources but also the bordering land subject to flooding which is what we are here before you a permit um overall there is a alteration of about 19,000 square feet
of bordering land subject to flooding um and that is from elevations 99 up to 103 um as required and this has been reviewed by DPW um you do have a review letter from DPW in there with each of the performance standards um the one that is
really applicable to this project is um flood plane storage so one of the performance criteria is that we're not allowed to alter the the bordering land subject to flooding that would result in increased flooding Downstream of the property right so what we've proved and
we've given as a uh exhibit plan and it's within the supplemental data report that you have received is a foot by foot analysis of flood storage um and in each foot by foot that that we are altering within the the flood plane we are
increasing the flood storage on our site which will ultimately reduce flooding Downstream of the site so DPW has reviewed this and uh verified those calculations um so we we meet that performance criteria for the
project um I believe that is a overview of the project and really what we're doing in the flood plane um open to answering any questions that you might have that was very thorough thank you does anyone have any questions at this
time I can read the letters I'd like to hear what DPW has to say how many cars were parking in the CUO or are parking in the culdesac right now 16 total which is what we um set as our goal for for parking for this
project so all 16 were parking in the culdesac and none were parking in the spaces in front of the building sorry so I guess 12 would be parking in the culdesac with four at the spaces at the front of the building yes okay and now you're going to have four in front how many in back seven of seven seven and
then five still in the culde SEC correct but parked in a manner so that the the fired truck can still adequately swing and not be interrupted in its movements is there any opportunity for the building to need more than 16 parking spaces due
to growth or hiring or no so there won't be any more growth in the building we're not planning on expanding the building there's no construction for the physical building proposed um there is more street parking that would be available if we went down pet and actually lined
the sides of palot what we were trying to do was maintain just impacts of the exterior of the culdesac itself where it opens up so we wouldn't be narrowing the street um but if there was say somebody through a birthday party or something there is still plenty of parking on
payad itself we're just not going to isolate that for use of this okay so there's not a huge likelihood that the building will need 22 parking spaces for the majority of 20125 because of projects or no so it's fully it's fully
occupied now and that's what they've been using and after this project there's going to be no opportunity for expansion of the building without serious improvements outside as well so that would have to be a whole another conversation
okay what I think you said that you're not going to be allowed to put any signage or Mark the spaces in the cisac so how do you know that the few cars that are going to be allowed to park there don't park in the complete
wrong place to allow fire trucks to turn so what we are doing and what we agreed with the fire department is we are striping off the no parking Spa areas where they need access to either get to the facility or be able to turn around so we're basically telling them exactly
where they cannot park and what would interrupt the the firetruck turning okay so you're doing it reverse right okay further questions seeting then I'll read the letters Mr chair just so you know the
one you'll be reading today from the fire department fire prevention office is actually a new letter that they just submitted this afternoon so it's slightly different than the one that was posted on the agenda I but this is the latest and greatest okay dear members of
the board regarding the plans for site improvements at four pallet drive this office finds the following apparatus turning and backing plans have been submitted and are adequate for the Ingress and egress to the site no parking shall be allowed within fire apparatus access backing or turning
areas the driveway into the parking area shall have no parking marking of turnarounds and fire access for no parking shall be depicted and enforced on site snow storage must not hinder to block fire hydrants or fire access roads or turnarounds snow storage plans shall
be incorporated into the site plans for review by this office plans for snow removal site due to the size constraints should also be addressed in the plans this offic as that these conditions be met and incorporated into decision for the above project and that this letter
be made part of the public record sincerely Josh Abbott Captain fire prevention office Chums did we look at the snow is that uh so that was actually a pretty significant part of the conversation
with Conservation Commission um because there is Wetlands on both I guess what you would say is the bottom of the page there but also the far right side of the page a lot of that backyard is within um buffer zones of those Wetlands which we're not allowed to sow store snow in
um so what we've depicted on the layout and materials plans that you have in front of you is snow storage areas that are available that are outside of those buffer zones um but what we've also provided is a plan within the operation of maintenance plan that says everywhere
where snow is not allowed to be stored so everywhere where uh snow is not allowed to be stored is basically a guideline for the regulations and what we've approved through Conservation Commission and we are open to allowing the storage of snow in almost every other location but we also have a note
that says once this the available snow storage on site has been met or exceeded snow must be removed in a manner uh legal and um brought to an approved snow dumping location okay good good here it is
our next letter is from the town engineer um that one's just police no concerns you had it we go from Anthony Ruchi Town engineer chest for departmental review and
comments for pallet Drive board of appeals public hearing March 6 2025 the engineering department has performed a review of four pallet Drive supplemental data report uh revision 20252 one1 submitted for the applicant
the following comments of the submission were reviewed for appropriateness of method and accuracy as well as for compliance with the town of cheler Article 15 flood plane District subsection
19581 floodway regulations a on encroachments including Phill new construction substantial improvements to existing structures and other development prohibited unless there certification by a registered professional engineer is provided by the applicant demonstrating that such
encroachment shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the 100-year uh flood the response Matthew Baker PE and KD Enright PE of Howard Stein Hudson
have signed a certified statement on the cover letter flood plane calculations have been provided showing there's no loss and flood storage for the property on a foot to- foot basis these calculations have been reviewed and verified B any encroachment meeting the
above standard shall comply with the flood plan requirements of the State Building Code response DPW does not review the State Building Code C if a property owner questions the location of a flood plane or floodway District the owner May engage at the
owner's own cost a registered license surveyor with the approval of the Town engineer to determine if the landing question is within the flood plane or floodway District the landowner shall be responsible for the cost of this determination board of
appeals in consultation with the town engineer shall decide whether or not to accept the surveyor's determination response the property owner has not reached out to the town engineer questioning the location of the flood plan no response
needed D no new building or portion thereof located with the flood plane District shall be allowed to connect to the m Municipal Wastewater system or to a private Wastewater system that discharges to the municipal Wastewater system this review is not for a new
building or portion of a new building e the portion of any lot within the area delineated in Remer of the lot is situated response no response needed that's a letter from the
engineer fire department and we have one from the police department uh saying they have no concerns that is the end of my letters at this time any further questions going to open this up for public comment anyone has questions or
concerns now would be the time to address them Michelle kuto St weather 19 dunshire Drive we're a Butters to the um project and we're also downhill from the project and so we um as I'm sure all of you are aware dunshire drive has a lot
of flooding issues so we've been working with them they've actually been eventually we came up with the pretty good compromise and I'm grateful for that um mostly I just want to make sure that they're held to the fencing the Landscaping all of the things that are
supposed to the fencing just good neighbor and um we have at least one neighbor who is very very close and has a lot of issues with that um but also the landscaping and it's not like oh you know I I don't want them to plant peonies I want them to PL make sure that
they do plant the trees the shrubs the ferns all of those things because that's wet land U mitigation and that has been a huge concern for us because well we're in a flood plane so um but I do did need to come up and say something because
that is a very big concern for my neighborhood um and so I appreciate your time thank you thank you yeah so to follow up you you have a planting list from conservation so both conservation and planting board required replacement plantings for the
disturbances that we have for the project but also I didn't mentioned this before but that Castor parking lot that we're removing we're actually reestablishing that as Wetland buffer zone so we're going to plant it with wild wild flower um some trees some
shrubs or some ferns rather um so all of that is within the planning board approvals that we have and their decisions require that we do that we won't get our as builts we won't get anything done without actually following through with that um and then I believe it's also in their conditions that those
plantings must survive for x amount of growing Seasons so we are required to make sure that they're planted but further than that we're required to make sure that they survive did they stipulate the maturity of the plantings uh there it's on our plans um within the Landscaping plan at what size they're
supposed to be planted so by um having those in the approved plans that's the sizes that we'll have to plant them at to get our as build done Jose do you check that are you the one who inspects the plantings or who
does no so conservation conservation at the conservation so both conservation and planning board will be required to sign off once this is done and they'll both have site inspections to ensure that they have been planted and that they have been uh at least alive at that
point in time when they do their inspections they'll definitely come back every year to measure theow of those plants I'm sure well I'm sure a neighbor's going to report the trees are dead and it's been 6 months sounds like people are paying
attention to it so that's good I used to work in that building over there and I know that area yeah it's a nice area I like it it also floods very [Laughter] much a lot of water a lot I I live I worked in that building next to C stones
okay uh seeing no further comments can I get a motion to close the public hearing Danny a second second Jamie sure all in favor give to you got there first that's
quick quick let the record show Peter was quick all right all in favor oh are we zooming no just closing public seeing
none I'm glad we're not zooming you did not like that so I I think we can take this up it seems like the uh eyes have been dotted and the tees have been crossed pretty carefully it's obviously a very tight site and they've they've done quite a
bit of work to fit all this in I think as well as working with the town and the fire department and the D DPW so I don't know what else uh we could ask of the applicant building already exists of
course done you hey I'll make a motion to approve uh for pet Drive um for the special permit under Section 195 d82 flood plane district for residential parking lot expansion in consideration
with all the letters written in to on our me our meeting I'll second second by Jamie quicker than Peter this time all in favor I opposed seeing none thank you very much
thank you have a great night our next hearing is 8 Columbia Street and 10 minor Avenue Robin mot is requesting a variance to swap land between two non-conforming lots making 10 minor Avenue non-conforming due to a
reduction in the lot area and an additional variance for a reduced rear setback for the newly created lot at 10 minor Avenue these properties are located in the residential RB zoning District good evening good evening my
name is Greg Hina 6 Central Square in chelsford for the applicant Robin mot I have some photograph uh actually a print out and I think Becky can put up a little sketch I put together it might be easier to look at this if I'm going to photographs in a moment so I'll just
distribute these through the board thank you thank thank you we can share and the board may remember we spent some time I think last month uh
understanding what the the problem and the plan was for this I was hoping the sketch would clarify um and again Robin bot uh resides at 8 Columbia Street which is the yellow lot shown on the top of that um sketch before you and she's
lived there for 40 years and on the blue parcel adjacent to it that's her parents home at 10 minor AV and uh her parents have both passed mostly recently her father Howard Ryan died last year and Robin is the personal representative of her dad's estate and
we're not proposing any new structure in either property we're not proposing any change of use we only wish to relocate the property line which divides the two adjacent properties so that the garage currently located on the blue minor AV
lot can become part of the 8 Columbia Street Lot through which it has always been accessed um both lots are currently undersized 40,000 is required in this zoning district and as you can see just from this sketch uh nearly all the Lots
in the area are undersized and in fact these two lots are both larger than almost all of the neighboring lots and uh last time we were here um a question was raised as to whether or not we could even get a variance for
the uh reduction in size of an existing a pre-existing uh undersized lot and Town Council has issued an opinion that we can ask for a variance on that but of course we'd have to meet the criteria for a variance
and the variance obviously would require us to show that owing to the soil shape or topography literal uh enforcement would involve a substantial hardship and that relief can be granted without any substantial detriment to the public good and the Topography of these two
lots and let me just say at the outset this garage on the blue lot has always been accessed over the yellow lot which is a um Columbia and with the new location of the garage it will be on the lot which through which it has always
had access and the Topography of the lot if we can look to I know I submitted some photographs uh this is looking from the blue lot I'm sorry towards the blue lot from the
back of 8 Columbia the yellow lot and you can see there's this incline it's a touch screen you can't touch it oh did I touch that i'm Sor you to go
God as you can see this is looking at the garage where the doors are and it's looking from the yellow and as you can see there's a narrow area which a car would have difficulty getting down there's just foot traffic on there and the snow and it is a relatively steep incline if we can look
at the next photo this is further back from the last photo you saw over here is that area with this the incline going up to the um minor AV lot and you can see the garage which is quite large faces the Columbia Street lot and it's always been used
and access through the Columbia Street Lot we're just trying to make that lot that garage on the Columbia Street lot I believe have one more photograph you know when the garage was built was it built at the same time as the when was the garage built Robin do
we know exactly her father built it um probably back in probably no it's been there since the pool's been there probably back in the 70s oh yeah okay so this is looking from minor a the house towards 8 Columbia AV
and you can see this is the rear of the garage it's low to the ground there's actually a a border between the minor a blue lot and the uh garage itself which again suggests that the garage is part
of the Columbia Street lot that's always been the way it's since it was constructed that it's appeared and because of that deep incline the topography the garage is of little utility to 10 minor a because you really can't drive down to get to it and in fact there's a fence obstructing if
you come down from 10 minor towards the garage you just can't you know use it it was always accessed through Columbia Street the yellow lot and that was fine but the problem is now that it's not family owning both Lots um it's not the kind of thing I think the owner of the yellow lot would want you know people
driving through their a lot to get to a garage which faces their own lot um the substantial hardship would involve you'd have to move that Barn which is about 30 by 45 I believe or 50 feet it's quite a large structure for a barn or
garage and that would be a substantial hardship moving it away from the um the uh inclined area and making it closer so that you could perhaps keep the Lots the same size and if you were try to reconfigure the Lots you'd have a
very odd-shaped lot in order to keep the Lots the same size so essentially what you know what's required is um we're going to have to if if the board sees fit to Grant the variance um increase the size of the L lot but also decrease the size of the blue lot but again I
would stress there's no change whatsoever there's no detriment to the public good everything's going to be the same it's just a question of moving a lot line it's that simple and I hope that that sketch with the colors made a little easier to understand I know the last plan we looked at um you know had a
lot of detail on it but basically all we're doing is relocating a lot line and how far are you relocating that from the from where it is presently to 30t beyond the garage um if I could look at the plan I
can get a distance for you oh that's the file plan looks to be about uh 150 ft right right this is what we had the conversation about before and again I think the uh the
larger lot which will become smaller is now presently about three times the size of any lot in the neighborhood it'll now be twice the size if it if this is approved so you're going to go from a lot that's three times larger than anything in the neighborhood or the adjacent Lots down to twice the size of
the uh adjacent Lots and then of course the uh Columbia Street Lot will become larger sure but the reason we're asking for the variance is because of section 19510 which um does not allow for increasing the uh
non-conformity of an undersized lot unless of course a variance um is granted and that's why we're asking for this do you know how many square feet would be exchanging yes the um presently 8 Columbia
Street is 19,166 ft and with the expansion it would be up to 35,1 122 ft still not enough to get it up to the 40 but it would be you know closer conversely minor uh would go from 30,000
to uh just under 15,000 but I would add they would still both be larger than any other lot adjacent to it in the neighborhood they certainly appear to be much smaller but I don't see any uh dimensions on those lots well I think the uh old plan each
of the Lots on the top there Mr chairman would be one lot on which houses are located and as you can see the one that on this plan is outlined in green is actually constitutes almost four of those existing small Lots right right so it's
not creating the smallest lot even in the immediate vicinity so you'd be creating a lot that is smaller but it's still twice the size of V Json Lots but but again there's no no new use no changes in the use
um nothing's going to change to the you know to the eye of any observer in the neighborhood I that takes us to the question of uh what the hardship would be um to Grant the the variance is it theography in the shape of the lot it's
it's a reasonable argument shape of the lot is a rectangle no I mean as far as getting phography I'm in but as far as getting back down to it I mean it's obviously something that's been this way for a very long time the the idea of saying that garage
could go with minor a it it doesn't sound very practical to do it doesn't sound like it would be very effective to just say leave it as possession of Miner from a function standpoint I mean it's not impossible but you have
something like 23 feet on the left hand side and and the right hand side actually it' be a bit of a challenge to to utilize that but but if you bought Miner and had this Garage on your
property like you would change the door to the other side or something right you wouldn't just be like oh well it's hard to use I'm never going to well I think with the topography that would be tough for a garage yeah I don't think you well if you look at the picture I can if you can go back to that third picture um cuz there's no way to see there's no way to
see the view of the garage from like you didn't take I don't see a picture yeah we did this is the view from minor so in other words to Mr Mendes's question if you were to purchase minor you're looking down minor down the hill and you know it's only you
about 4T High perhaps at the edge and there's actually this natural boundary it's always been to the eye appearing to be part of Columbia if we can look at the other pictures I would show from Colombia I think it was the second photo Snow's on the ground question yes
if and that's looking up from Colombia so the door space Columbia If This Were approved would the garage then be considered eligible by right for natu it's eligible either way right well
it can't be accessed it could be it could be eligible on minor and it could be eligible on Colombia yep but it can't be accessed from um Main Road area where the car
comes in now to that house yeah the car parking isn't a requirement of an Adu right right only access through building code for entrance as long as they don't cut make a new cut into the curb they they
can't make a new cut as long as it's a certain distance as well from a u Transportation Route right this would be this would be perfectly legal by way I think uh just to reference the one before the fire department was
comfortable with an 18t wide roadway uh it appears they have 23 ft on either side of this garage so that it's feasible that a car could get there from the side but just not very practical I wouldn't want to drive a car down the side from Miner I mean I when I
went out there I think that would be something would need to be you know yeah it it severely limits access from Min and all that I mean the parking for an Adu doesn't need to be next to the Adu there's no requirement it's got to be on site or or public parking has to be
available but it could be you know you could hoof it back there Bas if they're selling a previous owner's house that makes the Adu eligible to be where the existing living person is and
so they have they may want to develop it as a rental they don't have to have a relative there they can just rent it out assuming they had they would have a vested interest to have it on their property as opposed to the other property well right now there's no sewage serving that garage
anyway but that's a different point but it is a point but not not to affect our decision I guess my going back to just looking at the hardship right so yes is it not optimal to drive down the side
because of the narrowness and slight grade is is it doable with a slight modification well it edges off I mean if I can 23 is narrow but it's I mean it's not impossible I don't know if you out there but I mean it's relatively narrow
coming down there right I mean it tells us right here it's 20 and it drops off to that side pretty steep so it would be a hairy drive going down too I mean the thing with the variance right it it's like I don't know
just well we really don't have any other option I mean it it's because of the if you can only get a 20% reduction in the dimensional requirements that's not going to help us we'd have to create a lot you know wrapping around the garage you know to try and make an even swap
um I I think in this case with the do is facing this side and it's always accessed over to try to reconstruct it so you have access coming down I I think would be a hardship created by the
topography I mean I mean is current can we consider current use of reason for the the only problem I have with the topography thing is the existing there's no existing conditions planed showing me the topography so I can see that it may
look difficult I but I can't tell based on the plan because there's no grades yeah we didn't present a grade if you could go to the uh Becky to the first pict looks like there's about a foot and a half of snow we had a lot of snow this season so yeah you can see that that's almost
the looks it looks like there's a foot plus of snow so but there's a foot on the bottom there's a foot on the top yeah I think that snow rising over the siding is probably where the snow is you know the siding wouldn't go under the
grade no for sure the bottom is probably I I that is a topography problem to access that garage from Miner to make it part of Miner than to not be part of Miner seems
it was built to be part of columia it was apparently yeah I mean it's accessed always through colia the problem is now it's it's not family so you know do you really want someone buying mine or accessing through your property um that's that's what we're trying to
avoid I just think the top whenever we've looked at topography before I just felt like it was there was no way around it like they couldn't change it like there was just No No Easy Way um Brian I I just wanted
to mention something um the town lawyer Jonathan um made a good point on his review here um and he has section A owning to circumstances related to the soil conditions shape or TR tography of
such land or structures especially affecting such land or structures but not affect generally affecting the zoning District so he has Topography of the land or structures so I think that's kind of
tell us the whole thing is topography but and what's the other side of the building like we're only looking on one side the other side the other side would be the third picture Becky if you could sorry I didn't I didn't is one second I know I went through them quickly
um that's looking at the rear of it I mean because of the slope it's only a few feet high um I'm talking about so if we're facing it from the doors that's the left side what's the right side the side to the left on this picture side to the left yes that's just
wall well this says it has another 23 ft of clearance on that side or at least 2 to the property line there is 23 feet on the other side um maybe the other picture could show the topography on that side I get let me
can't really see it from this looks like it's pretty heavily wooded trees can be cut down yeah it's just we just don't you know we're all well I think when you look at the back of it uh you do see a pretty even line so it would suggest the same slope in
the front as the back the garage doors are at the same plane there's almost no doubt about that because that's how you enter the building just properties all over that have slopes and you put in retaining walls and you you solve it it's not not
every lot is flat right so there's a building there already so someone managed to build in that slope which could have been a condition or you know if there was no building there you're looking at slope and topography but the
building sitting there there is a slope if I'd like to think that if I own that property it would be an option to say well how can I grade this can I start further back and slow like I don't think that for me I don't
think that's the beginning and end of the conversation that there's a and I don't I don't know how you can make a determination on topography you don't have toppo yeah it it's it's you can see a picture with a slope
but I don't know what's the steepness of that slope is it a 5% grade is it a 6% grade 25 yeah we did not have a topographical plan prepared I mean I think it's pretty obvious at least to me when you're in the field and looking at it and I took the pictures and I hope it made an accurate representation it is a slope and the closer you get to it you
can really see how it's Steep and it tails off yeah it's I mean it's hard because of the snow but there's I mean steepness there's a there's a percentage on what how steep it is and I mean we've seen retaining walls
put up in in multip multi-level buildings built on on Lots they took advantage of that extreme gr I'm just you know again just want to make sure we're looking at all avenues and issuing a variance because it stays with the deed and it's we're not trying to change anything We're just trying to make it
comport with what's in the field we just want to make sure we're you know looking at it from all angles that it we're you know definitely abiding by the stipulations put Upon Us Danny did you
have something you want to say good I'm going to read the letters at this time if no one has any other questions right now I guess a question for Becky is there is there a topographical site that we can look at that will give
us into the private property I tried to look it it wasn't giving any readings okay yeah it doesn't give the readings I think it's pretty clear that there's a slope there because you couldn't easily put a doorway uh without
question a a garage door but you couldn't put a doorway to even use it as a pedestrian entrance in the back of that I don't think that would work there's just not enough roof height to to open a doorway there to reverse it the an an option but that's not you know
that's not what's there so it doesn't really matter so at our last meeting last month um we went over that there were no concerns from um departmental review DPW had issued a letter so you've already read that into the record the new letters we have today are two uh AB
butter letters that were submitted so again letters from A Butters dear town of chelsford I'm writing support of my neighbors at 8 Columbia Street North chelsford m house we're seeking out to merge their lot I've lived at 10 Columbia Street for over 10 years they have been wonderful
neighbors throughout that time I believe that merging the lot is a logical decision and would be beneficial to the property would actually be merging these Lots but uh I'm sure they have reason for wording it that way given that the only access to the lot is
through their driveway at 8 columia Street makes perfect sense for the properties to be combined I fully support their request and be happy to see them take over the lot thank you for your time and consideration best regards Bruce weeks Jr 10 Columbia
Street he would be uh a a very direct abutter to both Parcels Dear Mr D Silva coni this emails confirmed we in agreement with the separation of the property at 10 minor Avenue in North chord owned by Roger and Robin mot please let us know if you need
anything further from us regarding this matter thank you Colleen Charles and Colleen procop 12 Columbia Street North chord those are we also have the three photos that Greg submitted last month
too in terms of just angles that's what's Steven was passing around one of the photos you submitted last month during the hearing has a different angle oh okay yeah I just wanted to get something up could be in
electronic format so we could see it nobody's on Zoom so I guess that's not a concern tonight okay I'm going to uh put this out to the audience and see if anyone has concerns or comments regarding that please approach the podium give us your name and address
[Music] yeah I'm Dana horen I have the direct a budding property to uh Columbia which is 374 North Road and it yeah right there so the the blue property right there um
you could see historically um the access to that garage was through my yard through my lot and I currently give uh easement on the deed uh to Robin to access those two
garages that they have on the one they have on their property and then the one on Howard's property um which is always how it's been you can see I mean there's there's a driveway on the GSA um I don't have a problem with them having access to the shop through my
yard right now I don't know about the new buyer of the new new property and I'm not sure if they want the new buyer of the other property to have access also um but also that easement expires in I think 12 years or so so there's not always going to be access to that shop
through my yard um I don't see why there would be a problem separating the properties because nothing's going to change as far as them accessing that garage which is the only people that access it right now um but as an a butter I have no problem with what they're
doing thank you hi Katie and r click on themes and Contours and the Contours will all come up so you have that information to see if you click on themes and go down to Contours keep
scrolling right here click on that little pop up thank you excellent thank you all right Katie thanks Katie feature that's pretty can you zoom in on the garage area zo in thank you Katie
yeah actually the system doesn't let me zoom in more than what I'm oh unfortunately I'll pull it up on here the whole thing it looks like the same topographical issues on both
sides well there's two steps in the foundation so definit yeah slope there that's the driveway from the doorway is 6 ft tall it comes
up to the foundation it's 30 ft long 12° okay are there any uh further questions or concerns from the audience this evening seeing none ask for a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing I second you second
by Jamie all in favor I I can't vote okay was for the last meeting and Glenn is five Glenn was right so Glenn's voting just write that down
it okay so the hearing is closed so the question certainly is do we want to allow two variances to do something that's uh it's it's got a a little to hang on
with the topography I mean the topography certainly is valid it doesn't Define what topography has to be to create the problem have you seen the other picture on paper the the one that went this one
right here yeah like yes I've seen that so there's two there's a step to the foundation here so it's it's pretty substantial the increase I mean this is a 68 door so this is all a six feet to here and then you're adding three more feet which it's probably an 8ft pitch I
mean it's not impossible I can see getting up and down this but you also have like 40 ft further back that way that you could spread that you could change the slope Y no and a retaining walk could come here and allow that to go there I mean it
it's the the headaches are is is grining a variance without cause is really something we're trying to avoid um and is the cause strong enough I think is the question that that we're facing here so uh we may just let it go to a vote and see how the board feels
about it how everybody is voting if I could just remind the board members that's it's preferable if you voice your opinion so that when writing the decision I I know what the decision is based on
okay well I guess my opinion is that there is a slope but I don't I don't see that as a topographical hardship that uh makes the uh makes it so there's no other option to
get that garage accessed from one minor it's not the most straightforward thing to overcome but I don't think it's a it's a showstopper in in my opinion and I think also you know they built the
garage that way so it it wasn't you know like uh some they're not trying to build something today that's a hardship it was already built creating the hardship of having the door face the wrong way to the wrong property the property that it doesn't belong to um one person owned
all those properties y I'm I'm aware of that it wasn't designed to be accessed from the house the public hearing is closed so appreciate your input but we're pretty much done taking it um and and you know
understanding that the whole thing was owned by one person it's just not now anymore so it becomes sort of a move point I mean why it was done is very understandable he well he he brought up that it was it was it was built like that because at the time when it was
built talking it use was best served in the direction it's facing so for us to Grant a variance to change it is is it's very difficult for us to grant that that's the concern and then making an undersized lot more
undersized is also um part of my thought process like this doesn't feel like a a good idea to me any other comments I'm a little bit different Brian um I I see the
topography and I in my mind that works so I'm a little bit against you Steve but don't take it personally been here before been here before correct correct I'm in agreement with Steve
I think I'm going to have to I'm going to have to be on that the Topography is not it's not a end all like there's no way there's the Topography is not as such that there is no way around it in my mind that makes but it doesn't require
that it be to qualify for a variance as well it doesn't have to be the endall it has to have topography concerns and they' they've argued them I think reasonably but that is that's again it's not uh it's basically a family owning the
entire property and CH trying to change the lot lines and benefits so that they can use the garage in the end of the day that's what it isot is a bit of a problem right in my mind I I get the I get the perception that even though they're reducing the
lot it's still bigger than the current other Lots but we we have to look at what the standard of our code is now and what our intent is is of the of the bylaws now so reducing it is against how
we're trying to make a maintain our community now so yes CL if if I were the owner of this property I would want to keep the garage uh because it has a certain value
and um but that's seems to be the only compelling reason well the garage doesn't go away in in uh one sense there's a property that owns it then in another sense it would be a different property but the the value of the garage Way St the way it is now the garage goes
with minor Avenue correct right cor right and if I own the property I would look at it as why do I want to give away this structure I mean I I you I can use it there's some logical reasons why I use
it always used it but it is built in the wrong place and um I can't I couldn't divide it redivide it okay I'll make a motion if no one else
has is we we're done with discussion is everyone comfortable with where we are I'll make a motion to approve the variance to swap land between the two non-conforming Lots at 8 Columbia Street
and 10 Miner Avenue with consideration for the testimony and all the letters that have been read in I'll second the motion second by Jamie so just for the record the voting members are step Brian
Jamie Charlie and Glenn as the alternate because Peter wasn't here last month okay all in favor I opposed motion four to one to
deny thank you thank you always hard to say no excuse me folks I know the public part of this is over I'd like to tell of your hotstrings here my wife just buried her father last
year that building is sentimental value L all right and and I appreciate that I would like to think that we could take and have that piece of property my wife has growing up around that my kids have grown up around
that all we're looking for is just to take a split the property and half that's all we're looking for I I appreciate so there consequences that we're trying to uh maintain the the town in such a way that it's
not I can appreciate where you're coming from look at the size of the lots that are on the property I on the rest in the neighborhood I really I've been on the fence the entire meeting I really have I I don't uh I think for me the deal I really think you guys should reconsider this
and I and I'll leave it at that thank I appreciate that 100% right don't think we got our next hearing I believe is a continuation maros Avenue Cobblestone 5 LLC they're requesting a comprehensive
permit 40b pursuant to Mass General laws chapter 4040 B of course chairman can we can we get a three minute bathroom break uh which just going to take a little break 5 minutes apprciate she said three what are you doing okay you okay there
Jamie M here was supp been hitting the uh apologize FKS Peter's not the only fast one she can put a challenge out there challenge for a bathroom it's not so for this next one that
missed e e e e e e this the 40 project this is Crosby like for one of the other projects what what was their first dat
what was their first um you were here for the first day on September 5th you were not here on in November that's the November I think was the one that did the Mullen on
yeah who who else was Katie sorry because go to eat him what happened Thanksgiving um they probably continued yeah they did continue events then it again continued
again I don't yeah there was a bit of time loss and then the peer uh the peer review set some some time back too yeah the peer review excuse me I've been here for both of those and you guys didn't he last okay we assum it's not there needs
oh excuse me I'll ask ch's office one more time I don't okay Ian I'll I mean at this point we can hear all the testimony and you can still do it you just need to as long as we don't vote tonight yeah yeah I could have SW I did okay good
evening right good good evening everyone I'm Katie Enright with Howard Stein Hudson I'm the professional engineer on this project at marose Avenue um it's been quite a while since we've been here um believe the last set of plans were issued in November um the last revision
that we had submitted to this board had to do with changing one of the units from a two-story house to a ranch um and you can see that if you pull up the site plan so that's been fully engineered um for your review um just changing that
one um unit you can see that towards the top of the plan so it's a larger footprint but it's essentially a ranch with a walk out in the back rather than the two-story unit and that was at the request of um our butter um also the plantings have been changed at that time
at the previous meeting too along that property line to increase the buffer along that existing fence that exists there today um since that meeting there were a few things that we were tasked to do um one was there was a thirdparty peer review um an RFP sendou and certain
aspects of the project that were reviewed as part of that and I believe you have that peer review um and the reviewer is here with you tonight um secondly we reached out to both the North Chums water district and the Chumps Board of Health um I appeared before the water district um
Commissioners on January 6th um at that meeting there was a request for our phase one so essentially any project that's in the AER Protection District um based on sort of our history with this this this newly
um I want to say newly used regulation from the Board of Health for the groundwater Protection District um anytime you're in the oord protection Zone we're essentially now required to at least do a phase one um regardless of of known contamination or no known
contamination on the property so we had engaged s environmental um who had prepared a pH one for us already so after our meeting with the north Chums water district on the 6th I prepared an email and forwarded that um that report that phase one environmental study to
both the water district um and this board through Evan and Becky um so you should have that in your files also um I also had a conversation certainly that evening with the North chumford Water District in regards to the septic system so essentially we talked a lot about
this at the last at the last project meeting but we are proposing to tie in to town sewer um we are not proposing a septic system our original application that we sent in for the project eligibility letter did show a septic system in conversations within our site
walk and in talking to the abuts and in hearing some feedback from the water districts in regards to septic systems we decided to switch over to a sewer connection and in that we requested a waiver from this board under the sewer regulation which essentially has been
put in place to to allow for properties that are nonresidential to connect to town sewer so sewer was basically freed up within an inii program to reduce infilt inflow and infiltration into your sewer lines
and monies are now collected to allow um commercial essentially or retail anything non-residential to tie into sewer um So within that regulation we requested a waiver to say that even though this is residential under chapter 40b we have the right to request a
waiver to tie into sewer so that's before you um again tonight um we made it very clear to the North jumpster Water District that that's our in that's what we would like to do we would like to tie into town sewer and I think that coils a lot of fears that the North
shumer Water District had and also certainly the abuts had related to introducing a septic system on this lot um besides that we also did reach out to the Board of Health to request an informal meeting with the Board of Health Health the Board of Health was not interested in meeting with us unless
we had a formal application before them um so we have not been able to speak additionally to the Board of Health um and with that I'd certainly be happy to answer any additional questions I believe you have the peer review in hand tonight Melissa sensor regrets um
attorney Robbins has the flu um and she asked that we come and proceed because it has been so long since we've been here tonight with the intention of obviously we like to keep the meeting open after this evening um and get a handle on where we sort of stand with
the waivers tonight if possible so with that happy to open it up so did everybody get a chance to look at Hancock's letter and understand it I mean basically it says sewers which is a a good Avenue I think for for this whole
project the uh water district was very upset as with quite a few of Butters about the septic system so I think that uh is probably the best move I don't know if anyone has other thoughts on it I thought the letter went the letter went around and around and
ended up nowhere based on the very end of [Applause] it I mean it does Circle back saying there was important know the subsurface sewage disposal are allowed in its Zone 2 in accordance with the provisions it
just seems that the both the water district anab Butters were so uh against it that they felt the better choice was to ask for the waiver for the sewer capacity and you know I can understand that honestly I think it's a better
well the way de the Department of Public Works R it I think it's still the same that you can buy extra capacity if you're a commercial site not if you're a residential site this is clearly residential this is a clear without
question but we can wave this as we can wave lot size lot shape uh capacity that all those things are wable it's just another detail I think that I'll let uh Mr Pez speak uh to to
what he uh found but maybe maybe I'll just let him do that right now good evening Mr chairman uh members of the board Joe Pez noola from hanok Associates um here in your uh in my capacity to advise the board with
regards to this I think it's important first to frame what what I'm here for um the RFP that went out that Evan had had wrote um it says that the the Zoning Board in their capacity uh as waiver
granting Authority requests third party review regarding the board's ability to Grant the waiver and if granting such waiver per 760 CMR 56 that the construction of the sewer connection would be consistent with local
needs uh a little bit about who I am and and why I was chosen to to help you because this question that the the board that that the board poses through the RFP
is technical but it's also procedural uh within the confines of chapter 40b and to some degree legal uh I'm I'm an engineer by by trade I've been working in the field of civil engineering for 35
years I have extensive experience in in this area um an extensive experience with chapter 40b uh multif family housing design I'm also a um a consultant for Mass
Massachusetts Housing Partnership I'm one of six Consultants that Mass Housing Partnership loans out to zoning board of appeals to advise board Boards of appeal in grappling with the the very unique
nature of chapter 40b and the task that zoning boards have as the sole permitting granting Authority uh under the comprehensive permit law I'm currently advising five or six zoning boards on
chapter 40 BS in drit marac conquered Hull seon Oak Bluffs um essentially all over the state I've got um 25 years experience in in in
doing this I sat on my board of appeals for 20 years uh many years as chairman so I come to this from the technical side but also with a good appreciation of the the procedures and and the regulations so the first question
is can this board Grant the wavers that are requested and and my answer is unequivocally yes any local regulation bylaw policy implemented by a local board regardless of its to subject
matter is subsumed into this process this comprehensive per process and it lies at your feet to act upon that not only act upon it as the grant the granting
Authority but also to consider waivers from those regulations policies uh bylaws and and the such so here we're we're we're dealing with um two two main articles or or regulations
one is the the groundwater uh Protection District bylaw that's normally um administered by the Board of Health and the um the sore capacity and connection restriction uh regulations
that's normally um administered by Public Works um so you're being asked in the first case with with regard to the groundwater Protection District um to wave the requirement for a for an
environmental impact report um which when you look at the definition of the the report in there in their regulations is essentially a hydrogeological study what does that
mean that means what what the Board of Health is interested in knowing is is what how does the groundwater flow within the soil where is it how deep is it which direction does it
flow to understand how that may impact their well fields and and a a simple understanding of that would be if a drop of water goes into the ground on this
site how does it how does it flow 800 100 ft away to the well fields and the then the wells themselves the qu the question as to should you grant a waiver from the requirement of having that report is
looking at the the back end of if you had the report what would you do with it what would the report tell you what would the report how would the report guide your decision in in the the second waiver
which is connection to the sewer and the second question we can wrap back around to help us answer the first question do we do we need the study does this board need the study and I think the north chord water
district kind of answers that a little bit in their trepidation with regards to the septic system and and they they they state in their letter that if the project proposes a septic system then we need that
study so in the case here they're not proposing a b septic system they're proposing connection to the Sewer so one would assume you don't need the study because there's nothing that they're being that that's being put into
the ground that you need to know but how would it get to the well and if if it would be detrimental to the well um so I think you could probably set that one aside for a moment and go to
the the the second one and the second one is merely can they connect to se will you allow them to connect to S and when you look at um the history of Chumps and the
the sewer plan which I am very familiar with uh having having been working in chumford over that time period when when Weston and Samson was deep in into the all of the plans and all of the phases
of the sewering the town prioritized where they needed to put when where they needed to put sewer first and normally when you um when you restrict sewer
connections you you do it for um two two reasons or when you limit sewer connections you do it for two reasons one would be to save capacity for environmentally sensitive areas that may
have failing septic systems which are environmentally detrimental right and the other one would be to save sewer capacity for economic development right so in Chum's
comprehensive SE plan over the past 25 30 years they took care of the first thing they sewered all the areas they prioritized all of the areas that had failing septic systems and they got them sewered and essentially the entire town is
sewered but when they got to the end of the end of that project Weston and Samson had maybe miscalculated how much sore we chump needed for um for sewering the entire town and they they definitely
didn't think about chapter 40b projects that you know aren't using they're using more swer than than maybe they forecasted so there's a s there's a s flow issue
um that you're you're getting up against that limitation with regards to the contractual uh deal with with L on how much sore you can send that way so obviously that's that's a problem it's a
problem for growth it's a problem to address changing issues changing demands uh so so chumir engaged um more Consultants to look at inflow and infiltration and trying to eliminate
that and free up capacity which they did but it can only free up so much capacity so then there's a need to limit it to non-residential um non-residential projects and and that
has a a pure economic feel to it that we don't want to sewer houses we don't want to build houses because those are those are you know net tax negative we want to promote commercial
development and because it helps the bottom line okay but that's that's a decision that the community may so it is therefore defined as a local concern and it's therefore wable
by this board under chapter 40b and when you consider local concerns under chapter 40b there's a balancing test and it starts unbalanced the need for affordable
housing outweighs local concerns and that's the basic premise it's it's not you gra I just watched you grappled with with granting a variance because the bar is very high and the
specifics on the the the requirements to Grant a variance are very hard to overcome but when the in the case of the comprehensive permit it's kind of flipped the presumption is the need for
affordable housing is greater than the all of your local concerns and you need to then look at your local concerns and can they tip the balance so waiver as defined is a local concern and
when you look at this connection to sewer it would have there would have to be a reason that you needed to hold on to that capacity and if it were Environ Al if
you said we have 26 houses in the Northwest section of the town that have failing septic systems and they're each three bedroom and we're going to need 4,000 gallons and we only have 4,000
gallons that's a local concern that just rise Rose to the level that may tip that balance because you had a plan and you needed it but Economic Development although important in in my estimation isn't
something that's going to to to tip that balance so I think not only does the board have the ability to grant that waiver I think it's clear at least in my
mind that that balancing test is squarely where it started um so if if the board were to be of that mindset and Grant that
waiver then going back to the groundwater protection district and the need for the hydrogeological study kind of is gone so granting that waiver isn't going to tip the balance
so the the reason why I I kind of go round and round in the letter is is ultimately the decision is yours and the deliberation that you need to to do is is yours and the most important thing you need to first know before
deliberating is do you have enough information and I think through the information that that I reviewed with the plans and the storm water um and the and the details and the
letters from Board of Health DPW and uh the north Chums water district I believe the board has sufficient information to deliberate on these at least on these two items not speaking to the overall
project itself um to to move forward and um and take care of of of those issues thank you any questions of Mr pisol at this
time I just want to say one thing Brian hey Brian it's good to see you again Joe how have you been good to see you Charlie I have been good all right it's been a very long time have to do Joe is the best there you
go you 82 back in the day they were hanging out right working together no other questions I think not no I just want to say hi super pretty concise I think do that clear up some of your uh
questions or not particularly still his opinion absolutely that's what we hired him to give us is his opinion we've been we've been this has been before us for some time who is on record of voting on
this um not me right Steven is not he missed two the two meetings of with previous um previous discussion and testimony so Brian uh Charlie jamy I believe missed one I
don't have a Mullen in the file um she did miss one I don't have the Mullen in the file she thinks she may have already filed one um if the meeting were continued and and I receive the Mullen affidavit then she is qualified to vote um and then Peter is qualified to vote
as our U Glenn and then Danny all right we good enough being the six member Danny if uh Jamie is unable to if uh board wanted to take any action today Jamie cannot because I don't have
the Mullen affidavit and then Danny would vote uh Mr chairman I I did speak with applicants counsel um and she did want to request the continuance okay so we'll we'll anticipate a continuance yeah um but I also want to know I did
get um copied on some emails that DPW also wants an opportunity now to provide for the comment once um they had a chance to review peer review and had any more information from the board as well and give you privy to these as well right and if I want to clarify that just
a little bit so the DPW did not comment on the engineering of our sewer connection because the board has not yet issued a waiver or spoken in the positive to that waiver if the board tonight were to speak positively to that waiver and we were to continue to the
next meeting we would work with DPW to make sure the engineering of the sewer line itself is okay with them and if not make those revisions prior to the next hearing yeah I mean I'll read it in just
for uh transparency the only issue the engineering will see unresolved here is the dpw's comment relative to the existence of sewer capacity both locally in the pipe system meaning this is not
sending it to LOL can the can the pipe handle the flow that would be increased by the use of this and any proximate pump stations flow to the L system so they haven't had a chance to review that yet so we will certainly continue to allow them to comment on
that I don't know if we have a lot of other concerns we're certainly opening up uh to the audience to to see what other uh what changes have affected people and and how we can look at that as well if there's no more question to
Katie at this time I'm going to do just that I I have just one quick one yes um as I remember all five units will be rentals that's correct is that correct mhm okay with one the only benefit true
benefit for income housing is one unit only that's correct but the town gets credit for all five toward our housing production that is how 40b is written correct does the does the owner of a project like
this ever get to say I want to convert these from rentals to condos and does that change deed restricted is that correct theyed restricted yes I like Katie Jonathan it's deed restricted yeah you can't change it you can't change it once it's
rentals it's rentals correct all all five of them yes one would one would be at a reduced rate and four would be at Market rates right but we get credit which is 20% Which is the requirement so that's
that's fine where where is the town sit on meeting the state percentage for 40b availability oh I think we're 32 I think 32 somebody up on it you know we're right on the cusp is it is the pr
project is the Low Project is 10% required yes so we're we made the 10% and then the population grew and then we lost the 10% and I think I heard 32 was the last one I heard I believe that's what what we need okay I'm not sure
we'll be back at 10% with 32 units these these five would apply uh he has applied so he has we have 32 units we need 32 reach that 10% okay but we don't have that where how many do we have is are we counting the L project the L univ the
one off of that's already counted into that inventory okay that is counted already counted because Princeton project is that what you're referring to the Princeton Road the one street the UMass West that's okay those those numbers Tak into account okay and it still doesn't once it's approved it's in
the numbers okay you were going into the audience yeah I'm just waiting to see if that was the end of the discussion uh if anyone like to comment or uh share concerns with this right now would be the time I want to thank everybody uh my
name is Paul with the north Cher water district and I had what's your last name uh pyes p r s um I had put a little something together but before I get started there's a couple things I heard and couple things just got triggered on me
um and I wanted to just ask a question to council if possible you can ask the board and we'll oh absolutely then this went to an RFP or RFQ one or the other if I'm not mistaken RFP I
believe and I only got to see the report that uh Hancock put together not too long ago and we weren't able to prepare too much but do we think putting having Hancock
Associates do the review from a rose a 40b project if I'm not mistaken when I actually drove to press aren't they involved with the hildr street 40b project
behind um and I could be definitely wrong on this isn't this kind of a conflict of interest maybe maybe not I but it just felt because I was just I just happen to look at the shirt and you know the
project that's going over this behind the wells it's a 40b project and commenting on the Paul I'm sorry you referring to what was before the planning board before the 10 hildr Street hildr Street correct that was not a
40b oh it was not no okay was that the correct it was the Hiller seat that we were talking about I thought that was a 40b project no okay I'm sorry and not to discredit anybody but we were just a little concerned about that um I'm going to save a lot of my
comments for um I'm hearing there's going to be a continuance but um the district is very familiar with the consequences of dealing with outside contamination it's no secret anybody entering the public water supply and is
literally not interested in dealing with anymore um as we've all seen in the midst of wildfires how water is very precious resource to us and what we're trying to do is literally just protect the water
that we have coming to the well fields we don't know how much longer it'll be around so uh with that being said I'm just going to leave my comments more for the next meeting and uh we'll take it from there okay I appreciate that I do have a like what do you stand
with this I've read I'm just was reading because I wanted to review that everything you've said to this point I mean the comment's going to wait until the next meeting on where you where the north chord water district really stands with it where do we stand is we don't want to have to deal with any more
contamination that we're dealing with already okay we know yes an ASM report was conducted we some people went on the computer and saw some past photographs and they did
some research and we feel that it's you know is it are we getting the whole story of that lot I mean if we did ANM report back in the 90s across the street from us what
would that has shown these reports if things don't get reported to an entity we don't they don't know when we do these reports they do they search for these reports it's only what's been reported and we've dealt with a lot of concern a lot of contamination and we're
not sure we want to deal with anymore I don't want to say we're not sure we know we don't want to deal with anymore I mean we see the water it's going to cost more money to treat all this and I'm sorry but I I don't believe in asking for forgiveness after
something's been done and it's not the same there's something wrong with the lawn or not but we don't want to see any more contamination coming our way during the excavation process is that your concern or dirty excav I'm not
saying so much dirty excavation but um I had it here I'm sorry have to deal more with the storm water management but I I'll bring that up at the next meeting I have to go through my notes and everything but is it because of the is it because of the
the location with the reports of this what was stored with the lot where the temporary fire department was being there's some issues over there I'm not going to get to what's exactly going on across the but is it because of the close associ proximity of that and the
disturbances the water flows in our direction from that area yes we know we understand the hydr geologic the which way the water flows do you already know where it flows under that very most certainly yes okay so it's just the other contaminantes that would be tested
with this hydrogeologic study okay can I I have I'm sorry just I don't mean to step by I have a question about amount of usage so I I understand for we've you know reserved allocation for economic development for commercial
right so um what is the difference in volume between a commercial tapin as opposed to these five units he's water district oh okay you you don't you wouldn't know by volume lot of usage it it really all depends on
the commercial building you can have a little car lot that has one bathroom okay and you can have a huge building it really all depends on the size of the unit and in this case it happens to be five homes uh unit so it's a it all
varies it's very hard to determine and it all really is going in the amount of water really coming out of those five units sew it's more about what you're talking about is under the ground ex The Source water coming into the and what is going to flow after this is built and while
it's being built into those aquafers or into the exactly okay so I just wanted to make sure I understand when you're here you are not representing yourself as a person you are representing the north chord Water
District okay thank you if I may can I just have a moment to respond oh absolutely so we've been working with the North chumford Water District they've had the opportunity to comment on this project since last
fall I appeared before them in January January 10th we had responded to their previous comments um and in doing so we switched from the original concept from the septic system to tying into sewer I was with them January 6th of this year
which was two months ago I've received zero comments from the North chumford Water District since beating with them they asked to see the phase one I provided it to them and the public through this board we have provided storm water management is the only thing we're putting back into the ground and
we fully meet and it's been reviewed storm water management calculations which in your zoning bylaw says provides clean water we've done an LSP report which is something new in the last two years nobody ever did this before within the
aaer Protection District unless you knew of a problem contaminant or there was something to look for we paid a scientist to fully do a phase one there's a conclusion in that phase one that says there's no evidence needed
for further of further testing so what are we doing I feel like we're on a hunt for something that there's no evidence that exists and I'm asking tonight this board we've been here many times we''re provided
significant engineering we've provided significant feedback we've provided significant revisions we've requested waivers we've been waiting for three months to have this peer review two months ago I met with the water district and now we're
holding comments back for the next meeting we don't have an opportunity to respond we're we're getting continued money months and months and months for a 5unit project and we're not getting the feedback we need to respond to I'm here
tonight looking for the board to comment on waivers the reason for the continuance would hopefully be that we would have a decision to discuss at the next meeting there's I'm not sure what else there is to talk about at this point we're providing clean storm water
we're not putting sewage in the ground even though that would meet DP requirements in the aquifer Protection District I mean there's no evidence that our LSP went out there we provided you with a 500 page report to say so nothing's it's
it's not that we haven't done anything so at this point I'd like the board if if the north Json water district has additional comments why are we reserving them for another time is it just so that next time I can come here and have more comments to respond to not really sure where we're going with this
we're doing the best we can we've been sitting for months waiting for peer review we haven't changed the engineering it's a five unit project on over an acre of land that exists there today they exists there today um so I'm certainly here tonight
to answer any engineering questions that you have we we do not want to close this evening obviously we want to keep the commentary open if there's a decision to be discussed if the board seems so inclined to Grant the waiver for the sewer we'd love to work with the DPW who's ready to work with us on the sewer
connction connection to make sure we're good by the time we get back here so we can move this along and provide housing in the town of Trum So with that um I have a question on your statement you just said um on a five acre oh sorry
five unit property on an acre just over an acre lot that exists today what you a lot exists there today there's a lot that exists there today that basically water flows probably to and from it today in the pre-existing
condition um so what we're looking at is what we're adding to the land and what we're adding to the land is a storm water management system that cleans the water before it goes into the ground and a sewage connection which takes the sewage created by this project and sends
it through a pipe off site rather than into the ground okay thank you so yeah disco you know I I tend to agree with Katie in terms of what exactly are we looking for what answer we seem to
have the water department doesn't want to to have a septic system period it just brings nightmares we have a project that will add five units of housing to the production plan getting us closer
the only relative issue is the sewer capacity are we ready to throw the the uh guidelines that have been set by the DPW aside period there are five units three bedrooms each usually that's
calculated at about 100 um gallons per bedroom one0 per per bedroom 110 times 15 bedrooms doesn't seem like a lot in the scale of the whole thing and so I don't see why we need to
continue on it's that's the simple question are we do we want to set that aside for this particular project period I I agree I think that was answered at this meeting so I think that we did make the leap to doing septic are
we doing sewer we had a peer review I think the opinion of the uh peer reviewer was that sewer was the better idea to for a waiver it uh I assumed would have appeased the chelon water district and the uh abutters concerned
about a failed system in their in their neighborhood they're all on sewer so you know why would they want additional sewage in in there so I think making the decision to go to sewer was a was a pretty important step I mean we don't have answers from DPW tonight as to
whether there's pipe capacity or pump capacity but again at500 gallons a day couldn't we vot I would be surprised if they didn't can we vote with that ulation that that comes out back as satisf I think we've already discussed a
continuing so I think that would be challenging at this point Mr chairman can I make a recommendation um yes sir I would recommend the board vote tonight on the two waiver requests and then I can work with Council on a draft decision to review at the next meeting
so we can we can vote whether we projects happen juster the Project's happening it's just a matter of are they going to get a waiver for a sewer or accepted is this correct uh most likely yes yeah the project is happening because if the project is denied it's going to get
approved by the housing appeals committee okay um so the question really is septic or sewer sounds like to me the preference is for sewer I Concur and the second waiver second
waiver is from the requirement for environmental impact report but if they're going SE they don't need that you don't need it becomes Mo yeah so I I think we uh certainly should open this up to the audience at this point and see if there's any other discussion
that we haven't uh delved into but I I think we're hi everyone pretty well in control of thiso question forif yes so the board can vote just on the waivers that doesn't mean that's not a vote on the project and and the public hearing is not closed right I just want to make sure
they all understood that but we regardless of the vote the Project's happening well it's a 40b we we have the right to decide whether this project works or it doesn't if we don't say this project works it would go to court and presumably the court would approve it
but there's no guarantee we we you know would have our reasons for denial I I honestly don't know a one so we're voting to approve a waiver on a project that's not approved yet correct the waiver will be incorporated into the decision that's the way it works does
that make yes it does the waiver will be incorporated into the decision first you're vot voting on The waivers then I will work with applicants councel on a draft decision you can review that at the next meeting and then vote whether or not to approve um if there are any conditions you want to put in there
those can be incorporated but I would recommend tonight you vote on the waivers procedural question if Jamie is question with the Mullins right cannot vote on this should we should six
people vote on it and and then yeah in case that well I don't know like how does how do we want to take into so if we have a quorum to vote on the uh waivers then it's not a problem
you have a quorum yes okay good evening sorry a little sorted out here it's okay I understand Cindy Lazinsky 20 Edge laav um first thing I want to touch upon real quick is um this environmental study that was done it's
called an environmental site assessment okay it's not an environmental impact report it's a site assessment it's done according to a standard called ASM and uh it's e527 it what it does it evaluates the
environmental risks and liabilities of a property okay it doesn't show their impact on the environment it's strictly done um as part of decision-making process for commercial lending and purchase decisions that's that's the limit that's
the scope uh it indicates here I print out the standard users are cautioned that federal state and local laws May impose environmental assessment obligations that are beyond the scope of this practice which is exactly what we're
trying to get done now is is other things that we're concerned about um and honestly I feel that the do has been closed in our in our faces right from the get-go on the environmental impact in hydro geot
testing uh we've requested this right right out of the gate concerned with our zone two concerned with the Zone one across the street um this ASM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care so I want to talk about
the standard of care the concern for our aquafer and proximity of the Zone One Wells 800 ft away has been discussed at every meeting and I know that there's a very small chance in terms of being successful uh
for me in terms of of this protecting of the aquafer but I do know from what I've read in these 40b uh books it does seem as if there's concern for the environment and concern for the aquafer that that may be something uh that can
be looked at and be successful in um so I I don't I just feel I don't want everyone to throw up their hands and say oh we have to do this this is a local concern that's significant it's our water and how lucky are we to take it for
granted so um speaking I'm just going to jump you for a moment I want to understand do you not feel that the uh sewer is going to resolve some of the concerns I'm I don't know what would come from these homes to be a
contaminant uh a more overing concern and I think you probably can't disagree with me here that once well to begin with it's um it it it's not a buildable lot but I I think my overarching concern is what this will trigger you'll see
more building closer to the Zone One Wells which I've already talked about L time so I don't I don't want to go there again I understand your position on it it just seems that it's a it's a legal thing to build there uh based on the proximity to the well it's not forbidden
so it's not even I I don't want to get into that right now uh I will continue with this environmental impact in hydrogeologic testing uh must occur before this can move forward I have actually read the
peer review however I have found a state requirement and um this this article here board of health article 7 ground protection Zone cannot be waved I'm going to go into more detail in a couple minutes on that
so I want to share that with you the purpose of the aqua for protection district in the town of chelsford is to protect the health safety and General Welfare by protecting the town's limited present and future drinking water supply to ensure a sufficient quantity of pure drinking
water for present and future residents tonight however I'd like to discuss the storm water removal system to this proposed 40b a few components deep sump catch bases a CDS unit which is a hydrodynamic
separate then directed to an underground infiltration system this underground infiltration will act as a system of artificial recharge of precipitation I spoke of when I referenced 310 CMR 2221 the requirement is that will not
result in the degradation of ground water quality the applicant site plans indicate snow and ice shall be stored within locations specified on the layout now there are two areas of snow storage one of them is on the infiltration
system both the isolator row and the MC 7200 Chambers will have inspection ports they need to be kept clear there will be times outside of regular maintenance they'll need to be inspected for example if they're not draining properly these subsurface structures are
highly prone to clogging there are numerous cases of infiltration system failure due to clogging even with pre-treatment present according to mass stormw handbook infiltration trenches have extremely high failure rates due to clogging it's
imperative to develop and Implement aggressive maintenance plans maintenance is especially critical to ensure that the recharge practice will function as designed they're also clogging due to biofilms recent article from the National Institute of Health directly
pertains to biofilms on storm water infiltration media biofilms that colon before we get too far away from that I think Danny has a question I just question of R DPW reviewed the storm wi CS correct yes feel like we don't need a
lesson on the storm water standards if the DPW review those for us I I mean the plan has been reviewed I I think Katie could answer better to the concern of snow storage on top of these is that well standard practice ktie or
no is that how that is drawn out I know DPW did approve the plan so exactly so I mean it's not it's not you can't not do it we don't do it everywhere but we can do it there's no
nothing against doing it stop to that that's correct the water will melt and go into the infiltration system exactly okay uh biofilms can reduce the flow in po spaces and can lead to clog filters orifices and small valves biofilms can
be an air with a problem in areas with groundwater intrusion correct sighting is crucial the bottom of the infiltration media to the seasonal High groundwater must be at least 2 feet if the seasonal High groundwater extends to within 2 feet of an infiltration BMP the
site is seldom considered suitable the groundwater table can prevent an infiltration BMP from draining properly the greater the distance the less likely the system will fail in this case there's a 3-ft separation infiltration can cause a mount of water to accumulate underneath
it during and after a rainfall event amounting analysis is required when the vertical separation is less than four feet can I interrupt to ask where this is going because I don't I well listen this is this is my opportunity to have my voice heard and even if you all say NOP we're going to vote the way we vote
that's fine it's my opportunity I think we're trying to understand where you're going like I'm not I'm I'm not I'm trying to understand the information as it where what's it supposed to Enlighten us with I'm get I'm getting there you're reading very technical details about measurements and lengths and Heights and I I don't think that's within our
purview to analyze someone's storm water treatment I will turn this in um the gpw has done that for some things can for the town independently they're not they're not on a team that wants this I know but in the real world some
things get missed and I'm going to bring this up and I'm sorry to do this but however according to the MTO M handbook volume 3 chapter 1 documenting compliance dates the hand tush method may be used to conduct a mounding analysis it results in a water table recession hydrograph depicting a
exponential decline that's a requirement the hydrograph must show an exponential decline not only does their hydrograph not indicate a decline it appears that it may not have even reached its peak okay can I so you're saying there that is correct did not do
what the handbook said it's supposed to do exactly y okay and you'll get one of these when you're done if when I'm done okay I think that's what I'm Miss like the way you're reading it I'm not when you read a fact or a statistic I'm not reading how that compares to their project I'm sorry that's what I'm trying
to go a little slower if you want no I just the change I'm confused are you arguing that the project shouldn't exist or or it's not meeting the regulatory requirements in terms of the aquaa oh absolutely yes I I I want to see that land protected and I don't know if you
can tell I'm doing what I can um within my own so your argument is against the project period and that document list cites numerous areas of code that it does not I'm bringing up more I've got more code and more regulations that aren't being met and that more state
requirements that aren't being met we don't understand it I'm going be hon I don't so I I think that I rely on the DPW a peerreview that was in a different Factor but uh and the engineer who stamps it to say that this is
what is what is expected of the site including its proximity to the aquifer okay well a few things a few things get missed in the real world and I did discover a few things that are applicable that I'd like to bring forward in if I may okay thank you I'll
continue so this not only does their hydrograph not indicate a decline it appears that it may not have reached its peak another concern with mounding is that the water can spread out laterally all right this leaves several unanswered questions
when does it Peak and how long does it take to drop off another day or two if another rain event occurs during that time there may be less than 2 feet beneath the Basin media for exfiltration why it's important the
bottom of the Basin media to the groundwater is called the V Zone it's the unsaturated zone that's where all the pollutant and pathogen removal occurs okay many key treat treatment processes occur there the system may be categorized as failing if mounding
causes the vosone thickness to be less than that 2 Fe okay so essentially I'm arguing that if if the mounding analysis wasn't done properly then we don't know where we're at with that vosone and and that's why we need to
have that question answered we need to have a proper mouning analysis and and that's what I'm bringing up there with that point okay okay all right there are 10 storm water management standards in the mass storm water handbook standard six is important because it includes discharges to our
Zone 2 critical areas the applicant hydrology report for standard 6 indicates the proposed stormw system discharges to a Zone 2 Wellhead protection Zone all stor water receives greater than 44% TSS pre-treatment before
infiltration however storm water discharges within the zone two of a public water supply require the use of source control pollution prevention specific bmps determined by the department for managing discharges to such areas what are dnps what are the
dnps best management practices correct okay thank you yeah um there is a requirement that seems to have been overlooked this table ca3 standard 6 from the mass stormwater handbook volume 1 chapter 1 the name of
the table is stormwater discharges within the Zone 2 it is clear that mass D requires additional Zone 2 protections going to read this to you it states proponents must comply with local Source
water protection ordinances bylaws and regulations are you suggesting they're not at this time absolutely this is a state requirement and at this point the applicant is not compliant with d stormw standard 6 I've included a copy of this
stormw standard 6 table in with your packets which I'm going to give out at the end now according to chapter 40b handbook created specifically for the zba the zba does not have the authority to wave state requirements so if they want to discharge into our Zone too they
need to comply with Source water protection ordinances bylaws and regulations and again I bring this one back because we've tried to get this on the table um at every turn right out of the gate okay they need to work with the water department and with the Board of Health if testing needs to be done or is
requested they need to to do that when you say the water department do you mean the north jump North jumpster is correct that's the one that would pertain for that laot so the north jums water district and the Board of Health do in fact have the right to request conduct obtain and
review hydrogeologic testing environmental impact testing and other testing they deem prudent in safeguarding our Zone 2 aquafer these are the town of chumpon regul tion for groundwater protection chapter 2011 board of health article 7
these regulations were adopted for preserving Public Health as it relates to standards for groundwater protection the beneficiaries of these state requirements will be our children and our grandchildren another factor in sighting
infiltration systems are setbacks it puts a lot of water in a specific area infiltration increases the presence of water in surrounding soils and can nearby damage building foundations if buffer requirements are not observed
it's known to damage slabs basement and underground utilities water creates preferential flow paths and I read a story where it actually followed out someone's gravel line sewer trench it's an example so the topography this land continually slopes downhill from the
rear of the parcel to the North chumford Water District zone one well fails which are across the street at the moment natur natural recharge is occurring on that parcel rainfall occurs over an area of an acre slowly percolates into the
ground summer is taken up by the trees and the vegetation so not only is this infiltrating water not contaminated there is no runoff compare that to the footprint of the proposed infiltration system is 28 ft by 32 ft so that is where this
artificial recharge will occur that is a pretty significant alteration so all that water will now be behind number eight and number 10 edelin I would be remiss if I didn't express my concerns for the other abutters as
well now in addition to that chamber system there'll also be two infiltration ponds these two ponds are right up behind number eight and number 10 and they're almost up against The applicant's Back Fence infiltration Pond two at its closest point to number eight Edon is
only 5T away from the applicant's fence the chart that I believe that should be used for these infiltration ponds I'm going to share with you tonight in your packets but um it's in Mass St water hook site criteria for infiltration basins distance from any building
foundations including slabs without basements minimum 10 ft down slope and 100 ft up slope number eight aelon slab garage is only 30 ft away from the infiltration Bond another Factor engineer for the
project indicated they'll be bringing in over 2500 cubic yards of fill indicated 2 to 3 ft of fill will be needed to level the lot The Fill will then be placed at the lowest portion which will be behind number eight number 10 the addition of
that fill will not only change the topography but it will increase the slope behind their properties I believe there's a real risk to the abutters in terms of property damage and I believe the setbacks from these infiltration systems are not protective enough of of their existing
infrastructure and I asked the board to assess if appropriate setbacks have been followed and again I'll share that all with you in your packets tonight speaking of soils early on in the process a custom soil report was performed I had printed
out that report and noted number 255a Windsor Lomi sand that yields a Farmland classification of Farmland of Statewide importance according to USDA Farmland of Statewide importance May produce as high a yield as Prime Farmland if conditions
are favorable USDA indicates um that Parcels mostly Windsor Lomi sand and appears that that soil survey is no longer posted on the applicant supplemental data I have outlined how important it is
to maintain adequate distance from seasonal High groundwater to the bottom of the infiltration system it is my opinion that the high groundwater level is a problem for this proposed project the placement of the MC 7200 system
cannot be lowered resulting in the need to bring in so much fill if this Project's allowed to move forward 2500 plus cubic yards of fill will be placed on our aquifer whatever contaminants are in that fill will
easily travel through the groundwater to the Zone one wellfields there will be little opportunity for pollutant removal and I think that that's something we're all trying to avoid here you know um is that Phil that you're mentioning the winds or something or another that you just oh
God no no no God knows what it will be I I'm told that it's checked but we all know what you know the real world I'm just for me personally like there's a lot of data coming and I'm having a hard time keeping track of what applies to so
so the onomi sand yields a Farmland classification of Farmland of Statewide importance and I could even extrapolate on that there's a reporting requirements for that and I wasn't going to go down that road uh there's a Farmland protection Policy Act um that it's it's
pretty much a reporting requirement it may result in something called a Lisa a land evaluation site assessment okay so it it's a it's a federal reporting requirement I don't know whether or not that got done um I'm just bringing it up
essentially they kind of keeping track of all the land we're losing agricultural land and the Farmland um but the winds alomi sand is a has got very good characteristics what she's saying is the Lumi sand is a protected asset for farming and she's indicating
that there may have been a a land study that this particular sand was found on the lot yes it was okay yes it was so if it was found on the lot it's considered protected it could be a protected resource I called us nrcs the soil survey people in we've gotten pretty far
along I'm I'm just going to ask Katie to respond to this point because I I can't keep it all straight if if Katie could maybe get us a little on track to what oh okay you you've said a lot of things and and they make a lot of sense but I I've only got a few paragraphs left would you would you rather me finish or
just three it's a toss up me you guys would you tell me what you want it be better to to distribute those and then what your credentials with all UST it okay you you want me to step aside P can you pass out the packets
pardon me pass out the packets could you pass the packets might have been easier to fall along the whole time that would be great and I think I'd like to know what your credentials are oh my goodness firefighter entt got that for 20 years I'm retired
now however so that's if you were firefight EMT that doesn't seem to be an expert in this no you know I'm a member of the public and I've done a lot of research I'm bringing up things that were missed and um you can ignore them or or not
this is your right but it's also my right to get up there and speak and share things with you but that's not a question the question is are you an expert in what you have presented oh I was firefighter EMT and I'm a member of the public and I guess that's my best answer of
fand okay so so in here is everything that you'll need to look at if you if you choose to do do so I'd like to see thank you for your time I'm just I'll step aside and then I'll come back to my last it's obvious you put a lot of work into this there's no doubt I stand by what I've done please post for yes so
I'll scan this in PDF already or I I just want you to know that's for their assessment of these illustrations okay and soard but if you if you feel you want to um SC it in I don't feel any that but if you feel differently that's
up to as long as my speech goes in there thank you for the public thank you and I know you can't no yeah I'm just trying to like you clearly got a lot of information and it's coming at me really quickly and this is not my area of expertise so I'm just trying to
understand that's yeah but I do stand right by my work so I'll step aside for a moment I guess is that what you want me to do or you can power through we'll get just a few more it might be a little easier to follow as well with the back oh all right so I'm going to just pick
up here if this project is allowed to move forward 2500 plus cubic yards of fill will be placed on our aquifer whatever contaminants are in that fill including the ones we can't see will travel through our groundwater to the Zone one wellfields there will be little opportunity for pollutant removal I ask
the board please to consider the proximity of the Zone One Wells in your decision making I've obtained a document from the middle sex North registry of deeds regarding this parcel on marose the document outlines the
transaction when the town of chelsford sold the parcel to the applicant the recording date was December 1st 2017 that's in your packet as well there's a paragraph at the bottom of page one I'd like to bring to your attention it
states being the premises described in AED recorded with the middle sex North registry of deeds in book 1544 page 25 the granted premises are conveyed subject to any restrictions
reservations and easements of record in so far as the same may now be enforced and applicable there too you may want to have the law look at that your attorneys there December 1st 2017 with the purchase of this parcel the applicant
agreed to abide by those restrictions several that were in place at the time Mass D Zone 2 designation aquafer protection overlay District adopted 1988 and the ra residential aquafer
district adopted 1998 why it matters we have aquafer Protections in place once lost we can't get it back chumford continues to grow there are more people every day that
expect Clean safe drinking water and if we hope to have enough for current and future residents protection of our source water is more important now than ever thank you for your time I appreciate it thank you
yeah all righty K you have a moment would you respond to some of the highlights of this I'm sure you're more current with the technical down of the night um again I'm Katie Enright with Howard Stein Hudson I've been a
professional engineer for many years I went to school for a very long time and took a very long test after having many years of responsible charge um and I'm tasked with providing my registration on these drawings that meet the requirements of the storm water
management requirements of the state the report that's been put before you has been prepared to those standards and has been reviewed by your engineering staff um I could give you again I could give you a lesson in storm
water if we look at predevelopment we have numbers that we're assigned and science that we use to put in to look at what the existing condition is we then look at what the post development condition is doesn't rain more in the post-development than the pre-development it's the same water
that's landing on the slot today that will land on the slot when it's developed and we're tasked with meeting the requirements of storm water management which says put some of that water back in the ground don't send it somewhere else because we want to make sure that that water ends up in the same
aquifer right and that it's clean and to clean it you need to do all of these things and meet all of these standards which is why the applicant will spend a significant amount of money buying deep sunp puted catch basins a CDS unit it and putting in a storm Tech system
underground to essentially take that storm water that lands there today which is grass and yes it some of it goes in the ground some of it runs off actually that there's computer programs that use all the scientific equations to tell us what
runs off and we're actually mimicking that with our drainage system and how we do that is by preparing infiltration systems that maybe not happen at every inch of the lot but are spread out throughout the lot and that storm water we did soil testing throughout the lot
to determine that the soil that we're working with is sand so it has a very good infiltration rate we also did testing at that time to determine where seasonal High groundwater is which isn't based on physical groundwater it's based on coloration of the soils based on how
high the water must get during the year and that was 9 feet down so we're not dealing with an area of significantly High groundwater we're meeting mounding we're allowed to come right up to the bottom of the system the cleaning has already happened in the system before it
gets to the in to infiltration which is why we need to pre-treat the water going into the system continue to treat it in the infiltration system that mound can go right up into that two feet and again we provided over and above the requirement we also provided over and
above the requirement for infiltration in this case because we didn't want to show any surface runoff to our neighbors so we reduced it so much that instead of allowing the water out of our system and to flow onto our neighbor property as it does today we're actually putting it
back in the ground so that it doesn't have to run onto their property and then go into the ground um again I could also kind of go on and on but we've reviewed this we've had it peer reviewed we've added additional
information there's also an extensive operation and maintenance plan in there I know um she also spoke of having to maintain these the town actually has a stormw water department now that accepts we have these maintenance documents in the very
large report we provided you that says how to manage each BMP on this property best management practice so how often you have to maintain the catch basins and you have to fill this out and provide it to the town of chumford to say that these things have been maintained so yes people are required to
make sure historically many years ago yes nobody was around to check in now you have a storm water department that does um trying to think of other things that were brought up essentially I I think
again we've met all of the requirements based on our report we've done all of the food background quick question just to give everybody a peace of mind when you design one of these systems and the groundwater is cleaned before you know the groundwater that falls goes into the system and cleans it is there a
guarantee that there is nothing in there I mean do these systems guarantee that nothing is bad is going to come out of so all of these systems and some of it we I provided um I believe the NJ cat for so these systems are tested by multiple testing organizations that
basically tell us and basically tell D and tell us Engineers who are using them how much TSS is being removed total suspended solids how much phosphorus or nitrogen might be being removed and each of those is is documented so we're not just picking them look we know a deep
onp puted catch Basin accounts for 25% TSS removal that's been tested we have that testing information we usually don't provide it to the boards and commissions unless it's a technology so like a CDS unit we usually provide that testing
information because it's not it's a it's a newer Tech technology as to as to what the standards are that it was tested to and can provide you with that documentation so that we can follow the treatment chain okay yes go I have a
question if I lived in one of these units M and for the next 12 months I go out and change the oil in my car and just dump the old oil right on the ground or I live in one of the houses anywhere in that same area and I did the
same thing right would I be more harmful living here or living in one of the other houses living in one of the other houses why well because the town DPW is required to maintain those structures
and I personally do not know how often they're maintained I don't know if there's catch Basin on marose I don't know if they have deep sumps which means do they have for feet under the pipe that comes out of it to allow for the storage of sediment do they have a hood
which allows for those gases and oils to float up above so that that doesn't get into the outlet pipe and go Downstream are there any other treatment devices or does the water simply flow across the land flow across the road into the Wetland adjacent to the well which were
probably the standards at the time correct so here somebody were to do it it would get picked up by rainfall potentially end up in a catch Bas and it would float to the top so it wouldn't get through if it did get through for some reason it would get spun in the CDs
unit and again float to the top um so there's multiple protections and where this also is going to be a private development there'll be a maintenance company that will be responsible for filling out these maintenance forms so it won't be as easy
as you know it won't be the Department of Public Works who unfor and this in the storm water um Department who has to take care of the entire town of chubs for and update the entire town of Chums we're looking specifically at this system and this system each of the best management practices have to be taken
care of per maintenance schedule and that maintenance schedule has to be adhered to and then submitted to the town to prove that it was done thank you can you respond to her um comments about the changing in the uh grade in
topography to theing to the abutters and its impact on the outflow of the uh run off yeah so we looked at that so in our pre- and post-development we have to look also we're not just looking at the land areas that are flowing in certain directions we're also looking at flow paths and we're assigning a
timeline to that based on the slope of the land and the material that the water is flowing over so that's all been addressed in our post-development drainage calculations um as far as how that's happening now the reason we have selles and little infiltration areas
around the site is to prevent that water from sheeting off to the neighbors and basically keeping it all on our site so they should see a reduction in runoff from surface another question um there's a big red statement on this piece of paper that says the town of chelsford Board of
Health chapter 201 article 7 groundwater protection Zone cannot be waved I have no idea if you've asked to wave it or not I we have asked to wave it so that's the environmental impact report so this is a regulation that the town put in place I understand in the 80s that was
just used for the first time in my history in chumford which is back to 1996 for a project that we did last year requires you go before the Board of Health and the Board of Health you write a letter to the Board of Health you appear at a board of health meeting and
the Board of Health asks you if they have any questions and if they feel they need any additional information to allow you to move forward with the project they may ask you for an environmental impact report they may ask you for a hydrogeologic study but it depends on the nature of the project and what
you're proposing as we talked about earlier that was discussed earlier to create the zone 2 in and of itself a Hydra hydrogeologic study was done we know we're in the zone two we know the water flows towards the well so that's not a question I think the question is
and I think what people are theorizing about is that maybe there's something that flows that way and we don't know what it is but based on our phase one the history report that was done that huge document that we provided you from
a license site professional there's no evidence to state that that's the case but it wasn't it wasn't a an impact environmental impact study to like indicate that what would flow or what would be disturbed with the build of
this site right because there's no evidence to say there's anything there to disturb but her not to again her reference stating the Clause stating this should not be in lie of this does
not meet the standards of so how would well this isn't an environmental impact report as you would send to like meepa this is a local and the environmental impact report is actually not really spelled out for what the Board of Health is looking for you have to go to this
first meeting and say how do you guys feel about this and are do you have any questions we did a phase one do you have any questions relative to the phase one do we know of any contaminants on site did the phase one flag anything that we needed to go to a
phase two okay um is it what are the concerns relative to things that could get into the groundwater and end up in our well things like you know and I'm not sure many projects in chumford have honestly
been sort of through a process yet to talk about things like septic systems usually they sites that there's some unknown contaminant on um which our licensi professional didn't find any the other question I had is if we
vote and say we go in the affirmative of of allowing to connect to sewer and then the DPW comes back and says wait a minute you can't do it the pipes AR right the do we know any of that right now I mean is it a mood point to vote on
that without there that that's they're they're waiting to see if it's going in that direction to then spend their time reviewing all of the engineering for the sewer tiin as my understanding right and this is I mean it's 1,500 G oh I don't know I'm just asking the question I want
to know everything up front before I vot so it's 1,650 gallons and the sewer pipe is an 8 in gravity line that starts about four houses up the street start and and hits Edon and connects with Edon and runs out so there's no immediate
concern in my opinion relative to I mean an 8 inch pipe is what you see all over town right in large roads um as connection so why was it brought up it's part of I've never had somebody
say it it won't work I think that at that time if there's a problem with a pump station then maybe we study it we have the right to confirm exactly I'm not concerned that's all it is really is there a additional Pump Station required there's a pump station that we're
proposing on our site that's private no additional no no no no no additional no so you'll just pump it up to the pipe and we're going to pump it up to the pipe and it'll gravity feed from there okay and it is a very small flow further
questions just to confirm approval of the waiver from sewer to septic has no bearing on our decision about the overall project correct that's correct all right if someone else would like to speak uh this
evening I get your name and address oh um I don't actually live in town I'm a representative of the North chumford Water District my name is Aurora Bost and I'm actually the environmental engineer for the north Trump water district so I know we've had a long conversation tonight about this whole storm water management plan but it's my
understanding based on the current list of waivers that the applicant is still requesting a waiver for lock coverage which would be subsection 19574 so if this whole plan has been engineered and put together and orchestrated um I'm not really sure what
the reason for requesting the waiver is I understand that the lock coverage requirement is um no more than 15% or 2500t feet um something about a mention of a special permit from the planning board um but it does say in those
regulations that if the storm water management system is designed in compliance with governing standards that it would meet that requirement so I'm not understanding what the purpose of the waiver would be in the circumstance because it's my understanding that it would comply based on what's been discussed so I would just pose that
question to Katie if I could thank you thank you so again in this zoning board acting as the decision maker on this project for regardless of if we meet storm water management we have to require if you're over that amount the planning board has
to issue a special permit based on storm water management standards so they have the ability to review it and the review standards are that we meet storm water management it's not a given in the zoning bylaw and so because it's a permit that the planning board would have had to have given us the zoning
board is tasked with that waiver or that special permit essentially overriding the planning boards because well acting on behalf of essentially in in lie of the planning board um for that waiver satisfy your question yes thank
you thank you any further comments this evening would you name Brian hulie I'm a butter 10 Ed on Avenue grew up in the area it was always a na you could not build on that
lot reason being the soil and contaminants and I grew up there and there was never a problem now you're going to put you're going to build there I'm also concerned of contaminantes on site no there I grew up there and the way it it's not it's not a buildable lot
never was a buildable lot and now it's going to be a buildable lot for a 4 it's not required to 40b problem I understand that another issue of mine is my when that water runs into my basement who's going to help me out no one right all
that water is going to run into my basement it's going to it don't okay I'm just trying to understand I think they've taken uh I don't think they have I don't think they've taken any I don't know what that
means I'm going to get water in my S and who's going to go to bat for me when that happens that's my question I I don't I don't know I don't know why you're Gunna though I think that's the whole point how about the depreciation of my home once these home these things go in behind
me do I have to go to land court on that maybe you do have the right to appeal this decision where I feel our hands are very tied with a 40b that we don't have a lot I understand that sir so we do our job
as best we can I understand that sir there certainly going to be consequences I would be very surprised if you got water based on what I've understood about this it's already happened in town on another project I'm sure it can you know why do we have to be the next do you get water
in your seller now no I know we will once this goes in and the depreciation of my home I I don't I I don't think anyone you know we all have homes Absol I grown up I grew up on
10 Edon Avenue in 1958 I in that home that same home and now you're going to put five units behind I I just don't understand and the water runoff contaminants in the
soil I vehemently I I I hope someone up here has the right mind and and and says no to this project thank you to clarify the idea of saying no postpone own a decision that goes to
landc court and historically if I can say this correctly the landc court has gone with the 40b as opposed to it our our goal when we do these as we try to strategize is to make it as less impact
as possible that's the goal it's not a 20 story building it's a five smaller home development that is allowed by law I I don't I don't know how to you know say we we just tell you no and we can
vote now right now we can vote now but it's not going to change the effect it's not going to it's not going to change anything my name is Michael winning I live at for aelon a my credential are I'm a 30-year electrician I got my Master's license I work with stamped engineer drawings every project and
engineer drawings do make mistakes I send out rfis all the time just let you know I know you question credentials of my neighbor but I deal with engineer drwing all the time time and they do make mistakes I'm sure you know and um you guys can vote no that is the rule
just uphil the rule you have it's residential it's not commercial you have the power to say no there's other projects that get you through for your 40b numbers that's all to say you can say no and that's just the the rule you guys have in place it won't go away if we did if we said based on this and and
the town just keeps growing are you just going to keep constantly building and keep constantly building until you look like Somerville it's the state laws and that's the problem and you Max down on the Su and you have it for residential right can't do it St a waer you could say no waiver
just like you did to the gentleman before who wanted a variance for his garage can I propose can I pose a pose a scenario for you we say no right now leaving it here with us we have some control on how big we can negotiate or
discuss with the builders the contractors on say the size they've already come back and reduced one of their units to a single story from a multistory is that correct totally understand right they've already reengineered some of their plans to accommodate the um abutters right they've already discussed sat down
changed their plans to a piece right they've already come to the table and I'm again I'm this ises not in reflect in any way my position on this I'm just opposing you know proposing putting this to you if we say no right all of that
can go they could go back to their original plan do what exactly what they want as long as they're in compliance with State take it to land Court and state could land Court could stamp it year ago with disregard every concern this community
has even though we said no understandable so but you just rules in place just yeah we'll say no but the way we can best protect this community with what we have available to us is to
try and work cuz 40b the state straps us and it's unfortunate but the way that we can protect our community under a 40b is to try and work with the builders to listen to our community that's going
to be impacted regardless unless it's that balanced scale of environmental concern right and it's got to be pretty big from what I'm understanding and I'm not an expert the best way we can protect our
community and our residents is to have the builders listen and and communicate and coordinate and come to some agreement TR I I agree that the sewer is better than the septic I don't doubt but you have
rules set in place Huck the gentleman before you couldn't get a variance but now this guy can get away building a you guys can just the same right that you I drive by that lot every day you see the pool I drive by that lot before two edel
there's a giant pool of water there right now massive trust me it's all coming down from that property all the way down through my yard I my driveway has a river going across it I'm not saying I planted 30 trees over over the
summer to try to help big ities it's it's going to be a problem if you go there and you see this but there's no there's no objective evidence that says they're going to make that problem worse the problem already exists just trying to say my credentials I I I work with
stamped IND drawings every project high-rise buildings 40 St units engineers make mistakes I have to send rfis off every project rfis all day long this this this they just put on a piece of paper and pass it along people stamp it and go go with it and stop building it and it's not right I work with
Engineers every day I'm very aware that engineers make mistakes I manage quite a few of wrong it's devastating of a mistake for this aquaus let me let me just say that the previous the previous gentleman has the same rights that you
have if he doesn't like our decision that we turned him down y he can go to land Court he can get a lawyer and he can go to land Court what we're saying is you have the right if we say say if we approve it going forward you and your neighbors have the right to get a lawyer
and go to land court but we're just caution you from the standpoint of generally when a 40b is involved they decide the 40b is going forward it's a different set that you be spending money sure but they not very good chance of su
can the state overrule certain EPA things as far as the sewer on aquafers or I don't know the answer to that um but we're not violating EPA you're saying that the state would step in and I can the state say you can put a septic system here even though you're on
top of but they're not putting a septic but they're not if you said this what I'm saying you guys have that you guys can say oh we're not going to we're not going to let you do it on a residential you don't have to approve but there's no basis for us to say that because your house is there other houses are there so
there I'm not applying for a septic system now for res for commercial and being a residential he's applying for for commercial it's not it's residential right you guys are gonna give him a waiver I I I struggle to explain to you that this is probably going to happen
under every circumstance I mean would you say that 1% of 40 BS are overturned on appeal that'd be generous I mean this is a reality that we have we created a law in the state in like 1968 that'll chapter 4 B it allowed
these these rules to create housing which was a priority what's coming now after this is the adus and it's going to be very different that's thing what are you going to do whenever we're not even hearing them we're not we won't have any that's why I'm saying that's why I'm more or less
question if it's commercial is what he's trying to ask you to wave it from Resident to commercial what if you say say no they go to land you don't have to wave it just like you I know can't say gr let's just say the sewer does not get connected there they go and they put and
they say we're going to put a septic system there now you have more groundwater than you had previously so really to approve it to get that groundw away from everyone my folks lived in Kensington Drive sure but huge development went across Turnpike Road we got water in our basement for years sewer went in and it all went away but
then you get in water department to step in and say you can't put a sewer there so now the project but they can but they zone two it's not Zone one that's the thing it's like taking that that water away would you know I'm sitting here believe me I'm struggling with it too I mean I think we all are on the board the town's exploding and you guys may not
see it I see it exp some point you got to say enough is enough it's just what we have to work with in the laws right you know the state to change need the state to untie our hands on some some areas and honestly with these adus they are not
going to do that looks like some multiple thank you you run on the money it's it's not good news and I think we all understand that where basically all homeowners in town we're not uh benefiting from this
there's no you know there's no benefit to us to approve it other than we do know how it works and we're you know the the negotiation to get septic from sewer is our job that's that's the whole point is to find the best way to do it with
the least obstruction an impact lowering the the uh level of the second second floor in that house that was a request it was granted and that is what we're trying to do here is give you the best we can do with what we
have I don't think anybody particularly is in favor of this project on the on the board but we do understand the realities of it I don't know what else to say I don't know shame we've done a lot shame on me shame on you for saying that yeah okay I
don't you don't understand how this works understand thoroughly come up and do it really I'm I'm all done I don't know what to tell you we're doing our very best I'm not ashamed of anything okay at all you sleep well then huh I do
good sleep very well very good you ask is I'm going to benefit from this what is what is my benefit from this what is any of the board's benefit from it don't put words in my mouth right right it's not we should uh I should we vote on the
waiver vot on the waiver yeah just close it no we're not closing CL continue I mean continue but we were recommended to vote on the waivers made a request we have to decide whether I think you should vote on the sewer
waiver and the environmental impact report waivers and then continue that's been ask of you can I get a motion I I don't know how to make it I don't I don't know
what motion to Grant a waiver from the requirement in chapter 2011 article 7 requiring an environmental impact report okay um oh wait can I even make a motion no
actually you can I can't make a motion so the the okay hold on me just repeat again the five eligible voters for this evening are Brian Charlie Peter Glenn and Danny so even if I can't vote I still can't make a motion do you have
that on your computer I I was just listening do them individually can't make a motion we should do them individually yes two w two got to do them individually oh you don't you don't have to
that way yeah wa wait it doesn't say it here request that impact W if you give them the but the waivers are it's this I think it's chapter 201 article
seven yeah that's the first one yeah report from if you look at theie letter do you want and these so's here we are I motion to
approve no you you that I'll do it Danny okay I just found it sorry it well all set Brian okay okay I will make a motion to wave this the request from the applicant from all sections of chapter
2011 article 7 as any and all necessary Neary wave or relief under this bylaw uh will be provided by the zoning board of appeals without relief from the Board of Health including all testing required for an environmental impact
report Jonathan anything that's an accurate motion second second by Peter all in favor I I guess that state requirement didn't get anywhere unanimous okay and and have a second
waiver uh requested by the applicant from the division 3 sewer capacity connection restriction to allow for a new sewer connection where a stub does not exist to a residential multifam project second
second Peter second by Peter all in favor yes unanimous and I get a motion to continue the public hearing until April ail April 3rd
2025 should have been right in this time I'll make a motion to continue to Second Danny got one in there you got it all in favor all April 3rd we'll continue this okay than you
very time any your patience tonight minutes here that's I read no I read all the minutes I read the minutes to a journ yes we have a motion to make what about the minutes Joe have a
good one it's too late it's 10 Joe e