Oh, it's dark >> on the uh video. It like just looks fairly dark. That's all right. >> Yeah, I can see it on the screen. It was like so I could like >> Good evening. We are here tonight for the town of Danver's planning board public meeting here at town hall. It's 7
o'clock on Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. My name is Gene Hartnett. I'm the chair. Michael Dulas is absent, so Lou George will be filling in for clerk. Thank you, Lou. Absolutely. Um along with Jim Sears, Dave Rodriguez, and John Seager,
an associate member. The first item on our agenda is discussion of the housing production plan. >> Josh, are you going to talk about that? >> Sure. I mean, uh, so I think we're at
the at the end here. uh you know at our last meeting there weren't a lot of comments or questions I guess in terms of just like uh context um after this evening um the select
board will likely vote on this uh probably at a July August meeting um you know if there's like a change in terms of like a sentence or adding a comma or periods chromatic or formatting
um it wouldn't come back to the board. However, if there, you know, let's just say during the select board um process, if there was a significant, you know, I don't know, uh, you know, two or three recommendations were completely taken out or two or three
brand new recommendations, I guess, uh, if the word I would use is there was substitive or significant kind of modifications to it, then it would come back here. But otherwise um you know it would once we vote on this it um it
wouldn't it wouldn't come back to the board you know be final. So >> okay um so before we vote on it tonight does anybody have any questions or concerns on the housing production plan?
Nope. >> Any discussion? >> Just a question. >> Just a question in terms of so and this is picking up to what what Josh said a few moments ago. So, um if it does go to, you know, when it does go to select board and they have, you know, if there's any substantive changes, this
the select board would not just couldn't just, you know, vote on that on a change. They would have to it would have to it would come back to us. is that >> I believe that that's what we from that's I believe that's what would happen ultimately would we would it would come back to the board and then I
think we'd like the board the planning board to vote first and then the select board second so yeah >> okay >> I think just just based on what you know I was saying earlier I think what we've what I've seen before is this is a it's a it's a it's a pallet of um of different options that can be uh that
can be done and I think it's uh you know as opposed to you know mandatory items but I think there's it's a pallet. So, I think it's I'd be in support of it. >> I think you Oh, I think you did have a question. Do you have a question? >> Yeah. Did the select board review any of
the 18 plans on it yet? Have they seen any of the draft? >> Um, I believe I believe they might have had one short conversation, but I don't know that for certain. Um I I believe that they had at least one meeting about
it that um they had a you know brief brief to moderate discussion on it. Yeah. >> And if they vote no and want to change one or two things, what's the timeline for making that actually happen since there's a consultant involved with everything on this plan? >> Yeah. You know, it's sort of been a
we've been working on it for uh a couple years now. Obviously, we'd like to have it kind of wrapped up sooner rather than later. it would be fairly quick. Um, just depending on what was, you know, modified. Um, you know, if there were
significant changes to it, I we'd probably bring it I'd probably bring it back to the board um as soon as possible, you know, so to keep it to, you know, keep it going. Um, we don't want to like go have it go f have
it go much further since we started doing it in 2024. Um, it's time. So, >> okay. Um, would anyone like to make a motion to approve the housing? >> I apologize. I just had a little
feedback on the plan itself. >> Sure. >> Um, specifically as it relates to ADUs. >> Okay. Um just I mean for future iteration of the of the plan just some closer alignment with some of the uh developments that have happened at the state level uh regarding ADU
developments with the recent housing production legislation that was passed a couple years ago. I was looking for a little bit more fleshing out of that particular >> alignment with what's going on at the state level especially in terms of guidance and regulatory oversight. um
didn't really see too some of the references that were made inside the plan reference Worcers acts which predates some of the state action. So just I was looking for just a little bit more >> I I I guess I guess just a little more detail about how ADUs by right would intersect with what we're going to be
working on uh within the next few years and how the bylaw would be affected by state action uh moving forward. So that's just my only feedback. >> Thank you. Is that Oh, sorry. >> Okay. >> I'd like to move that we um uh that the
that the housing production plan uh be approved uh as uh uh and forwarded to the select board with our favorable recommendation. Is that the >> Sure. Or just >> Yeah, >> I'll second that motion.
>> Okay. Motion made by Lou and seconded by Dave. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Very good. >> Um, item two on our agenda is 37 Popes Lane
and 85 Newberry Street. Request by T A KJ LLC for endorsement of an approval not required plan for 37 Popes Lane 48 lot 28 and 85 Newbury Street map 48 lot 28B to remove a lot line to combine two
lots into one lot. >> Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf of the applicant T A KJ LLC. With me tonight is uh Jay Palakawitz with Hancock Associates. Also with me tonight is Rob
Capazudo from Dluigi Foods representing also T A KJ LLC. And this uh first item on uh we have a couple of items on the agenda relative to these properties. This one item is related to simply the ANR plan and we are requesting
endorsement of the plan that you see uh before you which is proposing to combine 37 Popes Lane and 85 Newbury Street. Those are abudding properties. They are both located in the highway corridor zone and uh the highway quarter zone as
you know requires 100 ft of frontage and 1 acre of property. Uh the combination of these two lots will have well over 500 ft of frontage and over 4 1/2 acres of uh of property. um frontage being the
concern with regard to uh ANR endorsement and we certainly well exceed the required u 100 ft of frontage. So with that uh we would request endorsement if you have any questions uh with regard to the ANR plan itself. Uh
Jay Palakawitz or myself could answer those. Thank you. >> Okay. Um Lou, do you have any questions? >> Yeah, just a just a question for the the the applicant. So, so just in terms of taking a look at the the project narrative, so uh so I think in terms of the minimum frontage would be 100 um
feet required and I think you noticed that there's 513 on Popes and 234 on Newbury Street. >> Correct. >> Okay, got it. And so and then um and then minimum area so would be then the you say 4.56.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So then you so you're you then you're uh um and you said it otherwise complies with the um ANI rules, correct? >> Oh yes. >> Okay. And maybe further questions.
>> Okay. Thanks though. Jim, >> I don't have any questions. >> Dave John, I don't have any questions either. Um so would you like to make a motion? >> Sure. Okay. I'd like to move that the um
uh that the board approve the uh ANR for approval not required for 37 Popes Lane and 85 uh Newbury Street. Um uh with the 37 Popes Lane, map 48 lot uh 28 and 85
Newbury Street, map 48, lot 28B. >> Second. Motion made by Lou, seconded by Jim. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Item three on our agenda is a
public hearing for 156 and 158 Maple Street. Request for special permits, waiverss, and site plan review submitted by Peter M. Zagorski Trustee PMZ Realy Trust for properties at 156 Maple Street, map 43 lot 543 and 158 Maple
Street, map 43 lot 544 request of special permits pursuant to section 18.5D.4 Four, parking requirements, stable excess parking. Section 18.13, design special permit build to zone/f facade buildout townouses. Parking setback town
houses street facing entrance town houses street facing wall with without offset mixeduse building. Street facing transparency ground floor upper floor mixeduse building of the zoning bylaw. Request of waiverss pursuant to section 18.5.
D.9 point D III II circulation individual parking spaces section 18.5D10B parking screening section 18.5D10 C multiple curb cuts 18.6F.3 transitional transitional buffer zone
building buffer section 18.11D transportation mitigation fee and section 18.8B 8 point B table 18-9 outdoor amenity space types one neighborhood park preserve request of site plan review pursuent to section 4
site plan review of the zoning bylaw said properties are in the Maple Street traditional neighborhood development overlay district MSTND Maple Street Limited Mixeduse Subdist underlying zone for 156 Maple Street map
43 lot 543 is industrial 1 I1 the underlying zone for 158 Maple Street. Map 43, lot 544 is residential 1, R1. The applicant is proposing a mixeduse redevelopment, which would include a mixeduse building, 18 residential units,
town houses, 12 residential units, an existing single family house, and associated site modifications. And the applicant has requested a continuence to the June 23rd, 2026 planning board meeting. Um, would the applicant like to speak?
Uh I will just say that uh I'm pleased to report that we did receive the uh third party peerreview comments, but we did not receive those till the end of last week. So we'd like to have an opportunity to respond to those of course. So we are requesting a continuence to your meeting of June 23rd.
>> Okay. Um so continue without discussion. Uh can I have a motion to continue the special permits waiver and site plan application to the June 23rd meeting? >> Sure, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'd like to um I'd like to move to continue the special
permits, waiver, and site plan applications for 156 uh and 158 Maple Street to the June 23rd, 2026 planning board meeting. >> Second. >> Motion made by Lou, seconded by Jim. All
in favor say I. I. >> I. I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, next item on our agenda is a public hearing for 37 Popes Lane and 85 Newberry Street. Request for site plan
review submitted by TAKJ LLC for property at 37 Popes Lane. Map 48 lot 28 and 85 Newberry Street. Map 48 lot 28B pursuant to section 4 site plan review of the zoning bylaw. said property is in
the highway corridor zone HCZ zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a new building and assoc associated site modifications. Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann and I am here on behalf of the applicant T A KJ LLC, the owner of
properties located at 37 Popes Lane and 85 Newbury Street. With me tonight is Rob Capazudo from uh the owner and Duigi Foods. Uh also with me tonight is Jay Palakawitz from Hancock Associates, the
project engineer. Um and this uh application is relative to the uh block created uh by the endorsement of the ANR plan that uh that this board just voted to endorse. And we are requ we are requesting site plan approval relative
to the construction of a fully conforming freezer building uh which is will be an accessory building to the existing Duigi Foods uh manufacturing facility uh that is a long-standing Danver business having been on this
property at 85 Newbury Street for um about 25 years maybe a little bit more. Um and uh this again this fully conforming freezer building which is accessory to the manufacturing use will
be uh located on the property. Uh the use uh by Duigi Foods is a permitted use in the highway corridor zoning district. Um the following the acquisition of uh 37
Popes Lane, the back in 2020, this board approved an addition to the existing um manufacturing building. Uh and that received both dimensional special permit as well as site plan approval. And that
uh addition would have extended from 85 Newbury Street on to 37 um the 37 Popes Lane property. It was a much larger addition at that time. Um it did not go forward although the board did approve and granted the dimensional relief as
well as the um the site plan approval. That um that project didn't go forward. So now we're back before you now with a current proposal um with rather than an addition um we are proposing a separate uh freestanding fully conforming
building that is simply a freezer building. That is uh is the purpose of it. It will uh store prepared foods that are awaiting the shipment out. So, it's a a freezer building uh with a loading
dock associated with it to uh to handle uh the shipping out of the of the goods. Um unlike the prior application that you saw in 2020, this is again fully conforming and it's also significantly smaller. It's about 12,397
uh square ft and that includes the freezer area as well as the as the loading dock area. Um this is much needed freezer space uh for the business uh and the new loading dock will certainly uh make things more efficient.
It's accessory to the existing Duigi food uh preparation operation. Um there are no changes in the hours of operation. The hours of operation of the facility. We have two production shifts and one sanitation shift and that will
not be changing. There are no additional employees needed. This is simply a freezer storage area for the uh for the produced goods. Um, that being said, we are proposing 14 new parking spaces even though we're not in
uh proposing new employees. Um, we don't anticipate any new vehicle trips coming in to the site. The trucks are already coming to the site. They're just not uh circulating around as efficiently as this layout will allow
that to happen. Um so this will certainly improve um circulation and and efficiency of the of the site of getting uh trucks in and out. Um
the uh the building has been designed it's a singlestory building. It's been designed to meet all of the dimensional requirements of the zoning district. We have submitted a form W with some technical waiverss associated with the plan preparation which the board uh very
often sees. Um I think at this point it will uh make sense to have Jay go through the plan sheets with you uh and then we can answer any questions that you may have. Uh good evening. Jay Pelitz with Hancock Associates. Uh Josh, do you mind going
to page uh three of 10? It's the existing conditions plan. Um yep, that one. Um so this is existing conditions plan as the site is now. Um the site used to have a building on it. That building was removed previously and at this point it's uh predominantly just
pavement. Uh Pope's Lane is shown is on the south side so plan down and then on the west plan left is the existing Duigi's facility. The site slopes from the north to south and um
I think that's about it for this sheet. Uh, can we go to I'm actually going to go to C4 and then I'm going to go back to C3 after that. This is our site preparation and erosion control plan. Uh, removing everything
that remains on site. Uh, mostly just pavement uh removal as the utilities to that building that was removed were previously removed at that time. Um, an erosion control is proposed on the downhill sides of the site as well as the w the west and east side. Uh, and
then we can we go back to C3. So, this is a zoomed out plan showing the whole Duigi's facility with the new building um, as it's proposed. As Nancy mentioned, the board may be somewhat familiar with this project as we were in front of them back in 2020 with a very
similar project. What we're proposing now is a slightly smaller building that's standalone versus attached. Um, most of everything else uh remained generally the same. Uh, the proposed building meets all new
dimensional regulations. Um, it's used for storage. As Nancy mentioned, there are no new employees. uh because of this uh with the warehouse area we got that there's 13 spaces required. We're proposing 14. Now can we go to sheet C5?
This is a slightly more zoomed in plan of what is proposed. Uh so there's a proposed freezer building in the middle. Uh the loading docks are on the south side facing Pope's Lane. Uh there's basically parking anywhere we could fit
it on site that wasn't a loading dock or steep slopes. Um snow storage is proposed throughout the uh site in landscaped areas and then the crush stone area behind the building. We go to C6.
The new building will receive all new utilities. Uh so that's water, electric, sewer, and then the pro existing propane tanks on site are being relocated um because the proposed building was too close to them. Um and then in addition
to that, uh there will be a a new storm water system proposed. Uh the entire roof area and a majority of the parking lot will drain to a system of subsurface chambers. These subsurface chambers will promote infiltration and cut down on peak rates and volumes of runoff.
uh that meets the state and local standards. The engineering department has reviewed this system. Uh they had no further comments on the drainage system. Uh we can go one more sheet. Let's see if they have any openings. >> Sorry.
Sorry about that, Jay. >> Yeah, no problem. Um, do you want to pull up sheet C7? Uh, and this is our landscaping plan. As I mentioned, we're landscaping as much of the site as possible. We're proposing a combination of flowers, bushes,
shrubs, and trees uh throughout the site. I think that's about it for the engineering plans. We did submit to you also the uh building design plans. You have those, Josh, you can put up.
It's a pretty basic building. It's a metal building. We've got uh on the plan colors are noted. Um it will be uh a beige building with um
some dark bronze uh trim. We've got six uh loading bay doors as you can see. Those face um those face Pope Pope's Lane. Uh we did receive various comments from the engineering department uh and others
and uh Jay has submitted a response to those comments and I think we're um we responded to those and the engineering department um gave a clean uh I'll say a clean memo uh with regard to this project. Um this is an as Jay mentioned
the landscaping. It's a nice opportunity um to add some landscaping along Pope's Lane and so we've taken that opportunity to uh to do that. So again, we're located in the highway corridor zone. This is a permitted use. The building is
accessory to that uh to that use to provide the needing needed freezer storage space for finished product. Um and this layout itself is going to uh improve the uh the overall circulation
as well as uh as uh truck servicing and uh entering and leaving the facility. U and again we're adding some uh what 13 14 parking spaces um 14 parking spaces where we're uh not anticipating adding
any new employees. So that'll be a benefit as well. I we'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Um start with you, Dave. Do you have any questions? >> Uh I don't not at this time. >> Jim, >> I I don't I remember when you came last
time. That's uh scaled down and doesn't seem uh it seems like you got it all down, so I'm fine with it. >> Thank you, Lou. >> Yes. Um I had some questions and I and it look it looks like in terms of looking at the materials here and it um
in terms of department comments I think I noted here uh that there was a uh I think there was a note actually from April 23rd from um uh from the director of public health which just with respect to um uh some noise concerns and so and
this is just I'm just you know just and this is what uh Mr. to Jia Coloney said that noise concerns noise from the equipment condensers will be a concern since this site directly abuts the mobile home park. We have in the past received some noise complaints from the existing building. Um trucks entering
and leaving may be a noise issue for the abuing noble mobile home park. What times will trucks be entering and leaving uh the facility? So th those are the specific comments I I saw with respect to noise. I did see some revised architecturals I think in the packet
that indicated that sort of the location of the mechanicals. >> Right. >> So I guess the question I have is in terms because there is a an ab budding mobile home park and people live nearby um what is being um I guess a question I
have is um I think I see it right but I want to make sure you sort of walk through it if you can walk through it with me. the location of the mechanicals and what is the the noise that is being expected coming from the mechanicals. Is this going to be like a a very like a
mini split unit you hear like on an air conditioner which is very smooth you can barely hear it or is this going to be a little more noisy or is it going to be sort of a you know it's going to be a steady white noise sort of thing or every 15 minutes you'll hear a sort of
noise. Um, so I just want if you can just just expand a little bit in terms of noise issues and what's being done to mitigate noise. >> Yes. Before I turn it over to Jay to talk about that, I do want to say the design of the building itself >> was laid out
>> with that idea in mind. Okay. So the building itself is going to act as a sound barrier. >> Sure. from both truck traffic which is going to be on this side of the building where the the mobile home park is on the opposite side of the building. >> So looking at that at that that
depiction right there the mobile home park is on the other side correct of the building. >> Correct. So the building itself is going to act as a good sound barrier but also there were uh this was thoughtfully laid out as far as the building is concerned and mechanical. So Jay, I'll turn it
over to you to >> Okay. >> speak to those items. >> Y >> as far as location and things like that. >> Yeah, if you can speak to just in terms of location as well as even the um the the nature of the equipment and how it is in terms of just, you know, the type
of noise, not not being intimately familiar with, you know, um outdoor, you know, sort of refrigeration units. >> Yeah. So I'll preface this. I am not a mechanical engineer, but I did talk to the mechanical engineer before this and the manufacturers of these systems uh this afternoon to try to wrap my head
around it. Uh so basically one of the only changes that we're proposing on this site plan from what was approved in 2020 um besides the building size and detaching it from the existing building is at that time those all these units were proposed at the rear of the
building in that crush stone area. Um, but because we heard that there was concerns from the neighbors about that, we changed the design of this building to have that cutout section above those uh loading bays. And in there uh the
mechanical equipment will be So kind of circled it here. And then Josh, you can go through. I think there's three sheets there. >> Oh, there is. Oh, I thought there was only Oh, okay. I thought there was only that one sheet. >> Yep. So you can kind of see that that's that ledged area there. And then there's
a third sheet as well. >> So the more elevation sheets over here. So you can see that there is that wall blocking these systems. Um so there's basically I believe it's two condensing units and two condensers.
Um and they don't run all the time, but most of the time they're going to be running at about 50% capacity. only on the hottest day in June is it going to be really cranking. Um and at that point um it you know it's not a mini split.
It's a it's an industrial freezer but uh we looked at the decibb and at that distance to the nearest mobile home it shouldn't be very loud. Uh and that does not take into consideration the building being a barrier. Do you know the decibel
what the I know obviously where you are it's you know that in terms of location you're going to certainly hear ambient sort of highway noise but is there going is do you know what the what it would be above that because that ambient highway noise could be certainly >> more could be white noise because you're
hearing it sort of all the time. >> Yeah. >> So >> I mean Route one's on one side of Pope's Lane and 95 is on the other side. Um and this is an existing uh industrial space. It's hard to say what the decibels will be in total just because you can only
get it per one unit and it's not just you add them together. Um it was just something that we couldn't pull together in time for this meeting. Um but what we were told is that you know these systems if they're being blocked like this um
you know shouldn't be a nuisance um for the most part. >> Okay. You have another just >> Yeah. So I guess in terms of and this could be more for the and so I appreciate that and so in terms of for the um the applicant just because I'm you know I am you know I have a concern
about the the the abutters uh you know because they understanding the area it is but it's still these are you know people are living um in in the in the in the homes nearby. Um if there is if once everything is is uh is put to you know
is is constructed and it's running and operating and there are um there are concerns I would imagine that the applicant be would be willing to work with town staff to implement any noise mitigation measures or something of that nature.
>> Uh yes and I did have the opportunity to discuss with uh Mr. Morris uh this afternoon as well as Mr. Kelly just to uh the applicant is certainly a very uh good neighbor and wants to continue to
be so a um a condition something like in the event of a noise nuisance that's that's caused by the uh by the new freezer building uh condensers the applicant will work will work with town staff to implement noise mitigation
measures. So, um, we don't think that's going to be, uh, to be an issue, particularly given ambient noise. Um, but we would certainly, uh, have a discussion with planning staff to see what could be done if in fact there's a nuisance, which we don't anticipate.
>> No. And I appreciate the consideration as well for, you know, to to the consideration in terms of the location versus the prior location just to be respectful of of of people's homes. So, >> thanks. I have nothing no further questions. Thanks. Um, I have a couple
questions. I was not here um on the planning board in 2020 when this first came before us. So, could you explain the the reduction in the size of the building and how things have changed? >> Um, the footprint of the addition or the
footprint of what was an addition compared to this building is uh smaller. So, we're proposing a smaller footprint building and the prior building was two stories. That addition was two stories. That addition also required, as I mentioned, dimensional relief, um, which
this building does not. So, um, it's a it's simply a smaller >> Okay. And the footprint is smaller as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, could would you mind bringing up the landscape or zooming in on the landscape? Are you would it be possible
to put any new trees in that landscape area in the rear to sort of help with the sound mitigation? I would say that could potentially be an option if it were uh an issue. That's the type of thing that we would look at
at doing. I don't think we're proposing to add trees at this point, but Jay, you might have thoughts on that. So we are proposing a line of arbor vites along the edge of pavement in the crush stone which you can kind of see there. It's the um kind of clouded lines. Uh that area it's a it's a steep
slope um too steep to be able to plant trees. >> Okay. Um and then I just have one other question. Is the crushed stone is that just for snow storage or what is the purpose of that? um can call it was crushed stone because that's where the
uh HVAC units were previously, but we maintained it as crush stone for snow storage, but a little bit of flexible space. We have 14 marked parking spaces here, but this area could be used if they need a couple more parking spaces, but they aren't marked because you can't
really mark crushed out. >> Yeah. Okay. Um and I do still have some concerns about the neighbors. Um I don't know. One thing I was thinking, would it be possible to do a baseline noise study just to see what it is at this point and then how it changes after the
development? >> Um, I guess I would say no on on that. Uh, we we've designed this building to be sensitive to what we heard in 2020 and to make sure that this is uh is going to operate properly.
This is highway corridor. This board has approved heavy construction with and a number of them contractor's yards but also very heavy construction. Bitcon ma uh mantour was there for years. EDM
uh is there and um there were no similar conditions put on put on them. We would certainly uh we think quite honestly that this is going to be an improvement over existing conditions. What you've got now is uh you've got trucks that are
idling uh that are waiting to go in. You've got compressor units and and things like that that are going to now be removed with this new building put in. The the trucks will be blocked. We think this is going to be a significant improvement as well as a significant
cost to do a sound study. There is so much ambient noise out here with 95 and Route One that I think it will be of little value and
significant cost to do it, but of little value. And what is of more value is to say and have a condition that the applicant will work with staff if there is a noise nuisance to come up with uh with something. I I had a a another
project in a a different town up on Route One um last year as a matter of fact and there were noise studies done on that that property and they were just so overshadowed by
what was going on on Route One and on 95. That property also happened to sit between the two highways. So, um I think the I think that would be um not a reasonable request for this applicant on
this project for for this site in this zone. >> Okay. Um I'm okay with as long as the condition is on there. >> Yes. >> I just had one other one other follow-up question. I just picked up from what attorney Mckanda mentioned with respect to other vehicles uh and such. So,
because this is a smaller project than what was originally approved back in 2020, I guess a question, there's still a sufficient capacity though that we're not going to be seeing refrigerator trucks that are, you know,
idling and such that could cause even more noise. I guess that's a concern I I would have just because, you know, because it is a smaller area, you know, is it is it sufficiently sized for, you know, for the future, too? Uh yes, because this is a freezer building. >> Yes.
>> The the other uh had some additional components in it, some manufacturing components and things like that in that in that addition. This is a dedicated freezer building. As you could see, we gave you a floor plan. >> Mhm. >> It's all freezer.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Does anyone else have any questions before I turn it over to the public? >> Yes, John. How do you get stuff from the freezer to the other building or vice versa? Is it you load it into the truck and you
take it over to the other building and then unload it? >> Ask Rob to Can you come up and answer that? >> Right. >> Just quickly your name. >> My name is Rob Capazutoo. >> Yes. uh products produced at 41 Popes
Lane, the building to the left, and it's trans it will be transferred into this building. Currently, we're transferring into a different building on the property at uh 85. >> Currently goes into the other freezer building. >> Yes. >> So, what's going to happen to the other
freezer building? Is it just more space >> staying as is? Yes. >> Thanks. >> I guess if I could if Rob, I guess if you could just had a question. Could you ex could you explain a little bit more
you know how the buildings are rel related and how describe the transportation of the goods from the existing facility to this building and how that's happening on a daily basis or >> the goods physically get
>> the foods are produced in 41 Pope's Lane which is to the left of this facility and then it gets transferred it will be transferred into this bill and currently we're doing that now. >> But but how like what man like what is >> so with trailers? >> Yeah.
>> Would you mind raising your microphone please? >> Using trailers. >> I I just have I I can't hear. So if you can just speak a little. >> We're transferring the finished goods using trucks going from one building to another. That's what's currently existing now.
>> Okay. So employees aren't pushing pushing it in like in carts or >> No, no, not at all. >> Okay. >> The USDA won't let us work like that. >> Okay. >> Okay. If there are no other questions from the board, we can open it up to
questions from the public. Go ahead. Bill Brad Street Tomney member of precinct one. Just a couple of questions. One, if forklifts are used for moving, are they electric powered or gas powered? I know electric is quiet.
Gas tends to be a little noisy. >> Um, >> thank you. That's nice to hear. The other thing was you're going to put arborites along the road as a sound area. You said you couldn't put trees on
the slope because it wouldn't work. Are there greens available that you can put on that slope that will stay where they're planted and also act as a noise barrier even if it's small? Some kind of a noise barrier.
Whoever Yeah, we kind of left that um space open for the landscapers to determine what uh is best suited for that area. Uh like I said, it is a steep slope. It's hard for a tree to grow there. Um especially in at the early stages, but they could do
some sort of low-lying landscape. the arborite is going to block it from any sort of noise in view at that point. Um, so it'll be up to the landscapers to decide what they want to do in that area.
>> Anyone else? >> No. >> Okay. Um, I guess we can >> I guess >> how's how's everyone feeling about this? >> Brad Street. >> Okay, Mr. Brad Street. >> Bill Brad Street. Again, I understand
what the gentleman said was it's up to the landscapers what to put there. Do you have to approve what's put there? I'm still concerned with I don't live up there, but any sound, not doing a sound
study, but any sound. It's bad enough they're on between 95 and Route One. I think the people that will live in that area would appreciate any kind of control, even a little bit, but any kind of control. the abides are one, but to
leave the decision for what the landscaper thinks is going to make it look pretty or do what I'm talking about. It's a kind of an open-ended answer. And I maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think it truly answers my
question. We're proposing our berviety. Those are tall trees that are going to provide some sound attenuation. Uh behind those arborvite is a slope. We're not proposing any landscaping
there. Nobody can see it. The landscaping there would not be high enough to provide any uh any more benefit other than what the arborites are providing. And we're proposing landscaping where landscaping can do
some aesthetic good along Pope's along Pope's Lane, which is pretty sparse on landscaping. >> Are you proposing any additional irrigation? >> No, I don't believe so. >> We have a We don't have irrigation. It's
not a lot, >> right? It's not a lot. >> It's not a lot. >> Oh, it's not a lot. >> We don't we don't use town water for irrigation. >> Good answer. >> Um Okay. >> Okay. >> Discussion. >> Just one just one just one question just
with respect just talking about the landscaping again in the arborites. And so just looking at the at the site plan there. So the arborites are placed it looks like just looking at it there. Um, could you just point out where they're going to be just so I can understand? It doesn't seem like it's covering the
entire >> Oh, all along there. >> I believe it's this rear kind of sort of acting like a >> fence and sort of. >> So, it's all along So, it's all along the All along the uh >> It's almost the entirety of the rear. >> Okay.
>> I guess if the development of um what size would they be planted at at at planting? Is that on the plan? >> So, uh, that's not the only place that the arbor vetes are going. There's a couple other, but in total, we estimate
about 60 4 to 5 ft tall, 4 foot on center at the time of planting. Depending on the species of arborites you use, they can get very big very quickly. Um, so we'll just have to work with that. Okay. Got it.
Okay, I don't think I have any further I don't think I have any further questions. I think the concern I I had with respect to noise and I'd be, you know, considering that there's a there's going to be a condition in there for a um an assessment if there are noise concerns
and working with town staff. Um I and considering I think also looking at the design of the uh of the of the building and the placement of the of the um of the of the landscaping I think it's uh I mean if we're looking if you're
looking for comments I think I'd be um I think I'd be satisfied with this. >> Okay. Anyone else have any comments? I'll echo uh Lou's comments. Uh the design choice to for sound mitigation I think is appropriate. Um and with the
condition in place uh to kind of see where we're at at some point based upon noise mitigation or noise attenuation in the real world um I think is appropriate uh for that. So I I'm
I'll be supporting the measure. Jim. >> Um, nothing further. >> Okay. And I'm also in agreement. I think the AR arborite placement will help um the
the how the building is set up will help and then with the condition that the applicant will work with town staff if there are any complaints. Um, if somebody did have a complaint, would they know how to reach out to either the
applicant or the town or how would that work? Um depending depends I mean generally they might re they might reach out to the property owner first and if not if they call town hall depending on who they
called or where they started it might or would likely reach our office in some manner and then it would come to our attention and then we'd reach out and start that kind of process I guess you know well you know what's hap what's happening you know is a certain type of
is a certain time of day, you know, the whole um just logistics and operation. Um just kind of talk through it with the development team or you know the property owner. So the operations so I think attorney had a call. Uh
>> I think uh planning staff usually people go to the building inspector and then they go to the planning staff and the planning staff is very responsive. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm also encouraged that we've heard from these residents uh very recently on another application. So
I think they're engaged and they know that they can come to us >> uh if they're having an issue. >> Great. >> Jean, one final question. >> Yes. Just with respect to um uh is um in terms of construction when it would be anticipated of uh that construction
would begin how long it would take because also kind of keeping in mind too the abuing property owners you know and I understand there's hours of construction and such in the general property conditions but I mean general conditions but in terms of when when would you would anticipate it would be this would be taking place
>> soon. July 6 starting 26 weeks finishing hopefully by Christmas. >> They anticipate starting the beginning of July. So quickly uh 26 weeks on construction. So this will move along
very very quickly. It's not going to uh linger or drag out. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Okay. U motion made by Dave and seconded by Jim. I mean Lou. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. >> Okay. Very good. I have the I have the decision here. Um I'll read this in the record as the acting clerk.
Uh site plan review 37 Popes Lane and 85 Newbury Street. Date of application April 16, 2026. Date of hearing June 9th, 2026. Dat decision June 9th, 2026. The Dampers Planning Board finds the site plan submitted by TA KJ LLC for
property at 37 Popes Lane, assessor's map 48, lot 28, and 85 Newbury Street, Assessor's Map 48, lot 28B, to be in substantial compliance with the criteria and regulations adopted by the town. Details of the plan review can be found on the following plan.
quote construction documents 37 Popes Lane, Danvers, Massachusetts should be 01923 for D. Luigi's Inc. end quote. Prepared by Hancock Associates, dated April 9th, 2026. Revised to uh June 9th, 2026,
consisting of 11 sheets. Supporting materials include lighting plan prepared by Pquette and Howard Electric Service LLC dated April 3rd, 2026. Storm water report prepared by Hancock Associates dated March 2026 revised to
June 2026. Architectural plans prepared by Jew construction dated April 3rd 2026 consisting of three sheets. The following submission requirements have been waved. One section 4.2.2 datim. Elevations shown on the plans refer to national geodetic vertical datim of
1929. NGVD29 instead of North American vertical datim of 1988. NAVD88 2 section 4.3.1 title sheet existing contours are shown at 1-oot intervals on the existing conditions plan of land
three section 4.3.2 Two, site analysis plan. Site analysis plan is entitled existing conditions plan of land. EC existing contours are shown at 1 ft intervals. A note containing the number and total DBH of all trees with a DBH
greater than 6 in is not shown on the plan. Soil testing locations and results are shown on the grading drainage and utilities plan C6 four section 4.3.3 dimensional regulations plan lines with bearings and distance are shown on the
existing conditions plan of land five section 4.3.4 Four, site construction plan. Site construction plan is entitled the layout and materials plan. C5 existing and proposed contours and proposed drainage system are shown on the grading, drainage, and utilities
plan. C6, landscaping is shown on the landscaping plan. C7, a table indicating the amounts of earth material that are to be removed, added, or reused on site is not shown on the plan. Six, section 4.3.6, utilities plan. The profiles of the utilities are
not shown on the plan. Seven, section 4.3.7, landscape plan. The landscape plan is prepared by professional engineer PE. Instead of a registered landscaped architect, existing and proposed grades are shown on the grading, drainage, and utilities plan
C6. Existing trees with 6in DBH or greater to be removed are shown in the site preparation and erosion control plan C4. The methods for protecting plant material during construction are not shown on the plan. The yard setbacks are shown on the dimensional regulations
plan C3 8. Section 4.3.8 off- streetet parking and loading plan. The off- streetet parking and loading plan is entitled the layout and materials plan C5. The parking table is shown on the dimensional regulations plan C3. The construction details and type of materials are shown on the
details C8 and C9. Conditions of approval. The project is subject to the following conditions. One, prior to the issuance of a building permit, this site plan decision shall be recorded at the Southern Essex Registry of Deeds. Two, in the event of a in the event of a
noise two, in the event a noise nuisance is caused by the new freezer building compressors/ equipment, the applicant shall work with town staff to implement noise mitigation measures. Period. Three, the applicant will satisfy all
the comments in the Denver's engineering division memorandum dated June 8th, 2026. Four, if there are any changes to the approved plans, the use, or the conditions on premises, planning staff will review. If deemed a major change by staff, the applicant will have to apply
for a new application for site plan review. This project is subject to the attached list of general conditions. Any approval of this site plan review shall lapse within 3 years from the grant thereof if construction has not begun by such date. Signed, Gan Hartnet, chair.
>> Second. Anyone second? >> Um, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you very much. And item number five on our agenda is a
public hearing for 54 Cherry Hill Drive. Request for site plan review submitted by Abomemed Incorporated for property at 54 Cherry Hill Drive map 29 lot 11 pursuant to section 4 site plan review of the zoning bylaw. Said property is in
the industrial 2 I2 zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a new building addition and parking lot expansion and associated site modifications >> and the applicant is joining virtually looks like
>> and madam chair as noted I I did not attend the the the prior meeting on this but I did um watch the and listen to the uh the video proceedings and filled out a mullen form. >> Thanks. So, >> good evening. Who do we have here for the applicant?
>> Okay. Sorry, I didn't know the board was uh ready. My name is Denell Baptist. Um civil engineer project manager for the project on behalf of the applicant, Abby Johnson and Johnson. Um we Josh, could you put the slide up, please?
>> Yes. One moment. >> Sure. Perfect. Thanks. Thanks, Josh. Um, so just some housekeeping. Um, the applicant came in front of the board um on two occasions. Um, on the original
the first occasion it was um continued um until a decision uh was made from conservation commission. Um, fast forward to today. Um, our conservation commission was approved on our previous
meeting on May 28th. Um, so we're here in front of the board to proceed with site plan approval for said project. Um, we were in receipt of engineering comments that was sent today. Uh, we reviewed the comments. Thanks, uh, Josh
and your team uh, for providing those comments. Um based on a cursory review of those comments, it seems like the project and the comments and what have you from the engineering department was substantially rectified. Um most if not
all were uh no further comments from um Mr. King and his staff. Um so uh based on that uh we did provide a overview of the the the the projects and last hearing uh we will provide any comments.
We'll go through a a formal review of the site plan if um some of the board members would like to um go over the the the the actual um slides. Um, I wanted to focus more on um the items that Josh
Morris um and High Point and the applicant that have been talking um more intimately offline and that is relative to the irrigation and the landscape components of the site. Um, we received comment back from uh Josh Morris and his
team um stating that irrigation um is not allowed to use public water source. Um so uh with that said um if the commission if the board would allow um us to talk more in depth about
getting to a resolution on the landscaping and the irrigation since the engineering was substantially complete as we based on the review there were no significant um comments relative to any design related items. Um I would like to
introduce our landscape director Mr. Michael Rner um that could start to talk about the discussion relative to the irrigation and the landscaping um um design on this project. >> Thank you. Can everybody hear me?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Very wonderful. Good evening everybody and thank you Mr. Denell Baptiste. What an introduction. Uh Michael Rner with the High Point. Uh we're the landscape architect for the project. Um,
rather than looking at these slides, would you mind if I shared my screen? We can sort of cut to the heart of the matter. >> Sure. >> Or is that >> Sure. >> You uh do I just do I need to give you that ability? Is that the issue?
>> Yeah, I don't I can't click on it right now. >> Okay, hold on. Um your go right now. Let's see if I made you a presenter. Okay, let's see.
>> If that doesn't work, I can't. Okay, here we go. >> Yep. >> Thank you. So, um, first of all, I wanted to respond to there were a few comments last time, uh, that we've addressed on these plans, and I just wanted to highlight that. The first was the there
was a concern or a suggestion that there would be a fence around the this uh well we have two uh storm water areas but we're really focused on this one um as a safety measure uh in discussion with the
client Abom what we talked about was since this storm water area here is not really near any walking areas it's sort of in the middle of a field we didn't we weren't terribly concerned concerned about that. Um, this one to the left has
a sidewalk that runs along Cherry Hill Drive and our proposal is to put a fence for a portion of that um top of that slope here and then a heavily planted buffer along here to keep people from I
guess misststepping and going into the basin. There's no other walking areas around here so we didn't feel like it was necessary. We would like to keep it sort of as natural as possible and the feeling was that a fence would really kind of detract from the look of the
area. Um, you know, this is a this is a corporate headquarters for Abomemed. Um, we're really trying to focus on the aesthetics of the design. So, we would ask that you um uh acknowledge that that's a sufficient barrier. Um the
other piece I wanted to go to was when we talked about uh there was a question over drought tolerant and native plant selections and what we have done in our resubmission is added a column here that the DT denotes drought tolerant the N
denotes native and you could see that we're all um sort of in that zone of being uh resilient landscaping if you will um a lot of these species are are quite drought tolerant and we should have a lot of success with it. Having
said that, um what we have uh what we've seen is this um um request or requirement that um we not use a municipal source of water. And if I can go back to the sort of the big plan
here. Um like I said, we're you know this is a this is the third lot and a three lot succession of uh of buildings that are all connected. Um the landscape improvements are substantial on the other two lots. We would like to do the
same here. Um and um you know I've been doing this a long time and I'm I'm all for resilient plantings. I'm all for native plantings. I'm all for drought resistant plantings. Um the issue that I'd like your help with
uh as a town and the and the board is that with the rather substantial investment going into this uh plan um and despite all of the drought tolerance that we're showing here, every plant needs water. And you know we we are
often in a situation where um uh you know there's a substantial investment of you know few hundred,000 here in um improving the look and the feel of the landscape and the and the
the corporate um um offices here and for the comfort of the employees. and we like to have this planting but but it's very very difficult for for anybody to maintain these landscapes without supplementing what comes from the sky.
Um so you know in our initial submission we we had assumed that there the design was predicated on that there would be an irrigation system and that we would tap into the municipal source. I understand that the town doesn't like this or it's
changing their um um regulations about this. Um we really tried to find um sort of going through some other decisions and I couldn't find really anything that prohibited a municipal
tie-in like this. And I may be wrong. You know, I didn't do an exhaustive search on this. So, you know, if I'm if I'm mistaken, and there are some precedents for that, I'd certainly like to hear it. But I guess what we're looking for is um for you to to um work
with us and avoid to find a way to um preserve the plan as it is. And um I guess I guess the first request is that is there a way to conditionally
approve the project so that um we have some flexibility on what the supply of water is is going to be. And I'll add that we're um we're exploring other sources of water. Um there's other ways to water plants, but it's it's they're
rather extensive engineering studies that have to be done with that that come with that. Um you know, if you're going to dig a well, we don't know if we're going to hit water from a well. So um I I guess what I'm asking is that there's
you know, if we could have some flexibility um in being able to to do that. Um if if there if there isn't if we are absolutely um for forboden forbade um to
use a municipal water supply my recommendation to aomad is that we not do the tree plantings that are um circled in the in the blue area that we just focus on the plantings around the building that we can those are um
smaller shrubs and perennials and grasses that can better withstand um uh the drought. But when you plant large trees like um oaks and maples, um they um even if it's for the first couple of seasons, it it can't be done
without supplemental water. Um so I I guess, you know, I'll I'll stop talking there and I'm I'm hoping that there can be a discussion uh about this and we can find some flexibility with the board. Thank you.
And uh I can stop sharing if you like. >> Okay. Does that conclude your presentation? >> We could go through a formal presentation. I I just wanted to u respect the board's time because a formal presentation was done on the previous hearing and we received
comments back from engineering that pretty much satisfied all the comments that we posed from their first round of of of um engineering comments. So unless the board want us to go through a formal presentation, we' be more than happy to do that. But we just felt that it was
already done and we pretty much received a clean slate from engineering and we received conservation commission approval that we could focus more on a more pressing item. Hence why we bypassed that that um approach. >> Yeah, I don't think that's necessary. Um
>> yeah, can I add one more thing? I'm sorry >> and I neglected to mention um the irrigate if we are able to do this the irrigation system that we would design is what's called EPA water sense. So which is a federal program that um um is
a basically is a 50% reduction over what traditional irrigation does. So these are these are smart systems of irrigation. They we um of course it's all cloud-based and it's all internet based. They monitor the weather so that
you're not going to see sprinklers running when it's raining. uh they uh we put uh soil moisture sensors in the ground so that it detects when the soil is too dry and the water only turns on when that happens. So it's it's an
extremely efficient and water-wise type of system. Thank you. >> Um if I may jump in Josh, you had uh three comments um from a planning board comments. Um one was what Mr. Rader
spoke about um the second one was the snow storage and the third one was the parking. Um we held back from making any modifications to that because we did not know if the engineering comments would supersede or required additional revisions. So uh if the board allowed u
I would like to have uh those com those two comments part of the condition approval for tonight just for the adjustment of the handicap spots just to be closer to the building. It's essentially just sliding it over. Um, and the snow storage is it's essentially
just adding more snow storage and making it smaller cuz right now it exceeds the 50x40 that was um in your your decision letter and I believe uh we spoke a few times Josh um offline.
Thanks for being available. Um but there was no significant um issues from the planning board standpoint that we discussed. Um so I'm just wondering if that could be part of the condition of approval if the board um
would choose to >> Okay. Can we go to questions from the board? >> Sure. >> Okay. Lou, do you want to start? >> Sure. Yeah. just some just some questions and I I did um you know I was not in attendance at the April 28th meeting but I did watch the um the the hearing and I did just a couple of
questions I did have um >> so with respect to the the fencing um you know so I I appreciate that that there's a fence that you're proposing to put a fence on sort of on one side but
I'm wondering in terms of the uh you understanding there's not a sidewalk walk on the other side. I'm still there's still I think there's still a concern that people will potentially walk in that area and so um and so just so I have an un understanding
I think I heard what you were saying you're not proposing any additional fencing on that when we saw the plan on that sort of that right side which was not abuing a sidewalk. I mean people don't necessarily always walk on sidewalks. So that's what I was that's that's a concern I have. Mike, you want to take that?
>> Uh, I I would just say that we've had extensive discussions with Albomet on this and they're um they understand the risk and they're willing to assume the risk on their property. >> Wow. Okay.
Okay. Well, I understand what you're you know, you're I understand what you're saying there. I understand that they're willing to assume the risk, but we're also the as the as the planning board, we're also responsible uh as well to the uh have a responsibility to the public as well into the safety. So that's a
concern I you know I you know the fact that they're willing to take on the responsibility is doesn't uh exactly um uh give me much solace. So >> uh could I jump in? Uh
would it be um amicable um to a a happy median if that fence area was just slightly extended around? Um should not to circumn the entire basin but to kind of curve that area just to provide more
um protection. Um would the board be um amicable for that uh revision? I mean I I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I guess this Are you so you >> are you talking about then Mr. Baptist were you talking about adding a so
because the way it's my understanding is that you you're looking at adding a fence that's sort of adjacent to the um to the sidewalk area sort of on the left side of the as you can see the plan but on the right side you were not planning. So, are you now saying that you would
>> So, what what I was saying is is if you go to the Could you go to the landscape plan? >> Yeah. Or um Mr. Batist, is this >> um can you see uh I kind of Yeah. Is that >> this area the the basin
>> you see? So, it's like the southern this you want me to go to a different sheet or is this >> Yeah, if you could go to the landscape plan. I I just wanted to bring something up. >> Which sheet is It's towards the end. >> Okay. >> L300.
>> L300. Okay. Yeah. >> Oh, 300. Yeah. Okay. Oh, there it is. Yeah. Okay. So what what I was thinking is if we extend uh the fencing along do I have control? Let me see. Take control
>> here. Uh >> press control. >> I Yeah. Okay. >> All right. So what I was thinking is Dix Tell me if you could see my cursor. >> Yes. >> Okay. So I guess I should start by is the is the concern along the driveway
end or the concern is along this side? No. No. Now, I think the concern that I was having was there were two locations where that we'd have it. It's actually on the on the opposite side of the of the driveway. >> The other basin. >> The other basin.
>> The other basin where you're put right where you're where it's my understanding that you are because of there's there's not people, you know, there's there's not a a sidewalk there and such that you're not proposing that any protective measures be placed there.
>> Correct. So what what would suffice from the board? Could we mimic that same partial fencing along this area? And if so, if you could direct me to kind of draw on a cursor, I think that a capital applicant would be amendable to that if that's going to prevent from an
approval. I don't think the applicant would would be um >> This is a sidewalk. >> Yeah, that's a sidewalk, too. Yeah. >> Yes. It's actually pointed out that's a there's a sidewalk. there is on the, you know, if you're looking at your cursor, just a a short distance to the left of your cursor
>> is also a sidewalk. So, I think that there does need to be some, you know, I would say that there should be some fencing that that that would >> something like this >> kind of going all the way and further up further further to the right further. Yep.
from here >> going around and then all I would say all the way around um Cherry Hill Drive along Cherry Hill Drive. So if you were to move your cursor to the right, continue moving it. Continue. Continue. And then cutting in.
>> So basically you want it wrapped. That's I thought it was going to come to a compromise, but you wanted it wrapped. Is that correct? >> You wanted Speaking for the board. This is I I would say I have concerns about Yeah. That should be wrapped similar to what you're doing on the other side where you're doing a combination of
fence and some landscaping to prevent to sort of discourage people from walking into the area or falling, you know, getting into falling into it is to do a similar approach on that side. >> I think we could come up with something that >> we can do that.
>> Yeah, the boy could. Yeah, I think we could come up with something. That's fine. >> Okay. Okay. I do have some other concerns. Do you want me to Okay, sure. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Okay. So, so that was my concern about the in terms of the fencing and
then the other question I have is with respect to the um the the water and I think this is a this is a question coming from um I guess the town staff. I mean, in terms of the water use and using town water for I mean, that is a
it's it's prohibited by our by general conditions for site plane review, >> right? I mean, I guess if we want to get into that, just a couple comments. So, right, as Lou alluded to, in the general conditions, I'm just, you
know, I sent it to the development team, but just for the board, um, our last general condition, which has been in every site plan decision that we've did, we've done since 2018. Water conservation. Irrigation shall not
utilize the public water supply. In the event irrigation is desired, a private well should be installed. Any irrigation system shall have rain moisture sensors and timers in all heads and zones. All right. And then additionally
in the uh engineering memo that was provided today that was sent to the development team from the DPW director. Um
let me see today Um, I'll just read the first the the comment the first thing in the memo from today. The applicant should note that since the town's water supply is subject to permit requirements under
Mass General Law 21G, Water Management Act, the town's ongoing water conservation program, water for any landscape irrigation desired by the applicant shall be provided by pro provided from a private on-site well or from rainfall. All new landscape irrigation systems within the town must
include a soil moisture sensor to prevent unnecessary watering and a rainfall sensor to prevent watering when when rain is falling section six storm water regulations. So you know we have been talking to the
development team about this matter. Uh it's staff's you know viewpoint and that you know this is a town regulation
and we are certainly not in favor of you know modifying this condition. Um it's such a regular we're not even we're kind of even confident that the board doesn't even really have
the authority to you know modify this. So um so I don't know I don't know what else to say. I don't know, but that's just >> I mean, >> yeah, I'd be interested in seeing what
they, you know, in terms of what my fellow board members have to say about it, but just in terms of the um Yeah, I definitely have some concerns about, you know, that and knowing, of course, that we now, you know, whether we even have the ability to and and also, frankly, I'm I'm u I'd be interested in knowing
if there are other um measures that can be tech taken in addition to just the either either well or rainwater water conservation something in terms of using the you know rainwater collection that could also be used to to provide
irrigation as opposed to just you know as opposed to the uh oh if you we can't use irrigation then the you know the landscape plan is is out. So those are my comments for now J. >> Thanks Lou. Jim do you want to go next?
Yeah, I I appreciate because I think I brought up the issue of the the fence and the and the requirement of the town no town water. We can't we can't compromise on those things. Those are regulations that uh were put in place and voted on I believe by town meeting.
Um, so a and if you look around the town, there are several instances of, you know, chain link fence, 4 foot black gauge, chain link fence around these detention retention ponds and and um we don't normally just put half a fence or
>> a quarter of a fence. We we fence the area for the concern. And >> obviously there'd be a gate there to maintain the area. So this isn't something that there's typically a lot of leeway. you're going to have a lot of people on the site and this in addition to your, you know, assumption of
liability, but we we kind of require this. So, um there's not a lot of leeway on that and and the watering issue. Um you know, subdivisions in town and other areas of town, they bring in water. They truck in water and they use that to uh
water the new trees if it's if it's a drought. Uh and and that was done just recently on Chattam Lane. I remember seeing the developer over there, you know, watering the plants by hand um until they took took growth, but that's un that's what the town requires and
that has not been a hidden requirement that's been out there for the uh applicant to see and I don't think it would be good precedent and as Josh said, I don't think we're even able to to bend on that rule. So that's where we're at in my mind. That's all I have.
>> Thanks, Jim. Dave >> uh with respect to the fence um I'll defer to board president on this as a practice uh to say if if other retention ponds in town have been required to been fenced then this should meet that
standard as well. In terms of the uh irrigation issue uh I I agree with Josh and the regulations are not under our purview. So we can't wave regulations that are under our purview. This is something that's that's required. U the one thing that um I won't go so far as
to say bothered me about the the applicant's response uh was saying well this is what it is and this is what it is uh do it or don't. Um it's not our job to provide options uh regarding it's our job to uphold these requirements. Um I if they want to pursue a well I'd like
to see some information about pursuing a well uh whether that's a feasible option for them. uh we there's there's too many there's too many I too many questions about what is possible on the site uh for us to even explore or consider options at this point. Um so I I I defer
to where we are with in terms of the requirements and uh both for the fence and for the the irrigation issue. Uh so I'll stand I'll stand kind of locked arms with with the board on this one. >> Thanks Dave. John, do you want to add anything?
>> No, I'm okay. Okay. And I echo what the board says. I mean, as for the fences, yes, we do require that on all the other site plan applications we approve. And we're not really asking for the for Abomid's
tolerance for risk. We're trying to provide safety for the workers and the public and anybody who may visit the site. So, I think that we're going to stand pretty firm on the fence. Um, and same with the irrigation. I mean, May
1st when the town puts out their seasonal regulations, you know, it was level six drought, no outdoor watering whatsoever. And that was on the very first day. So, for you to think that you can add irrigation just because you already have it on site or maybe it shouldn't even be allowed existing on
site. Um, we just saw for our previous application that was here tonight, you know, they they also knew that there was no irrigation allowed. um when I asked about it. So I think you know native plants will help um if you want to
pursue a well that's one thing but just the massive footprints of your building alone could probably provide enough water for irrigation. Um so yeah it's it's out of our hands and even if we were able to vote on it I don't think
we would approve irrigation on site. So, um, yeah, those are my comments. >> Jean, can I just add something? Did I was just going to add as well just with respect to the to the fencing. I will also go along with I know we're talking about partial fencing and such, but I I would I would definitely, you know, the
safest way I would follow board president complete fencing. >> So, just wanted to amend what I was saying before. >> Okay. >> Can I uh respond? >> Yeah. Uh we are uh good with the fencing
around both basins. I would ask that the manner of fencing be um up to us. If we don't if we don't want to use a chain link fence, we could use some other type of fence as long as it's a I would I would imagine a 4ft
tall is is acceptable. There may be other types of fences that we might find a little more aesthetically pleasing. >> Um So, if you have some flexibility with that, I would appreciate it. Regarding the irrigation, um, we're um, we I I
apologize if I, you know, I didn't mean to be obstreporous about this. I we were truly looking for what the regulations were and we couldn't find them. So, um, I appreciate the clarity. Now, I'm um as I said, I'm I'm in favor of water conservation and Abom wants to be a good
neighbor and they've been in town for many years. That's fine. Um uh I think we'll we will um so so we're accept I guess what we're saying is we're accepting the condition for the known municipal cup. I think
we're going to continue to look for alternate sources of water so that we can maintain the landscape um in an environmentally responsible way. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Mike. I would like to add, if
the board will allow me to add to Mike's comment, um with accepting the board's concern about defense, um we would accept that. Um but what we wanted to do um beyond that is um if if the applicant
um if it have a conditional approval based on the approved plans but allow the applicant to explore u measures for providing water whether it's harvesting whether it's due diligence from well testing um and have that as a
conditional approval to have that testing done and come back in front of the board to prove that we have water on site. Um, as a conditional approval, just not to hold up the the project moving forward and have that be a
condition approval prior to construction that a measure for providing irrigation is um sought and and and reconciled and approved by the town. So just to clarify, you're the condition would be that you're not hooking up to
municipal water that irrigation would be provided whether it was through a well, through rainwater harvesting or through trucking water in. >> Correct. Well, I think that I think the condition is written I I'll read the condition so we could
all get the terminology right. It says irrigation shall not utilize the public water supply. Okay. In the event irrigation is desired, a private well should be installed. Any irrigation system shall have rain moisture sensor sensors and timers on all heads and
zones. So I would just request that rather than saying a private well, I would just say alternate sources of water should be installed >> so that we have the flexibility to do storm water harvesting or or something else.
um the rain moisture sensors we're going to have on our system. Um if we do install irrigation and the timers uh timers are are inherent as part of any irrigation system. Any automatic
irrigation system has has timers on it. So that's fine. >> So we're going to be broadening the condition. Well, >> right. I mean, >> so so we're not simply limited to a private well, >> right? >> Yeah.
>> Um, if I could interject potential, um, if we just leave the general condition as it is, we don't need to modify. If you're not doing town water supply, I don't think it needs to be. We don't have to write if you do something that's not town water, I don't
think we have to write the five or six other options that are available. You know what I mean? If you're But >> but right now, as the condition is written, it says in the event irrigation is desired, a private well should be installed. that's
not giving them um >> leeway to do >> I think if if we if we were just to say that that they're not going to hook up to town water and should they pursue an irrigation system it'll be in line with applicable recommend regulations that just that opens it up then it could be a
well it's up to them they're just subject to applicable rec regulations for the storm water code >> which they have to anyway. >> Yeah. So it's a we don't have we'd be re we would be it would be belts and suspenders for us saying it because they have to do that anyway >> right same with the waters you know
that's baseline >> y >> so I don't think we have to we have to add it >> at all it was just an option if we choose to add something >> I just don't know if additional language is even needed but if you it seems like you vote
>> I mean we can just say >> alter alter alternate sources >> more alternate >> yeah I mean I think I probably wouldn't modify the general condition I'd probably just write it somewhere else above in the decision like alternate
water >> yeah um applicant will work with town staff to develop alternate yeah >> water exactly >> and I I think on the same just switching back to the fence >> right >> the town has specific requirements on the fencing so it's not just a little
black gauge fence. I mean, they use commercial material and it's it's it's an undertaking to a certain extent. Um, so I think anything that you propose different from that uh would have to be approved by town staff. Um, but they do have a
pretty good handle on the type of fencing that they use. And it's it's black and it's ga black gauge fence so that it kind of blends in so you don't the idea is you don't really see it. You know what I mean? it kind of blends into the landscape. So, we don't want to detract from the landscaping that you
have there and the beauty of the site, but that's why the black gauge fence is used because it's harder to discern. Um, but I know >> Josh >> Josh, if you go to if you go to L400, you could we have a picture of the fence that we're proposing.
>> Um, I was there Is my screen sh Oh, sorry. My screen's not shared. I'm sorry. >> It's page 28 of 29 >> on the left side. >> Thank you. >> You're on the right sheet. >> Thank you everyone.
>> Oh, top. >> Um, >> go to the last sheet. I'm >> on Am I on the right sheet? >> Keep going down. >> Down. >> Yeah. Now to the left. >> Okay. Yep. There it is. Oh,
>> okay. Yep. >> So, it is a it's a wire gauge, you know, it's it's a little bit stiffer than a chain link fence. >> It's got decorative posts rather than a round steel post.
So, in our opinion, it actually looks better. >> It's got to be consistent, though. I don't buy ours. Jim, when you mentioned kind of fence requirements, um, >> I just know the developer at Chadam
Road, Chadam Lane was complaining to me that the extent and the the the specifications for the fence were it's a commercialgrade fence like it's it's a >> Sure. I wasn't sure if that was what we we as the board was a condition was a
condition or if it's in the subdivision rules and regs which wouldn't apply in this situation. I think it was I think it was a condition but I think once he had >> presented plans for putting it in that the >> building department as part of that they
>> had okay I don't know if I could comment on that >> requirements >> yeah I am not I am not aware of like um maybe in the subdivision rules and rags we might but I didn't think we ever like went into like that level of detail like the type material color and brand and
all that to be honest. Um potentially, but I am not aware of that type of level of detail for like, you know, for like a site plan. Um so I guess if >> I think it'd be subject to, you know, >> Yeah. I mean, I think we could >> approval. I mean, yeah,
>> you got to meet the code. You got to meet the code. >> Sure. >> Well, not necessarily the building code, but >> you have to discuss it with him. >> Yeah. I mean, if we wanted a condition that even Well, they're showing >> I mean, it looks nice. Don't get me wrong, >> that's that's we've never seen one like
that. You get typical rounded poles, but that it's attractive. I just, you know, >> I don't want you to go and buy all the materials and find out that it doesn't get approved by the building inspector cuz he doesn't like it. >> We could say in here that fence shall,
you know, will need to be reviewed by town staff, reviewed and approved before, prior to installation, something of that nature. >> Sure. Okay, that seems fair. So
review. >> So Jean, so the language of it would be would be fencing surrounding the the two retention ponds. Is that the >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. need to be reviewed and approved by town staff before installation.
>> Are they detention basins or retention basins? >> The detention. >> I would just call them storm water basins. >> Okay. >> Kind of a catch all term, right, Danell? >> Yep. Okay. Are there any other questions or
comments from the board? >> No. Okay. Um I will open it up to questions from the public. Go ahead Nova. Thank you. Uh Nova Sam town meeting member precinct one. Um, so with all this discussion of fencing and the
retention, so these are storm water retention basins and there is a like a bylaw with the town that requires them to be fully fenced. I guess I I'm just I'm going to throw out this concern. Um,
are those retention basins being used by wildlife? Is that water actually like helping maintain wildlife in the area and we would fence it off so that it is no longer being
it's no longer available for whatever is maybe using it. Um and I would also agree with like no to the municipal water supply. Um, but yeah, I I actually do have concerns with
fresh water being fenced off from our environment for use. >> The applicant want to respond? >> Can I take Yep. Can I take that question to Noise? High point. Um so uh to to
answer uh u lady's question um the the stormwater detention basin does not support aquatic life or any life um of same the basins are designed to to dewater within 72 hours. So it wouldn't even be able to uh support any habitat
of such. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the public? No. Okay. Um, now we can come back to the board and any further comments for
deliberation. >> Dave, do you have anything? >> No. >> No. Jim, >> no. >> Oh, hello. >> No, I don't think I mean I think that it's that including some of these these conditions in terms of um so it looks like we're we're all in a in a in
agreement. And it appears that the the applicant will be willing to work, you know, work with town staff to explore alternative sources of water for irrigation and then also um uh fencing surrounding the storm water basins, you know, will be reviewed and approved by
town staff before installation. So that's I would be >> um yeah, that that satisfies my concerns. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Yeah, >> I was just like, yeah, could I just I
was just um could I just read out loud what I thought for conditions? Not to interrupt, I'm sorry. >> Um so um uh >> as acting clerk, I can >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um what I have written down here,
let's see if I can read my writing. Um applica applicant will work with town staff >> to explore >> alternative sources of water for irrigation >> to um for yeah irrigation for land
should we say for landscaping >> for landscaping sure >> right >> I'm definitely have to watch this video tomorrow >> okay so I have applicant will work with town staff to explore alternative sources of water for irrig for irrigation for landscaping. So that
would be added as a as a condition but we would re obviously re retain the the general condition. >> Yeah. Yep. So we won't modify that in any manner. We'll just you know add it like like it's always >> but we will still for the condition we'll still need to though um the the plan will need to be revised though. Y
to >> I'll keep that in there. is both in terms of for snow storage to meet the general conditions as well as the planting note y >> um that uh that that planting note 17 will be removed being non-compliant with the general conditions >> and then I added a C there Lou where I
wrote um we we should have the fence be added also I add like a C you know how see how that that condition three was an A and a B I was going to do a C because the fence should be added to the plan >> yes Um so >> okay
>> fence surrounding um >> yeah I have fence surrounding the storm water basins >> will need to be >> I'm sorry >> will need to be reviewed and approved by town staff before installation.
>> So it's sort of like a two a two-parter the fence piece where the fence needs to be added to the plan set. >> Yes. >> And then additionally we could do I'll do a period after we Um, additionally, the fence shall be
reared and approved by town staff prior to installation. Does that sound good? >> So, I So, I'm what I'm having here. So, just so I have it straight, right? >> So, I have fencing surrounding the storm water basins shall be added to the plan set. >> Yep. >> And then we want to say
>> fencing >> and then we should say at least um so we no issues in the future. Were we okay with the 4 foot and the metal and the black? >> I would say I I would be just in terms
of because I know heights have varied a little bit sometimes. I would just >> I mean I would just say just that it should be um that the the the nature >> I mean that the the type and height of fencing shall be be reviewed and approved by
town staff. >> Okay, that's fine if >> that's okay with you folks. Okay. >> Okay. Prior to insulation. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I could that seems good.
>> And then the the the language about the the the the source of water the alternative source of water that would just be added as a as a >> that' be a whole new one, right? Like a whole Yeah, that' be like number number >> I can excuse you one second. I think the four feet is if it's four feet or less it's not a structure. >> That's right. >> It's more than four feet then it's a
structure. So I think that's why we use four feet. You don't want something that's >> sure >> necessarily six feet. It's really not It's intended to stop someone from going over it, but I think once you go over four feet, >> it is that's right. >> It's a structure. So now you have to get a permit for it, >> right? You have to get a building permit
for it. >> So I don't I think we've always typically done four feet. >> Okay. So we can write in the condition then just that be >> okay. So it would say that so the um a 4T a 4ft fence.
>> Okay. Okay. Yeah. And Lou, um I think you were alluding to it mentioning it. Yeah. That um the alternative source of water where it would just be its own own like I just make it probably a new number three and then right just a whole new condition
not not in that section where prior to endorsement. >> Got it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Work today. >> Can we close the public hearing? Um, not yet. We haven't yet. >> Okay. >> Oh, then I guess one other thing, sorry.
Uh, the development team brought up, I had made a comment about moving the handicap spaces, ADA spaces closer to the doors. If we could just write that on the plan as in that section prior to endorsement. >> Yep. >> Like a D, like a D. Um
you going to say like handicap spaces shall be moved closer to the entrance and exit doors. Uh development team is that satisfactory. >> You're on mute. >> I'll say in coordination with town staff.
>> Sure. Sure. >> Could you could you repeat that please? >> Yeah. It was just uh kind of like in my st planning staff comment. Uh, I said just the handicap spaces shall be moved closer to the entrances
and exits to the building. >> Yep. I was going to say handicap spaces shall be moved uh closer to building entrance and exit doors in coordination with town staff. >> That sound >> did Mr. Batist is that satisfactory?
>> So, yes. Yep. >> Okay. Okay. So, that will just be in a section where the plan will be >> um several of the conditions that we just mentioned um are in a section like the plan will be revised to show, but we can work um you know, whatever on doing that.
>> Yep, that's Yeah, that's fine. We can move it closer. Yeah. >> Okay. I think that was it. Sorry to keep interrupting. >> Okay. Um would someone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? >> So, moved. >> Second. Motion made by Jim and seconded
by Dave. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I Okay, Lou. >> Yeah, I have a decision. >> Get away. >> Okay. Site plan review, 54 Cherry Hill Drive. Date of application, March 12th, 2026. Date of hearing, April 28th, 2026.
May 26, 2026. No public testimony, June 9th, 2026. Date of decision, June 9th, 2026. The Danvers Planning Board finds the site plan submitted by Aomed, Inc. for property at 54 Cherry Hill Drive. Assessor's map 29, lot 11 to be in substantial compliance with the criteria
and regulations adopted by the town. Details of the plan review can be found on the following plan. Quote, 54 Cherry Hill Drive expansion plans Danvers, Massachusetts. End quote. Prepared by High Point Engineering, Inc. dated March 9th, 2026, revised to May 13, 2026,
consisting of 29 sheets. Supporting materials include storm water management analysis prepared by High Point Engineering, Inc. dated March 9th, 2026. revised to April 27th, 2026, rendering prepare unknown received on March 12th, 2026. The following submission
requirements have been waved. One, section 4.3.1 title sheet. The land use of each lot, lot lines, and zoning district boundaries are not shown on the plan. Existing contours are shown at 1-ft intervals on the existing conditions plan. Two, section 4.3.2,
site analysis plan. Site analysis plan is entitled existing conditions plan. Ex existing contours are shown at one foot intervals. All trees over 6 inch diameter at breast height DBH. A note containing the number and total DBH of all trees with a DBH greater than 6 in
is not shown in the plan. Location of test pits is shown on the grading and drainage plan C300 3. Section 4.3.3 dimensional regulations plan. No dimensional regulations plan submitted. The lot lines, proposed yard setbacks, proposed maximum height of building and
zoning dimensional table are shown in the layout and materials plan C200 4 section 4.3.4 site construction plan. Site construction plan is entitled the layout and materials plan C200. Existing and proposed contours and drainage
system are shown on the grading and drainage plan C300. Landscaping is shown on the planting plan L300 and planting plan enlargement L301. A table indicating amounts of earth material that are to be removed, added or reused on site is not shown on the plan. Five,
section 4.3.6, utilities plan. The profile of the utilities is not shown in the plan. Six, section 4.3.7, landscape plan. The landscape plan is entitled planting plan L300 and planting plan enlargement L301. Existing and
proposed grades are not shown on the plan. Existing trees with a 6 inch DBH or greater to be retained or removed are not shown on the plan. A plan and plant schedule uh and methods for protecting plant materials during construction are shown in the planting notes and details
L302. The yard setbacks are shown on the layout and materials plan C200. A table showing the percentage of existing and proposed impervious surface is not shown on the plan. Seven section 4.3.8. Eight. Off- streetet parking and loading plan. The off- streetet parking and loading plan is entitled the layout and
materials plan C200. The construction details and type of materials is shown on the detail sheets C500 to C506. Conditions of approval. The project is subject to the following conditions. One, prior to the issuance of a building
permit, this site plan decision shall be recorded at the Southern Essex Registry of Deeds. Two, the applicant will satisfy all the comments in the Danver's engineering division memorandum dated June 9th, 2026.
Three, the applicant will work with town staff to explore alternative sources of water for irrigation for landscaping. Period. Four. Prior to endorsement, the plan set
shall be revised to show A. Snow storage meeting general conditions number six, snow storage, B. Planting note number 17 on the planting
notes and details L302 shall be removed from the plan due to being non-compliant with general conditions number seven, water conservation. C. Okay. 4 foot sense 4 foot fencing will
surround the storm water basins and shall be added to the plan set. The uh the type of fencing shall be reviewed and approved by town staff prior to installation.
Period. D. Handicap parking spaces shall be moved closer to the building entrance and exit doors, in coordination with town staff. Period.
Five. If there are any changes to the approved plans, the use or the conditions on premises, planning staff will review. If deemed a major change by staff, the applicant will have to apply for a new application for site plan review. This project is subject to the
attached list of general conditions. Any approval of this site plan shall lapse within three years from the grant thereof if construction has not begun by such date. Signed Gan Hartnet chair. I think I covered everything. Okay. >> Anyone want to second that?
>> I think someone from out of space was trying to I would second that. >> Okay. Motion made by Lou, seconded by Jim. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Thank you and good luck.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Item number six on our agenda are the meeting minutes. Um, April 6th, 2026 and April 28th, 2026. Do I have a motion to approve?
>> So moved to approve the >> do both at once. >> Let's do one at a time. >> One at a time. >> Uh move to approve the minutes of April 6th, 2026. >> Uh second. >> Motion made by Dave and seconded by Lou. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. >> That's okay. You could still vote on it even if you weren't there. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I vote for it then. >> Okay. >> I watched it. >> Sure. >> All right. >> Move to approve the minutes of April 28th, 2016. >> Did you vote on that? Did you say
yourself, Jan? >> Yes, I did. >> Oh, you did? Okay. >> Just want to make sure I >> Sorry. >> Second. >> Motion made by David, seconded by Jim. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> And Josh, what do we have coming up? So, our next meeting is Tuesday. Oh, we have a Yeah, we have the land use summit for the board um coming up on
next Wednesday the 17th um at the senior center. um talk about um it'll be a joint meeting with ZBA and the select board just talking about kind of planning initiatives over the next six to months
to a year. Um so that would be great for you folks to attend. I could send out more additional information. Um if >> is um is will refresh my memor is virtual participation. >> I don't I don't believe so. >> I won't be able to make it >> since I would be away. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. We could work with that potentially. >> Okay. Um and then the next planning board meet, regular plan meeting is Tuesday the 23rd. Um as we speak, the only item that
evening is um a the 156 158 Maple Street item that was continued from tonight to that night. Um will everyone be there or um in terms of
your availability >> on that evening? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I have a um I have another uh obligation in town. So I may be able to attend >> if if if needed. I'll be in town, but I'll be at a um Dammers Historical Society event at which I'm involved.
>> It seems as Yeah. a year. Yeah. Happens >> about the same time. >> Yes. Um, yep. Okay. >> Um, >> so I I can see what I can do in terms of attending, but I don't want to I'm not not a guarantee. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Um, and then we will be switching to our summer schedule. >> I just go back to that. If who's not able to attend? >> Yeah. >> Um, would the applicant >> I will let them know and I will confirm with Mike and in that event, John could
fill in on the special permits. Right. >> Yep. It's a >> That's one vote, right? >> Right. It gets complicated quickly. Yes. >> Yeah. So, if you're not going to attend, then I don't know if they're going to come. >> I mean, I'm going to be in town, so I can see what I can, you know, I can see what I can do.
>> But that's the only item. >> Yeah. >> I mean, we might be able to handle it. I don't know. Okay. >> Relatively. >> I'll let them know and I'll um >> I don't know. >> I'll speak with Lou and I'll speak with Mike if Mike's also not available. just don't think she'll come if she's not all
of us there. >> Okay. >> I don't know if they'll come >> because you need you need a >> uh for the special permit you need four out of five. >> Yes. um not on this particular item that's complicated but um they do need a
m they do need a simple majority but yeah I will um but the special permits John could John could um vote on those >> but it would have to be would have to be so you're just saying they just need a simple majority
>> yes but they but I think what you're saying that they may not they >> it gets if they know that they're they're short one they might not want to >> Yeah. So you want to let them know sooner rather than later because they've already >> postponed it, >> right? >> I mean obviously if Mike also is not
able to attend and Lou is like 50/50 or le you whatever not to um it gets we'll have to make a decision and >> Yeah. You going to check with Mike? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Ideally I would want to you know it would be um Yeah. Especially if there's only I mean if there's
>> if we there's one item ideally would be good. I I could because this event's been on the books for a long time. If we moved the meeting up a half an hour, would that be helpful? I'm just being creative.
Um, let's circle back, but we could let's talk offline. >> While we don't have that open, I mean, I'm just wondering if they made a full presentation. >> Yep. You did. Yeah. >> So, they would one time
>> they would be giving us their updates. >> I watched it. Yeah. So like tonight they would be just giving updates and >> the event I'm at runs from 5:00 to 8. So that's the >> Oh 5 to 8. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's our summer concert series beer garden >> at Glen Magda.
>> Come here after the beer garden. >> No, I would I would be I would not come after I would No, I >> So >> I'm the president of the society. So it's a little bit >> Yeah, >> in that case we >> unless we did a different night. >> We just continued it to that night. >> Well, we did like a
a different night than >> but the problem is we earlier tonight we continued it to that date. >> Oh yeah, >> that was the problem. I wish it >> Oh yeah, >> that was the problem. >> Well, we we're still in session >> but the applicant's not here. >> We
>> Yeah, I don't think we can do that. >> Could So there's no other agenda items that So >> we will close public hearing. We haven't journed, >> right? I don't think we can open the I don't I don't think we can open that back up.
>> Well, if say another member can't make it, if we don't have a quorum, we can't meet, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, >> in some manner. Yeah. Um I don't know if I'll be able to figure this out at this moment, but I will circle back with everyone uh about that. But
>> I mean if we I mean with other people's indulgence if we could you know if the meeting could be I don't want to keep people later than they need to. But if you if the meeting was pushed a little bit then that would be that would be helpful. We could talk through that. We don't
have to make the decision now. But >> that'd be something that just post the meeting for later. >> Yeah. >> For for a later time. >> Yeah. I would just on the same night like I said like I sort of threw it out >> and that's okay. And if that doesn't work, then it'll be July 7th
>> potentially. >> July 14th. >> I'm sorry. You're right. Yeah. 14th. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I guess I guess while we're here, >> if we could do 7:30 or 8:00, >> would SE would 7:30 or 8 be a minimal to
the board? >> Yeah. >> 8 would be great if that would be >> No objection. Are you okay? >> I don't turn into a pumpkin until 9ine. >> You have one minute. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Check with Mike and >> but I mean Yeah. I mean >> it's a possibility. >> It looks like that's looks like that's what happened might happen. So okay. Um but um I'll confirm soon. But >> it does the continuence doesn't say any
time. So it's not >> right. So it's just a date. So there's a little bit of wiggle but not too much. Yeah. So yeah, we could do that. >> Check with all their people. >> It's just Mike because everyone here
said they were good. >> If that would be that would be if that works, I would I'd appreciate it. That'd be you know. >> Okay. Let's sort of pencil that in then at 8. >> Okay. >> Hopefully I'll remember when we post the agenda,
>> but uh should be good. Um okay. Um and then yeah um okay we could talk about July I just I would say the July 14th back of a net. Is that anyone definitely not around for that
just I know people's schedules are in flux but >> I'll be around. Yeah. >> Okay. We'll just meet once in July and once in August. So, >> okay. >> What day are we looking at for August? >> H I forget. I'd have to look. Um,
let me believe it was earlier. >> 11th. >> What's that? >> Would it be the 11th? >> Could be. >> Or the 25th. >> No, the 25th. >> The 11th then. >> Probably the 11th.
>> Second Tuesday. >> Probably. Um, >> I'm at a conference the 11th, but >> you know, we can get a little >> I could probably participate remotely.
>> You know, if we could I think it was yeah the 11th as we speak it's the 11th but but we could move that around too we could be creative then you know we haven't continued anything to it so we could be a little bit creative but as we
speak right now other than Lou everyone sort of around >> just like if right now like tonight if like three of you are like I'm definitely not here like I would just move it you know what I Mhm. >> We have applications in the pipeline that we foresee. >> There's a couple
>> um just like it's good to know a little heads up, you know. Um nothing like official right now or there was something dropped off today though. I'm just trying to figure out which meeting to put it on. But
um okay. Um, I think that was it for updates for the moment. Are you >> to journ motion made by Jim