Super local company. Is there anyone local who does it? >> Okay, it's 7 o'clock. So, why don't we begin? We're here at the uh for the u public meeting of the Danvers Planning Board. We're here at the TUMI room at Danvers
Town Hall. Uh it's October 28th, uh 2025, 7 p.m. Uh my name is Lou George. I'm the I'm the chair and I'm joined here by our clerk, Gene Hartnett. Uh members um Jim Sears and Mike Dulis. So,
and we're also joined by um uh by Josh Morris with town staff. So, why don't we um look at the agenda here? We do have a couple of items here that are going to we're looking at continuences, but let me be begin with the first agenda item. Uh it's a public hearing. Uh 200
Endicott Street request for site plan review submitted by Raising Canes Restaurants LLC for property at 200 Endicott Street, map 62, lot 5 pursuant to section 4, site plan review of the zoning bylaw. Said property is in the commercial 3C3 zoning district. The
applicant proposes a standalone restaurant with a drive-thru and associated site modifications. So Josh, it's my understanding we have a request for a continuence. >> Yep, that is correct. To our to our next scheduled meeting.
>> Okay. And so that's a request to our next schedule meeting which is uh which is November 12th, 2025. And we'll make a note of this towards the end as well. So, uh, because of the Veterans Day holiday, we're our meeting will is is moving to Wednesday, November 12th for
our next meeting. >> Yep, that is correct. >> Okay. So, um, anything we can talk about with respect to that is just sort of just still sort of still sort of in waiting mode. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Um,
>> all right. Very good. So, um, uh, so there's been a request for continuence to the November uh 12th, 2025 meeting. Um, can we have a uh a motion on that? Motion to continue. >> I make a motion we continue 200 Ednikott
Street to our next meeting November 12th, 2025. >> Okay. Motion's been made by Gan. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Second by Mike Dulis. Um, any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? None. Okay. Uh, next item number two on the agenda is a public hearing with respect to 83 Elm Street and 5 Essex Street. Uh, request for site plan review submitted by MJP Properties, Inc. and Johnson Construction Management
LLC for properties at 83 Elm Street, map 51, lot 250, and 5 Essex Street, map 51, lot 249. Pursuant to section four site plan review of the zoning bylaw, said properties are in the Danvers Town
Center core DTCC zoning district, the applicant is proposing a redevelopment of the properties with a mixeduse building consisting of firstf flooror commercial space and 13 residential units on the upper floors and associated site modifications.
And Josh, I see this is this has been a uh this looks like the applicant is requesting a continuence to the January 13th, >> 2026 >> planning board meeting. >> That is correct. >> Okay.
Anything further on that one? Can we don't I don't have an update. I know that, you know, they were just trying to, you know, from our uh hearing regarding the special permits and the waiverss for the project. Um I
believe that the group is just um in the process of just modifying or updating the site plan to reflect uh you know the 16 units of the 13 units and associated things with that. So >> Okay. So that's going to be going to So then moving into the So that'll be in
January, January 13th. Okay. Um, all right. And so let's let's uh with respect to the request for a continuence, can I entertain a motion to continue this item to the January 13, 2026 meeting? >> I make a motion we continue 83 Elm
Street and 5 Essex Street to the January 13th, 2026 meeting. >> Okay. Motion's by been made by Gene. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Second by Mike Dulis. U any further discussion on the motion? >> Okay. Hearing none. Um all in favor, please say I.
>> I. I. Any opposed? None. Okay. So, our third agenda, >> the date of the meeting, >> uh, it's >> 12th, right? >> They want to push to January. >> Yeah. January 13th. >> January 13th. >> Well,
>> yep. >> Are they able to do that? >> Yeah. I mean, it was their request. So, um, that was, you know, that's what they submitted to the to our office. So, >> Okay. Um I know that it is a decent amount of time from now. I guess what I
would comment is that um at that time if there's another request for continuence I would have someone from the development team here to at least give an update. Um so that's what I would say. >> I would say why don't we >> why don't we make sure that if we can
yeah if we can make sure that that for that for that meeting if there is any indeed they would we would need them to come and and sort of give a status. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Mhm. Good. >> Yeah, because normally it has to be what 90 days. >> There's no like the set. There's no set. I mean, obviously
>> when they first start though, they have to there's a certain time period. >> There's a certain time in which when they apply, they have to be on a meeting or public hearing has to open, but there is not like a there's no um set time in which a decision has to be made. It just, you know, especially particularly
since they they are requesting for the time. Now, if you know if they were saying, you know, obviously it's there's a little bit discretion and reasonleness with it all, but you know, if they were asking for, you know, significant more time than that, I think we'd start be
getting into like I'm not really sure if that's >> wasn't until was August, >> right? But this was >> they weren't on that. They weren't at that. So, it's been months. It'll be months. >> Sure. >> Four or five months. >> Sure. But they were they did appear on a they did appear on a couple I mean they
did appear on the agenda for a couple meetings that we had between then >> requesting a continuence. >> Correct. Right. Right. It wasn't like they'd asked for continuence for four or five months and then like again another four or five months. >> Yeah. >> It's it has been um >> but they don't get time barred at some
point. No, I mean obviously at some point, you know, like I said in January, if we're at a similar situation, um I think it's probably appropriate to have someone come in and give us an update of what's happening. >> Did they give a reason why? >> No. Um they're not like necessarily
required. They're not really required to either, but I think they're just, you know, it's I don't really want to say too much about it because you're not even here to kind of respond. So, um, but like I said, um, if we're in a similar
situation, um, in a couple months, I do think it probably would be appropriate to have someone from the development team here to answer questions. >> Now, just a question just for clarification sake because I know that the special permit which was which has been granted for the in terms of number of units that has a certain time period,
doesn't it? >> Yep. So, no. So the decision was filed the deci there the decision is required within 90 days of the close of the public hearing. So that has occurred. >> So I made sure that that that lapse did not occur.
>> Um so we're okay procedurally from that standpoint. The decisions been filed >> duration of the special permit however. >> Oh it's three years. >> Three years. So any sort of so in terms of any work that any sort that anything that matches up with a special with the special permit needs to fall within that.
>> Yeah. They have three years to exercise the rights or you know act upon the you know the uh decision within three years of the date of the decision which was probably sometime in September
>> like September 18th or 19th. So, um, you know, I don't think at this moment staff has concerns, but obviously in January, I think that we should get an update if they're not ready to have a, you know, a decent
discussion about the application. So, >> okay. >> And that's where I sit. >> Yeah. I mean, that's a little unprecedented in my experience. I'm just concerned that maybe they're trying to market the property to somebody else with one of the approvals or something. or I I don't know if they if they lost
interest in going forward because they didn't get the number of units. Um that's just a concern. >> Yeah, it's hard for me to um I you know they as the applicant do have the ability to ask for a continuance. Um
>> but yeah, I I think they have to give us a reason. They can't just keep continuing. And it's one thing if we're going to continue to the next meeting. >> Yeah. Right. We're pushing it off three months. >> Sure. >> That's that's a head scratcher right there.
>> After they invested all the time and money in the presentation and, you know, we gave him what we thought was a fair shake. I I just I don't know. Feel like I'm being used a little bit. Our decision is without without a valid excuse that we have to
go do a certain test or certain survey or certain whatever, >> right? They're just basically leaving it out there for, you know, time to maybe sharpen around maybe. I don't know. >> Sure. We want to set a precedent. >> I don't know if it I don't think that
necessarily is a precedent by doing it this one time. Just I mean, we could it's like a special permit, right? Just because you approve a project with a certain number of units or everything is particular, right? >> I don't know if I would necessarily view it in that way, but um >> just I'll read out loud the continuence
letter. The applicants and the development team are diligently working on site plan revisions to comply with the planning board special permit issued for this project and comments received to allow sufficient time. We request that the site plan review hearing be continued to the planning board meeting
of January 13, 2026. >> So they've already they've already had three months to do that. [clears throat] It's too late. I already voted. >> Yeah. So, I was just gonna say I was gonna say I think we we did voted to continue it, didn't we?
>> I think we did. But no like like I said though I hearing the concerns >> I do >> on just January 13th if we get a letter like this similarly I will reach out to the development team and >> well
>> communicate strongly or that the request you know and we could always we could always we don't necessarily have to do the date like we could I think we have the ability to do it to the next meeting right we don't this is just their request like we could we
could make >> we could move to reconsider the vote on the previous article if if the rest of the board feels it's worthy of discussion. I mean >> I don't know. I just think they've had several months. I think they were disappointed
>> in the number of units that they got, but I mean for them to basically they said they weren't going to change the size of the building. They were going to make the units bigger. >> So what what what's taken months to to do that? It doesn't seem justified.
>> Mhm. >> At least in my mind. I don't know the rest of the board feels. >> Let me see. >> Jean, what are your thoughts? >> Well, >> have they been in communication with town staff? >> Um, not too much. No, not too much. Um, I guess I would just make comment in
that we did continue it. So, I don't know if we can continue to like keep talking about it. Well, could we if if I move to reconsider the vote, we we set precedent for that at that meeting.
>> So, >> um >> I >> I don't believe that would >> not sure if we want to go I mean I would be of the mind of of advising ad of advising the applicant not not in January but advising them now.
>> Yeah. concerns that we have about the length of the of the continuence. We've granted it. We've granted the request for the continuence, but with a caution that >> this is they be aware that we have concerns about the passage of time. And
so, yeah, that um this is it's not quite like in court when you get it when the the judge issues a drop dead date pretty much that says, right, >> we're granting it, but no, you know, but any further continuences are granted with, you know, will only be granted based on extraordinary circumstances. I mean, I can't say that, but I think we
want to be able to >> that seems fair. >> convey the message that the concern of that. >> I can certainly do that for sure. >> Would the special permit be pulled back if they didn't do that? Like, what's the next step? I guess
>> I mean, the special permit has a has a duration of, >> right, but I guess if we're saying we want them to come for this January 13th and if they choose not to and has to continue, it's what's the ramifications? at some point. >> Well, I think it's more it's to me it's more of a matter of I I I would want
them to as I think similar to what I think Jim was saying, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but we want them to be able to if they are if they if they do >> what's the reason >> want another, you know, if they do need additional time, we need to have an explanation or at least a status update of what's going on,
>> which is certainly appropriate um >> to be able to justify. >> Can we just ask for that like in a email before then? If we're that concerned about it, >> can we ask for that in an email before then? I could I could reach out >> the next meeting. >> Yeah, I could reach out. It Yeah, that's fine. I could reach out and maybe at the
next meeting or two or give a update that they respond to or Yeah, I could do that. I'm not sure if they, you know, what they'll give provide, but I could make I could do that, you know. >> Um, >> like I said, I don't know how much we
should can and should talk about it since we did continue it. Um, and they aren't here. Right. But >> I'm hearing what I'm hearing whatever. >> I think it's a plain and uh it's more of a administrative decision that we're making. We're not talking about the
merits of the case. I think >> Sure. >> I think that um you know, we haven't closed the public hearing. We're talking about it's not we didn't open a public hearing. We just we're voting on administrative >> and therefore you know if we wanted to I
think we could reconsider the vote. At least my my I I would move that we reconsider the vote and have them come to our next meeting, which is next month, and explain why they need an additional three months on top of the three months that we've been waiting for them to come back because I I don't feel
that it's it's they're not giving us a reason. I I think they're just trying to show off the project to somebody else because they disappointed they lost three units, personally. And I don't think that's a good precedent for for them to do that and kind of make us
wait. So, >> does anyone That's my motion. I need a second. >> Okay. Jim's made a sec made a motion to uh a motion to reconsider the vote on the continuence. Is there a second? >> There's not.
>> Okay. Okay. >> So, nonetheless, I think Josh, >> we do ask that they uh advi, you know, to reach out to the applicant and to advise them to um you know, in terms of the concerns that we have with respect
to passage of time and we would request an update as well. >> Yep. I can certainly do that. >> Okay. >> And I will do that. >> Okay. Very good. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] All right. Let's move on to the next item which is the um uh which is the
public hearing with respect to 18 Electronics Avenue. It's a request for site plan review and a parking waiver submitted by Democus Propco LLC for property at 18 Electronics Avenue map 32 lot 49 pursuant to section 4 site plan
review and section 10.1D waiver from section 10 of the zoning bylaw. said property is in the industrial 2 I2 zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 1,800 square foot sewage treatment building with associated site
modifications. >> Okay. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. If you could introduce yourself and and give your presentation, please. >> Uh Connor Nagel, uh site civil engineer with VHB. Uh on behalf of the applicant, I have with me here uh Nick Katzus uh
who's with uh Old Neighborhood Foods, the applicant and owner operator uh of the facility at 18 Electronics A. Um, we're not proposing any change or increase to the the building itself, the
the use or the uh intensity of the use, the size of the use. Uh, what we're proposing here um do you have the uh the graphic, Josh? The um I have the site the site plan or what
we're referring to. Uh there were two color renderings that we submitted. I don't know if I have the renderings. I just have the civil set. >> Yeah, the civil set will work too. >> Okay. >> Yep. I was just looking at it. I don't know
why it's giving me problems. So, we're we're proposing a sewage sewage treatment plant, which is that shaded area that you see. That's that plan there is a a split uh page blow up of uh two areas of work for the project.
Um that shows the overall site to on the right hand side. Uh there would be a sewage pump installed in the uh loading dock area that would pump sewage across to the left hand side uh where you see
that shaded area which is an 1800 square foot uh sewage treatment building would be used for uh pH control of the sewage and and other treatment like that. Uh from there it would be uh pumped back into the site uh sewer line and continue
as it does to the municipal system. Um there is no uh net increase of impervious area on the site as it's all paved within the the area of disturbance. Um a small portion of the
work is within the 100 foot buffer to uh wetlands to the north of the site. Uh we have received approval uh from the conservation commission um a couple of weeks ago, three weeks ago I think. Um
and so we're here tonight for a uh what would have been uh I believe an intermediate site plan approval apart from the parking waiver that we're uh seeking. the parking waiver really um
while at the discretion of the board is really uh trying to correct essentially correct paperwork. We're not making any site changes. There is less parking on the site today uh than there uh was on the approved site plan when it was
approved uh in previous iterations. I think the last approval might have been 2020 or thereabouts. Uh there are 110 parking spaces on the site today and there would be when this work is done. Um I believe uh by zoning or the
previous permit uh there should be uh 216 based on the number of employees. Uh even with the 110 um I understand from the uh the applicant that it's
almost overparked. They use approximately 60 a day. Uh many of their employees are bust in from their other facility in Lynn. So we're seeking that waiver really just to bring the plan uh the reality in compliance with the the
uh permit. Uh that's really all there is to it. Um happy to answer any questions um on the the uh application. Okay, just a question. This is just just
a clarification question before I ask before I turn to members of the board. What where would you say you believe the required number of parking spaces were? >> Um >> I have a different we have a different number here. I thought I have somewhere here based on um zoning would be 497 spaces. So I wasn't
>> Yes, I think based on zoning uh there were two quoted in the waiver. uh I think 479 based on the square footage >> 497 >> or 497 I'm transposing it in my head I guess and 216 based on the number of employees that are actually there.
>> So just just to clarify um why there's not a discrepancy but just the line for the use is a little not it's just not not completely clear for the use of assembly processing. It's what um Connor is referring to is one. It says one
space per planned employee in the largest shift which is two his 216 number. If you continued with the line though, but no fewer than three spaces per 1,00 square ft of gross floor area. So that's where because of the size of
the facility being the 165 >> 165 roughly >> 65,000 that's where you get the 497 number. So Okay. Yep. >> Got it. Okay. Good. Thank you. I'll turn it over to questions by uh members of the board.
When I start with with Mike Dulis, >> no questions. Thank you. >> Um Jim Sears, so just back on the parking, can you just go over um on the site if we could just can you bring up the plan regarding where the
parking spaces are? >> Mhm. Do we have parking spaces in reserve or is there space for parking spaces if this building were to change its use? Um
is there is there did we have spaces placed in reserve on this? Would there be enough parking if it wasn't this type of use? I guess is my question. >> Um I don't want to speak for or do you want me to comment? I mean, I guess if it wasn't this type of use, there'd be the question of what kind of use would
it be? Would this building work or would it be a whole site plan redevelopment? There are striped out spaces uh or I guess striped out as a fire lane in front of the loading dock on the right hand side of the plan and more spaces could be fit there. If if a new facility
wasn't using full-size trucks, it was using uh 50footers or something, you could fit parking there. Um and on the left hand side of the plan in behind the sewage treatment area there is uh an area that's used for maneuvering. Um but
that you know parking could be placed there if needed to. Um just to add on to that uh Jim so basically as Connor mentioned you um if the use changed or >> right the loading dock or even in the
rear of the building there is the capability or impervious as we speak of you could stripe without any real significant change of the how the lot is at least at least another 50 50 spaces
right from um the 2021 approve approval. So if something [snorts] happened in 5 10 years and the use significantly changed um without knocking any building down or
you know knocking any of the landscaped areas or open you know undeveloped spaces on the property you could fairly easily stripe at least another 50 spaces. >> Okay. >> Okay. Where would those go Josh? I'm sorry. >> Yep. If you look at the computer, if you
look at the screen, so the loading dock, you could if you the loading dock was, you know, not like heavily utilized. Let's just say the loading dock, we had two or three spaces instead of like the eight or 12 that are used. >> You could do 34 spaces here. >> Where's Oh, I see your cursor. Okay.
>> So, like 34 here, which was on which was shown on a plan when they got all this approved in 2021. >> Okay. >> And then at least another 17, right, Connor? Right. In this in this area. I have actually it's on a
plan from 2021 that showed exactly where they would be. So, it's not even like a hypothetical. It's at one point they were thinking about even striping them. So, [clears throat] >> so yeah, approximately 50. >> Okay. And you do you bus employees in on
a daily basis? I guess >> I guess if you could go to the microphone. >> Yeah, that would be helpful. Yeah, if you could go over the operations just in the hours and shifts. >> Sure. So, it's >> Can you identify yourself just for the record? >> Sure. Nick Katzos, K A T Sos. I work at
Old Old Old Neighborhood Foods at 18 Electronics. I reside in Saras 23 Summit Road. Um, I'm the facility manager there. I've worked for the company for quite a few years. So, we have a lot of uh crossrain people from our Lynn plant.
We have 500 employees in Lynn >> and about 150 here presently. And we have two buses that leave Lynn at 6:00 and 610 and they get here about 6:30 and 6:40 in the morning. Uh we have a third
bus that comes around quarter or 4 in the afternoon and then two buses go back to Lynn around 4:30 4:40 and then that bus that brings the people for the night shift it goes back to Lynn at 11:00. So
I'm not sure exactly how many people the second shift probably like 25 take the bus the two buses in the morning probably a total of like 50 55 people come and a lot of the employees carpool and um you know two or three will come
up in a car and there's pretty well a lot of parking in Lynn even though we have nowhere near the the square footage required here but uh a lot of people walk or get dropped off also too, even at the Danber site. Um, probably 20 30
people get dropped off in the morning by their husbands and then picked up at the end of shift. Um, and as Josh said, there's parking in front there. There was like supposed to be 34 parking spots in the back. The building will interfere with probably a
dozen of those 34. And then there was also three or four more at the corner um where the condenser building is. We just decided not to stripe it because it's kind of hard to make the turn there and you know with people getting in cars I
thought it was a safety issue. So we kind of don't want people spread out. We want to kind them together. Um it makes it easier for vision coming into the site. It makes it easier to plow. Um, you know, we currently plow snow across from the loading dock where it's not
striped and the back corners and sometimes where that condenser building is. So, until we actually need it, we felt, you know, we didn't want them all spread out. >> So, do you have a snow storage area on the plan?
>> Um, there's actually three. Um I think you would call it the southeast corner just on the site that's not striped on the right the point that's the left I'll call that's one of them the to the right is is uh more of them and then the top
left hand corner is where um they sort of plow everything to the outside of the lot and then there's always a pile where the pointer is right now and then there's a little bit that's driven into the back corner just because they can't pull it all
And what are we processing at in the plant? Are we >> So nothing is being cooked there. It's either raw meat being sliced and repackaged. Um we cook coal cuts in lin and they're brought up by truck and then we slice and package them there. So it's
mostly uh uh half of it I would say is raw stuff that's uh open. It's not even really it's taken out of the bag, sliced, and then packaged again. Um, and it's semifrozen, so um, there's not too much as far as, you know, uh, process.
We do do some marinated meats, and that's what kind of brought up some of the problems. So, a little history on the site. uh South Essex Sewer District gave us a permit in 2014 and after 10 years they looked at what
we did for the first 10 years and they lowered our limits to that what we did the first 10 years and then we started growing and we took on marinated meats and then we had all kinds of violations. So the three big things are fats, oils and greases, total suspended solids and
BOD. one they reduced 34% 150 and 184%. Because of our previous not using the whole site, um I would say 50% of the building is uh cold storage. We probably have 5,000 pallets of meat in there
that's not touched. And then as far as the first floor, I would say a little better than 50% is um manufacturing. You know, the coal storage is three levels. So that's how we get so many pallets in and obviously manufacturing is one level
and then we have uh dry goods on the second floor and offices. Um so you know in essence after 10 years they decided well this is what your average was for the 10 years and that's what they made our new limits and I really didn't pick
up on it till I started getting violation notices and then I went back and looked and I guess they had the right to do that. So we have to build a wastewater treatment plant. >> Gotcha.
Do you think in the future with AI will that cut down the number of employees and increase production? >> Um well the only way right now we're trying to increase production is more people might work a second shift. >> Um the day shift uh as far as production
space is there's might be like 10 15% left that we could add maybe one more line to. And a lot of the lines don't run every day or you know they'll run half a day on one line and then the employees will go it's a very seasonal business like marinated meat doesn't
sell in the winter. Shave steak sells more in the winter. Coal cuts are pretty steady throughout the year. We do a huge business for uh St. Patrick's Day for corn beef. It's seasonal. It's two months you know. But would would with with would with would with would with would with would with would with would with would with would with would with
with the coming of AI and uh automation would that potentially replace some it could reduce the employees by a few but I find that you reduce the employees and then you have to increase the maintenance people and the technology
people to run it. So it's almost like a trade-off. It just it's kind of ergonomically better for the people. Um, so like some of our automated lines have like 10 less people, but the people that are working are working a lot easier
than the people on the manual lines, >> but it's possible it could. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. That that's all I have for now. Thank you. >> Okay, >> that's good. Thanks, Jim. [clears throat] Did you have any questions? >> Um, no. I think you both answered any
questions I had. Um, so just you kind of want to rectify the parking to show what you actually have and add the wastewater treatment facility and I'm okay with both of those. >> So that's what we actually have. >> Okay.
>> And I think the previous permit was like 156 and we show >> you may want to go up to the podium just I'm sorry just people just so people at home can hear you. So I think the previous waiver was 156 or 160. >> I think it was 170.
>> It was 170. Okay. And we strike 110. And um you know we can add obviously we'll lose probably the 17 where the wastewater treatment plant was. But in the truth of the matter is there was five trailers there and the five trailers are going to disappear and the
buildings and the two tanks are going to go where the five trailers were stored. How many generators do you have there? >> Zero right now. >> Really? >> Yeah. >> So, it's a cold storage plant. It's well insulated. Um, we've had power outages
for a couple of days. You can't work in a power outage, [clears throat] but the coolers, you know, think about it. You get 5,000 pallets of meat and most of it's frozen. It'll go up 5 10°, but the meat won't really thaw out for days. But we did make provisions where um we got
one more electrical upgrade we're trying to complete. We have three different um electrical services on site and one of it does all the refrigeration. So there is plans uh longterm to put a generator in there to at least keep the stuff
cold. So if we were down for more than like 2 or 3 days, it would be a real concern. >> Now would you have to put that outside? >> Yes. So right now we could rent a generator, a trailer generator and do it if it went outside. Um
obviously it's towards the the parking towards the building is where it would have to go. >> If a generator went outside if a generator went outside. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It would have to be outside. >> Mhm. gas powered or >> well gas powered could be on the roof or [snorts] um we actually looked into
multiple gas gas powered uh generators and um they do it like with small rooftop units. They can go on the roof. They weigh like 3,000 lbs. It's like a a Chevy 350 motor and it would run like a quarter of it
>> and you'd need four of them. Um the engineers designed it for a diesel generator which I was kind of dead against because of the tank >> and then the restrictions and then you have to run it >> a lot. >> Right. Right.
>> And you have to re recirculate the fuel. You can't let fuel sit there for like 2 three years. You know, you can't run it like 10 minutes a week. And so I'm more inclined with gas, but the initial design was with the um diesel generator
and it it stored like 2,000 gallons of diesel. And believe it or not, I think the 2,000 gallons was only good for 72 hours. So to me, you'd have to truck in diesel in 3 days. And if you had a a big outage, you know, a major outage, I'm
not sure you could get diesel. >> Have you ever thought of solar? you got a large building. >> So, we thought of solar, but it adds a lot of weight to the roof. The fire department hates it because they can't shut it off. And um the roof as it is now has a lot of ammonia piping on the
roof, which is flammable at a certain percentage. So, to eliminate all the uh the the parts of the refrigeration that pose a danger, they're all on the roof. And um we have ammonia sensors so we know when there's a leak in the plant
and on the roof. So solar added quite a bit of weight to the building and the whole building would have to be shored up. >> Okay. Thanks. Um terms of questions from me, I don't uh I think we got, you know, some of the
questions I had, you know, were with respect to sort of snow storage. Uh so the the general, you know, operations uh um so learned a lot about about what you all do today. That's that's always always good to know. And um I guess in
terms of do you anticipate any uh I guess in terms of I know you said that that some of your lines are you know are in terms of you know seasonal so obviously like you know St. Patrick's Day do you and you might have mentioned this already but do you do you anticipate any any spikes or valleys in
terms of your employees or do you generally sort of keep it pretty is it pretty steady at the Danvers location. So normally um we increase by about 20 people in the summertime. >> Okay. >> And then we try to just not lay anybody off. We have a tendency of I don't think
we've laid off a person in the history of the company. >> We try to keep them busy and we lose them through attrition >> and uh that way >> and a lot of long-term employees. >> Yeah. A lot of long-term employees. Um a lot of them worked in Lynn for 10 15 years before they came here. And um the
other thing is the marinated meat. Um skewing is a big thing. Putting it on the skewer. We're looking at automation that adds like 20 people alone >> and uh you know we had up to 30 [clears throat] 40 people skewering last year. >> So um we we are looking to automate that
to cut down the number of employees for that. >> And since it's a seasonal business, >> it's hard to hire 40 people and then find a home for them all winter long. >> Yeah. And so you don't anticipate any really sort of you know change I mean obviously I think you said you're you
know growing you may have some automation but you don't you don't anticipate any big changes in terms of operations or number of employees. >> No. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Maybe 10%. >> Right. Okay. And sort of and this is may maybe a question just for town staff
just in terms of Josh if if we did have and sort of even picking up on sort of what Jim had raised a little earlier in terms of any sort of real ma major change in operations of the of of the site >> because this you know because what's being sought today is a you know is a
specific waiver with respect to this you know specific plan you know whoever would you know they would have to come would have to come back isn't that >> yeah like if they added Um yeah, if they wanted to add um 20 spaces, they would have to come
back to the planning board for site plan approval. >> They add 20. Yeah. >> If they wanted to add 20 spaces or if they or if it was, you know, if >> but if they added five or 10 um they wouldn't need to come back to the board. >> But um the way the site plan set up was
you know if it was like a mo a moderate type of project >> it would have to come back to the board for approval, >> right? But a major but a major change though would >> Yeah. Oh yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. So, um, anything over 19 spaces, it would be back in front of the board, >> as well as a change in use. >> Yes. Oh, certainly.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> It's too bad you couldn't find a another building nearby and you could do it all here. You would have to truck everybody over, >> you know, >> possibly >> in the same um complex. Yeah.
[clears throat] >> Okay. >> We've looked. There's not much for sale. >> Okay. >> All right. Any further questions for members of the board? >> Nope. >> This is a public hearing, so um we don't have any members of the public in present in the room. Is there anyone
who's who's remote, Josh, who is uh >> um I don't see anyone from the public >> um who would like to talk or had a question or anything. >> Okay. Did we have any um we didn't have any any questions or comments from um
from members of the public? >> No, no public comments. >> Okay. Yeah. Again, I don't I don't think I have any further um I don't think I have any further questions. Oh, one I guess one thing I did and this was sort of just in terms of the applicant just raised this at sort of at the at the
outset. Um just in terms of I think he made a question like for partial site plan review or I'm not sure if that's >> just he was referring to inter so if it was >> if it it's called intermediate and so if they were just um you know if if they're
proposing between,00 and 1,99 999 square feet. Oh >> yeah. >> It would just have to go to staff. It wouldn't come to the board. Okay. >> It's just for those like kind of >> smaller items that just don't we didn't want necessarily smaller things
coming all the way to the board, but staff could review it. Um, but it that's parking spaces between 10 and 19 square footage under 2,000. Those are kind of there's a couple like triggers. Got it. >> So, he was just referring to because the
U wastewater treatment facility was only 1,800 square feet, it would have just come to staff. >> Got it. Okay. Very good. All right. All right. I don't think we have anything anything further from the board. I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved.
>> Okay. Motion's been made by Jim Sears. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Second by Jean. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded to close the public hearing uh for 18 Electronics Avenue. Um all in favor, please say I. >> I.
>> I. Any opposed? None. >> Okay. So then moving now to the uh to the main matter. I believe we have a um we have a motion. So, can the clerk uh >> Dean, can you go ahead?
>> Yep. Site plan review 18 electronics a date of application September 16th, 2025. Date of hearing, >> uh should I change that? Yes. October 28th, 2025. Date of decision, October 28th, 2025. The Danverse planning board
finds the site plan submitted by Democracy Prop Co. LLC for a property at 18 Electronics Avenue, Assessor's Map 32, lot 49, 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 plans. Site plans wastewater treatment Danver's mass prepared by VHB dated September 5th, 2025, revised to October 13th, 2025, consisting of six sheets. Supporting materials include parking
waiver information prepared by BW Design Group and VHB dated August 29th, 2025, revised to October 13, 2025. The following submission requirements have been waved. One section 4.3.1 title sheet the existing buildings land use of
each lot lot lines zoning district boundaries are not shown on the plan existing contours at 1 ft intervals are shown on the site plan C2.0 and existing conditions plan of land area 1 and 2 SV1 2 section 4.3.2 to site
analysis plan. No site analysis plan submitted. Existing contours at 1 foot intervals are shown on the site plan C 2.0 and existing conditions plan of land area 1 and 2 SV-1. Wetland boundaries are shown on the overall site plan C-1
and site plan C-2. Three, section 4.3.3 dimensional regulations plan. No dimensional regulations plan submitted. Lot line is shown on overall site plan C-1. Four section 4.3.4 site site construction
plan. The site construction plan is entitled the overall site plan C-1. Existing contours at 1 ft intervals are shown on the site plan C-2 and existing conditions plan of land area 1 and 2 SB-1. A table indicating the amount of
earth material that are be to to be removed, added or reused is not shown on the plan. Five, section 4.3.6 utilities plan. No utilities plan submitted. The proposed location and size of new sewer systems infrastructure is shown on the
overall site plan C-1 and site plan C-2. Six. Section 4.3.7 landscape plan. No landscape plan is submitted. The existing landscaping on the site will remain unchanged and no additional landscaping is proposed. Seven, section
4.3.8, off- streetet parking and loading plan. The off- streetet parking and loading plan is entitled the overall site plan C-1. Dimensions of driveways are not shown on the plan. 8. Section 4.3.9 lighting plan. No lighting plan
submitted. The following requirements from the zoning bylaw have been waved. Section 10.1.D. Parking planning board waves the parking requirement of 497 parking spaces for a reduction to 110 parking spaces based on the following findings. A no substantial
detriment shall result. B any decrease in number of required parking spaces will not create undue congestion or traffic hazards. C. Any such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood. 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 Denver's engineering division memorandum dated October 10th,
2025. Three, 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 three years from the grant thereof if construction has not begun by such date. >> Okay. Very good. Motion's been made. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. Second by Jim Sears. Um any further discussion on the on the motion? Uh hearing none. All in favor please say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? None. Okay, >> thank you. >> You're all set. Good luck. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, so let's move on to the next uh agenda item, our meeting minutes. So, you all should have received three sets of minutes for the uh I believe we have a first set of minutes for the
the June uh 24th, 2025 meeting. Okay, I believe everybody was in believe everybody was in attendance at the meeting. Okay, has anyone had anyone has any edits to the those the June minutes?
>> No. >> Move to accept the minutes of June 24th. >> Okay. Jim Sears has moved to accept. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mike Dulis. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? None.
>> Okay. Next set of minutes is the minutes from our July 22nd uh 2025 meeting. All had a chance to review them. I believe we had all members in attendance at that time as well.
Okay. Like to entertain a motion to uh motion to accept. >> So move. >> Motion's been made by Jim Sears. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mike Doulus. Any further discussion? Okay, hearing none. All in favor, please say I. >> I.
>> I. Any opposed? None. Okay. Next and last set of minutes um from we have are the August 12th, 2025 meeting. All had a chance to review and everybody was in attendance as well.
Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion. Um assuming no changes, I'd like to entertain a motion to accept the the minutes of August 12th. So moved. >> Motion's been made by Jim Sears. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mike Dulis. Any further
discussion on the motion hearing? None. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? None. Okay. All right. So, so Josh, what do we have on the um coming up? And just so we and just as as
as we mentioned earlier, we do have a uh with respect to upcoming uh our next meeting is because of the Veterans Day holiday in November 11th, our our meeting is has been moved to Wednesday, November 12th. So, thanks everybody. Everybody should be able to attend.
>> Yes, >> 12th. Great. >> Thanks. >> Okay, sounds good. And then the following meeting after that is November the 25th. So that's the >> the regular Tuesday the Tuesday before >> Thanksgiving >> Thanksgiving. >> It's the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> So is everybody planning and will should
be in attendance for that? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> As as I will. Yep. And then finally after that we have a I believe the next meeting after that is our December 9th >> meeting. >> That's right. >> Yep. And so that's the last meeting of the >> of the 2025 calendar. Yes.
>> Yep. Okay. Everybody for the most part should be here for December 9th. >> Yes. >> We just have one meeting in December. So, >> Yep. >> Okay. Great. And so, um, so Josh, what do we have in terms of what's coming up next in terms of >> So, that um the item that we one of the
items from tonight that got continued um the raising cane. >> Okay. um 200 undercut street should um very likely be discussed at our next meeting on November 12th. Um
I am trying to figure out with Aaron and other planning staff um about very likely um having a conversation about the housing production plan >> at the November 25th meeting, but probably more likely at that December
9th meeting. >> Mhm. Um, and we're just trying to make sure that the consultant um, is available that night. So, that's just >> we would have a discussion, I guess. So, we would have follow-up discussion and questions of the housing production
plan. >> Would we have a vote on that that evening or we would we would >> No, I think it's to the next meeting because because it's been such a decent amount of time since the last time we talked about it. Um, I think the idea and the select board also had to vote on it. Um, I think the idea when speaking
with Erin about it was to have a good robust conversation about it and um likely vote on it at a at a future meeting but not have too much time in between so that we kind of forget what we talked about.
>> Okay, got it. And um and I know uh also we do have a um we'd also talked about you know in terms of um probably be good also at a at an upcoming meeting. I think we're either the maybe the either the 12th or
the 25th just an an update on any um I know Josh you had given a presentation uh a couple of months back just in terms of you know sort of upcoming sort of planning initiatives right >> and sort of where they stand. >> Yep. Um yeah, be happy to do that. And
also, um at that night or similar conversation, I could um just show the like our calendar for like 2026 and if there was any other issue, you know, bring that up with the group um nights that we I'd think about just setting up
the schedule the the meetings for 2026, just making sure that it was good for everybody. We could also discuss that, too. >> Okay. Yeah. And the first and the first meeting of the the new year is >> is that January 13, 2026. >> Got it. Okay. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Yeah. And in terms of Yeah. And just in terms of an update, I just like to see, you know, like I I know we talked about, you know, probably about a half dozen different things in terms of that PowerPoint you g >> um that covered a number of, you know, sort of initiatives where we stood on certain things like, you know, Endeott
Street Carter or >> Yep. >> um master plan, that sort of thing. And so I wanted to see sort of where things where things stood. >> Yep. Be happy to give an update. I know a decent amount of the decision making and all those things will be kind of revolve around um we could maybe talk
with the town manager about uh kind of a little bit more definitive like town meeting dates >> um in 2026 if that's available to us for zoning planning, you know, zoning amendments, zone bylaw changes. So that
would um once those dates um they might not be clear um but maybe um when we talk in the next couple weeks I could have a little bit more clarity on some of the some of the kind of higher level things. So
>> right especially if especially if if we have agendas that are not super full I think it'd be nice to be able to have some discussion about >> some of those you know sort of prospectively see see where we're heading. >> Absolutely. Okay. >> Do we anticipate uh a special town
meeting on zoning in 26 or >> That's sort of the question. Uh not sure at this moment. Um it very likely wouldn't be uh if there was at all, it would likely
be in in the fall basically a year from now. And that's probably as we speak right now probably the soonest we could probably do some zoning item. Uh that doesn't mean that we can't do some like, you know, planning and visioning and all that, but just actually like amending
the bylaw like the lighting item that we've been kind of >> discussing for some time now. You know, we wouldn't be probably we probably wouldn't we wouldn't open up the public hearings for those zoning amendments as we speak at this moment.
I'd say the earliest as we speak is like a year from now or the town meeting would be a year from now. >> Does it anticipate that there is going to be there's a town meeting in February or March or was still sort of a TBI? >> I think that's a very TB TBD. >> Um but I don't believe what I've heard
is that it would likely wouldn't um have zoning items on it. Um it would be particular items that are not zoning related like other town town items that are not zoning >> like town manager act sort of things or >> exactly >> okay
>> yeah not zoning >> okay >> and obviously the annual I think the president here is generally we don't and I don't know if this will change going forward but what I've been told is that we generally don't do zoning at annual
>> no >> historically and >> yeah we don't have to do it every year we might do it every couple years or so >> so >> though I would like to you know at tonight's experience. Just wonder if we could adopt a rule of some sort that an applicant knows that they
can't continue a hearing for 6 months without I think we should cap it at 3 months. 90 days is reasonable. >> I mean, they their last meeting, as we just saw in our minutes, was July 22nd. >> And I don't mean to bet a beat a dead horse on this, but I just think it's not
a good precedent. and um allowing them almost 6 months to go dormant with no real communication is not a good precedent. It's just allowing them to try to market the property, do whatever they want to do based upon one approval. I that's my feeling.
>> Why else we know that it it doesn't make any sense to me that they need all that time >> based upon pairing down three units. It just doesn't justify that. It's one thing if they had to redesign the whole building, but they clearly told us they don't and they're not planning on doing
it. They probably spent I I would imagine they spent at this point, you know, a ton of money to get to where we are and now they're just going to tell us to wait, which is I I I don't I think that's offensive. I find it offensive.
>> I mean, >> so maybe we can if the board feels it's appropriate. I know they didn't earlier, but I think we should have some type of, you know, parameter in there >> that says, okay, if you don't get back to us within 3 months without some,
>> you know, real justification, >> you got to come back and reapply. >> What I don't know what anyone thinks about that. >> I mean, >> I don't think I don't think I'm being over there. I I can tell you I've never seen that. >> Yeah. someone pushing it off because usually people want to get it done. They
want to get a decision. They've invested all this time, effort, and money. And you know, now they're just telling us, "Yeah, we'll come back." >> Yeah. I mean, >> three more months. >> I mean, I'm I'm not sure if I'm going to go in I don't know if I want to attribute any motivations at all to
>> I think we should be careful. Just whatever. >> Yeah. Right. >> I'm just talking in general. Yeah. No, any applicant. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. >> Any applicant coming before us need We need to have deadlines. We can't let people just string out the process. And I think like you said,
>> typically it's 90 days on on most of the things that they have to do. And I thought we had some type of >> uh once you make an application, you have this date. >> We don't have those dates anymore. We took out the like >> it was. Yeah. >> The um >> action date. >> Yeah. Mhm.
>> But generally though, I mean >> I think we should be careful, but generally >> let's talk in general general >> any street. Mhm. >> Um yeah, I mean mo the significant majority of folks that are just
situations that that is what hap you know what it is what happens right we we don't do long we don't do long continuences but um yeah it's something we could yeah we could you know talk through in the future whatever
>> I mean I'd be f in terms of I I I would be fine in terms of exploring sort of as just sort of as sort of looking at just sort of rules in general I'd be, you know, I'd be fine in terms of exploring um, you know, in terms of that continuences and any sort of good
cause that needs to be shown, you know, that sort of thing. I I think that's that's fair. I think in this in, you know, looking at this particular case, I don't see this, you know, as and again, I'm not going to attribute anything with respect to that specific case earlier tonight, but um, you know, because there
could be a variety of reasons, you know, it could be holidays or something like that. you know, he just is, you know, it's this time of year. But I but in terms of the but I think I'm not I'm not opposed to investigating or looking into doing some you know having some parameters for um for that. I mean I
know that even have practicing before you know uh you know the the court I regularly practice before you you know you can get a 45day extension for good cause shown which is pretty much could be any reason. Once you get past that you have to show it's a much higher burden.
extraordinary circumstances. That's not just workload that has to show that there's something really, you know, going on. So, you know, I'd be What about others? Um, Jean, any thoughts in terms of >> Yeah, I agree. I mean, it would be good
to have some continuity and have a fresh remembrance of what they presented. Um, but also I mean if they don't want to get their project done then we can't
really force them. So then I guess that's on them if they don't want to get it approved. But yeah, I would be okay with having some deadlines. >> Yeah. So at least some guidelines in terms of what needs to be shown. Mike,
any thoughts? >> I agree with what you guys are saying and then but also at the same point like I agree with Gene a little bit. So I guess like playing a little bit on the devil's advocate side, it's like >> why do we care if they push it out? >> Mhm. >> And I and I'm asking that kind of like just curious like what are the thoughts on and stuff like that like for like the
group? >> Jim, you've been doing it, you know, you've been on board for a long time. What are your thoughts in terms of >> So I understand I I can tell you I've never seen anyone push it out six months. I mean because you mean they they've expended a lot of money and now things are going to you know could they
run into situations where laws change or regulations change and you know there's a there's a certain um just you know like Lou you go to court you have deadlines you have everything in life there's a certain deadline now we have no dead it's just open-ended
>> and it just seems kind of an affront to the board the board wants to make a decision you know they asked for a continuence they didn't you know they said basically they were going to come back with tweaking the site plan, removing those three units. They said they weren't going to change the
building. They were just going to make the space bigger, that doesn't take six months. >> You know that that it just >> Yeah. I mean, not speaking again about that specific project, but just in general, if a project if someone does say something in a meeting, but then they decide to then go redesign
something or relay something out, maybe it's just worth getting updates on things so that we have an update. But I don't I don't think I I guess on a basis of to force somebody to come back at a certain time. I I don't know. I guess I'd have to understand more and think more about that because I don't again playing like the devil's advocate side of it because I would like to have the
continuence like Jean said to like understand what's going on but how it affects us. I think I need to better understand like what the downside is of saying like you need to give us information by X date or whatever. So, so I mean I I mean I' I'd be as as I
said, I'd be open to to having some some, you know, some parameters in terms of continuences and what what you need to demonstrate to to to to get there, you know, to to get a continuence. Um, if we're looking at, you know, sort of if we're just sort of looking at our our
sort of our our guidelines, Josh, you have any further you have any thoughts on on that [clears throat] just in a general matter? >> Yeah. Um, >> not to put you on the spot, but I'll put you on the spot. >> Um, no. I mean, you know, they do have the ability to ask for continuance. Like
I said, I believe that the board doesn't necessarily that's the request. The board could, you know, pick a not as late late. You know, we we could say, uh, you know, we don't want three months
out, but we could have we could in future things. uh maybe we'd maybe one and a half months seemed more appropriate. Mhm. >> Um I think um everything is just I don't think when you make kind of all-encompassing not
just kind of like rules and regulations. I think there are projects that just should just be um they can kind of be handled or administrated like just on one basis. And I think sometimes it's hard to just, you know, say in this circumstance, in all circumstances,
dot dot dot. I think it just on a project project basis. >> I think to your point, Josh, too, like where do you draw the line? So, if someone does have to go redesign the whole building and we still say you have to come back in three months, like that's not really a realistic time frame. So then like when >> Well, >> yeah. And I think that could be an
example for, you know, like if we're looking at even just in terms of in terms of like a court sort of thing. I mean, that's something where you could say that that could be if if if it that could be an extraordinary circumstance or that could be something that is not just, you know, um that that you could
you could I I wouldn't want something to be so so utterly strict too that if something does happen like that, then yeah, then then they then then they can get that additional time. But I think just to have some demonstration of what they're um sort of of what they're of
they're doing sort of just to to show their work a little more than just you know we we need additional time and we can do that if we're looking at at procedures of you know if you're seeking a a continuence beyond a certain period of time then maybe you need to come in
and you need to actually sort of plead the case. >> Yeah. reasonable cause. I mean, in your example, sure, that makes sense, right? Cuz they still want to do the project, but it's going to cost they're >> it's going to take so much more time to redesign the building, but that's that's
not their case. But and but I think it's it's fair to us for them to give us a reason, >> more detailed reason. >> Yeah. And it could mean that over after a certain maybe beyond a certain period of of time that if they have a if they have a I'm just thinking off the top of
my head if they're if it's over a certain period of time that they come in they actually to come in >> like I said like I said before the board >> I feel like January or whatever I think we should be careful but >> um >> just talking about in general >> time standards >> um just what
>> um >> deadlines >> that's all. Thank you for indulging me. >> The horse is dead. We've beat it. >> Okay. Very good. Anything further at all by >> members of the board to adjurnn? >> Oh, we have a motion to adjurnn by Jim
Sears. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mike Dulis. >> All in favor? I >> I. Any opposed? None. Okay. Meeting >> is closed at 8:07.