I'm calling the Tuesday, January 20th, 2026 meeting of the East Law Meadow Planning Board to order. Those in attendance will start at this end are Robert Tho >> Cassandra Cher, >> Russell Denver, >> Bill Fansa, Pete Punderson,
>> Rob, director of planning. >> And I'm required to ask if there's anyone here or on Zoom who may be recording this meeting. If so, please state your name and the method you are recording the meeting. Hearing none.
First order of business is approval of the meeting minutes of January 6, 2026. Do I have a motion to approve? >> So moved. Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. That matter passes.
>> I think we're going to take something quickly out of order. So under item five, new business, Mr. clerk. Uh release of performance bond Bella Vista Holdings realy trust developer is requesting to release drive in a mafi
place Vista estates subdivision for their port their performance bond. Is there anyone from Bella Vista Estates available? [snorts] >> No. >> Rob, you want to give the the detail on this? >> Yeah, sure. So, this is more of an
administrative matter. Uh so Bella Vista has had actually both of their roads completed for quite some time now. Y >> uh I believe the lots are almost fully built out at this point and the DBW and I both agree that it's within the town's
best interest to no longer need to keep the funds and to return the funds and the bond back to the developer. So at this point, Mr. chair and the rest of the board. Uh the planning department and DPW via Mark Berman both agreed that it's
time for the bond to be released so the street can go in the direction of being accepted by the town in the near future. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any questions? No. >> Hearing none. Do I have a motion to approve the release of the bond? >> So move. Do >> I have a second? >> Second.
>> Motion made and second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Mr. Clerk. Item four. >> Okay. >> EA Brownfield's cleanup grant public hearing public meeting to review the town's draft application for Brownfield's cleanup grant for the US
Environmental Protection AY's Brownfield program to be submitted January 28th, 2026. The grant would provide funding for the cleanup of the Carlin combustible site located on 70 Maple Street, Esau Metal, Mass. The application includes an analysis of Brownfield's cleanup alternatives, ABCA,
for the site, which can be found on the town's website. I'm not reading that. >> Okay. Uh, it's my understanding that the planning board is the host of this public meeting slashhering and so I think we'd like to turn it over to the
town representatives to make a presentation. >> No. So folks, we do have a slight technical difficulty tonight, which we apologize. We can't really get this big screen to work behind us. So we kindly ask to put your attention towards this TV over here. If you need to move in a little
bit closer just so you can see and hear it better, you could definitely do that. Um, but yeah, we apologize for the inconvenience. Uh, the TV should be loud enough to where you can hear it from where you're sitting. But if you want to get better visual of what's going on in the application, you might want to scooch in a little bit. Thank you.
>> I can see it. You can turn in more if you need to. >> Mr. Christensen, >> good evening. >> Welcome. >> Well, thank you very much. Uh, also thank you for accommodating us in your uh agenda. I appreciate it. Um,
yeah. So this is a um requirement um of the grant application for EPA brownfields to um have sort of a public hearing so that public can hear uh what our application is all about. This is
about um we're seeking funding to clean up the site at 70 Maple Street. Um the application is quite robust, uh very comprehensive and super competitive. >> Um and thank you for everybody in the
public that joined us most mostly by my uh I don't want to say bribery cuz that's probably not right. Uh my persuasion to get them here and I thank them all for being here. Um this
is obviously a very um important property for the town of East Meadow, its location uh and uh this application um you know we we need to really bolster
our application um with obviously plenty of technical language and [clears throat] I don't want to mess any of that up and Rebecca has been spending I don't even know how many hours a week for the last three weeks maybe more um putting this application
together uh with our friends from Wesson and Samson and I I'll turn it over to Lee in a sec. Um but we've also had quite a bit of help from uh Pioneer Valley Planning Commission uh the Environmental Protection Agency itself uh as much as
they're allowed to help. Um D has been a fabulous partner uh so far in this pro process. Um our town council um uh has shown their commitment by um
appropriating funding for the project. Uh D as well uh Pioneer Valley as well. Um it's obviously a monumental task to clean up a site of this size. Um but again, uh so important
sort of the center of our town, um to to clean this site up. Um so Lee, uh I'm going to turn it over to you if you don't mind. Um and uh again, thank you all for being here and thank you for allowing us the time uh to do
it. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you for the introduction. Is the audio okay for everybody? Yep. Yep. >> Great. Um, so as I'm I'm just going to introduce a part of the application
which is called an analysis of Brownfield's cleanup alternatives and I'm going to share my screen presentation this page. All right. Are you able to see the presentation?
>> No. No. Okay, let me try something. Sorry about this. How about now? >> No. All right. How about I just talk through
it because there's not a whole lot that I really need to show and this site is in your community and and you know quite a bit about it. Um so the Carlin combustion sites at 70 Maple Street in East Long Meadow. Um, as part of the EPA
grant application, we have to um look at all the different cleanup um alternatives at the site and and select one um to present to the the EPA uh committee who'll be reviewing the
application. Um it has to be based in in sound science. It has to be effective. It has to, you know, fit within uh cost ranges that are are feasible to complete. It has to be acceptable to the community and a number of other selection criteria.
Um so the just a quick introduction um I'm Lee Rossberg. I'm with Weston and Samson. I sit in our Waterberry Vermont office. Um, I'm kind of pinching for uh the licensed site professional who's at home
with kids, but I did um prepare the analysis analysis of Brownfield's cleanup alternatives, so I'm familiar with the property and what we're trying to achieve. Um, the site's about 4 acres in size. It has a long history of um
industrial use. It was um from the 1950s to the 1990s the re fell on a manufacturing site. It um there was manufacturing of small engine ignition systems and die casting there. That was
um where most of the contamination that exists came from. Um they were using chlorinated solvents and and other uh materials, lubricants that contain PCBs. After that use from the mid90s to 2014,
it was occupied by Carlin Combustion who manufactured uh gas and oil fired burner components and controls um for residential and medium industrial size heating systems. Um it was during their
occupation at the site that there was um potential commercial transactions that led to a number of site investigations um that identified the contaminants and uh response actions began in 2009.
The sites sat vacant since 2014 and the town of East Long Meadow acquired through um tax foreclosure in 2023. Um the present- day conditions there's two real contaminants of concern at the
site. Um one associated with groundwater. So um as I mentioned there was use of chlorinated solvent solvents. Uh there was a a release area in the southern part of the site um that impacted groundwater and there's
actually freephase product in the ground as well. So pure uh chemical [gasps] that there was quite a bit of work quite a bit of uh groundwater monitoring and and other environmental investigations that have gone on since 2009 that have
delineated the extent of that groundwater plume and um developed some remedial uh uh actions that have been implemented and those include what's called the Waterlue barrier which which is essentially um enclosing the source
area and sheet piling. Um, after that was installed, groundwater was pumped from that barrier and treated and discharged into into the town sewer. Um, and they also installed a bunch of
piping to to be able to remove vapors. So, it's called a soil vapor extraction system. Um, that work was discontinued in in 2020. [gasps] Um the other environmental condition at
the site is impacted soil within that uh barrier installation area. They uh were going to generate soils when they were excavating. So they did a a very comprehensive uh round of testing to to support disposal at a at a landfill and
they discovered polycllorinated bifphenels or PCBs. Um some of those soils um impacted soils were excavated and moved. It's my understanding that about 200 cubic yards are located inside the building and then
an estimated 500 cubic yards or so is still in in place at the site which um actually extends offsite a little bit to the south and to the east towards the recreational trail.
Um so the cleanup goals is to remove the contaminant exposure pathways and reduce risk um to support future redevelopment and and we also want to reduce the costs and and uncertainty with that
redevelopment and achieve regulatory closure um that supports the intended future use as as residential and multifamily housing. So the um analysis of Brownfield's
cleanup alternatives or APA um it [cough] it weighed four um options for addressing groundwater and two for addressing soil. Uh what's one is no action which is just a requirement of
EPA. Um it clearly it doesn't meet any of our cleanup goals or site redevelopment goals. Um the second option to address groundwater was operation of the existing barrier system and soil vapor extraction system.
So something that's demonstrated to drastically reduce um contaminant mass in in groundwater and vapor at the site. A lot of the construction upfront cost has already been >> [clears throat] >> um completed. So, it it we think it
would meet cleanup goals in a in a relatively short um time frame, about 5 years. Um the the cost of it though is is quite high. It's about $3 million, and that's primarily driven uh by the
need to treat extracted groundwater, treat extracted vapors, and um a a lot of ongoing long-term groundwater monitoring to track concentration trends over time. The third groundwater um alternative
that was considered is insitue chemical oxidiz oxidization which um briefly is injecting a chemical that when it comes into contact with with the contaminants of concern they uh facilitate the breakdown of those
contaminants that was found to be prohibitively expensive um under you know under current funding It would would be very disruptive. Um would require a lot of uh installations and drilling around the
neighborhood and would be in the cost in the range of uh over $5 million. Um an additional um alternative to address vapor intrusion into the future buildings is installation of vapor barriers and
subslab depressurization systems. Um, so that's it's pretty straightforward in involving um a maybe a 20 mil vapor barrier and um piping below the slab that can then be ventilated. It's it it
would be kind of a belts and suspenders in addition to the uh active groundwater and soil vapor treatment u that discussed an alternative to [gasps] and has a cost of you know $400,000.
Um, and then moving to PCBs and soil, the two alternatives were complete removal of all PCB waste and targeted removal with some on-site disposal. The costs both were in the range of a million half
dollars. Um, but the full removal allows, you know, unencumbered future use of the property without any restrictions. So that that was the preferred recommended alternative. Um so just recap real quick the the
recommended alternatives were operation of the existing remedial systems for groundwater and uh excavation and off-site disposal of PCB impacted soil. Um
the draft ABKA is um [snorts] on on a a public website of East Long Meadow for review and the grant application and um is going to be submitted by the town
manager by January 26. Okay. So the the ask by the town is $4 million. >> No, the the grant application is for $4 million. Um the mass D is um is chipping
in I think a4 million towards the cleanup and then I believe I don't I don't want to speak for the town for what they're asking. >> Okay. So this is a a public hearing. Anyone want to ask questions?
have comments, suggestions, otherwise you may have to leave it to us and you know anyone. All right, then I'll raise a couple questions. So I so I read the narrative
of of the proposal that was in our package to the planning board and it and I I've written grants in the past and I know that you want to make your case as well as you can but I was a little
confused about the terminology of identifying Islam Meadow as a small rural community. So, is there rhyme or reason identifying us as a small rural community? Does that
put us in a better light to get dollars or not? Or do you know >> are you directing that at me or I was wondering if >> Rebecca unfortunately you're the only one there. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Well, if Rebecca's here, bring her right.
>> Okay. because I when I saw a small rural community, I went to the state's website, could [clears throat] not find a definition for rural as it related to redevelopment,
and I did find a a list of recognized rural communities put out by the state. Unfortunately, it's nine years old, but East Long Meadow was nowhere near or nowhere on that list. And I'm all in
support of this. Absolutely 100% want the town to apply. Would love to see that redeveloped, but I'm just trying to to understand the language and and what impact, if any, would have on the grant application.
>> Hi, Rebecca. >> Hi. thanks for um letting me join. Um I can say that that was a question that I raised with um the team at Weston and Samson. Um I also questioned whether we were a rural community. And when I
looked it up, I found some EPA documents that um sort of validated that we would be considered a rural community, but um they added the additional uh adjective of like rural edge community because of our um position as a suburb to another
metropolitan area. And I I I don't have an answer for you in in terms of like whether or not that like raises or decreases are our ranking or scoring. Um but I do think that it is accurate. Um
and uh I'm working right now with um the team at Western Samson that has been supporting the narrative process to figure out if rural edge community is more accurate or if just leaving it rural is fine because we do meet that criteria.
Does does then that does that then also weave into where it appeared from the narrative that you're you you define the target area which incorporates Springfield
so that there are certain block groups within the designated target area. So, how does the incorporation of Springfield into this project area as a block area impact our grant application? Because it would seem that Springfield would have a
lot more EPA sites than what Esau Esau Meadow might have. >> Yeah. I mean, um, you know, I just want to say in full disclosure that this is my first time working on an EPA brownfields grant. And so I can tell you
what I have learned at this point. And so the census track that we've defined um as the target area or the target site is um all within East Long Meadow, but it abuts Springfield in the what is it?
The north northwest corner. And because Springfield is defined as a um 100% environmental justice community, it seems like um there could be more sort
of um incentive to manage this situation since it's a budding another community that has um this special status and um receives uh additional points and consideration when having to uh manage
the um um the EPA sites on on their in their in their city. >> The other thing I found interesting reading the application and the narrative, you identify 108 existing
hazardous waste sites in East Long Meadow. So outside of Carlin Combustion, what would be the next three largest sites in town? Um I could I don't know all 108 sites. That is something that our um L LSPs
have helped us identify with um their data and their sources. But uh what I can speak to is that we have the um landfill um over on Summers Road. >> That would be um probably the next biggest EPA brownfield site that we need
to tackle after this one. And I can't think of the third one, the top of the top biggest three off the top of my head. Um, however, I think if Tom's there, he would be able to speak to it. >> And then and then you add on that
>> Sorry. I >> No, go ahead. Yeah. >> So, I [clears throat] uh certainly uh Allen Street Landfill. Um, but I think that speaks to uh release sites, meaning any release, not necessarily brownfield sites. Like we
don't have 108 sites that >> are are need to be cleaned up like this. >> Yeah. >> If if uh a manufacturing plant has a release into their parking lot >> that's on the list. Okay. >> And that gets cleaned up immediately >> like Stacy's cleaners. >> Yeah. Something like the the the
releases are just whatever D's list of releases into the community. That's that's the >> So it could be very minor >> correct 100%. I think uh uh so like for for oil number two like diesel is is 10
g over 10 gallons you have to be it has to be reported. Okay. >> So then they add so the majority of which are in the the majority of which are in the center town district. So call it Stacy Cleaners and I know at one time certainly there was more
manufacturing in the center of town. So does that how far back does this class of >> classification >> classification? >> Yeah, that that's a great question. Uh we talk about this a lot because there was no Clean Water Act prior to 1975. So
probably not that far. Uh >> right there >> wasn't a whole lot of regulation. Uh you kind of >> covered stuff over with dirt and and walked away. >> There's probably a lot we don't know about too >> on top of that. >> All right. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Mo most of those sites are either going to be driven by small spills and you know as people >> switch over from underground storage tanks and pull those out of the ground and and identify them. And then the other thing that drives those sites is commercial real estate transactions. So
when people do environmental due diligence and identify these historical uses. >> Okay. >> So um >> if you don't mind just keep asking questions that up. So, so >> it's your meeting, Russ. >> Well, >> I mean, we barged into it, but it's your
meeting. >> We're just hosting. [laughter] >> As I said, we've asked people if they want to have questions on this, and I think we all sitting here certainly fully support >> definitely >> the application. So, I I guess it goes back to more the narrative and the target area
and reference to the center town district and how this could certainly add to um efforts to to revitalize the center town district. And it keeps going back to
different types of housing and everything keeps referring to proposed proposed proposed. >> So can you elaborate? >> Well, um the EPA strongly supports smart growth development.
>> Okay. and our application receives um more points and a stronger standing um if we could demonstrate that there will be uh economic and uh residential impact in the reuse. Um and certainly our application would be stronger if we
didn't have to say proposed proposed proposed. Um but as far as the planning process has gone so far and our master plan indicates uh a mixeduse district in the center of town is a priority and we've been making steps in that
direction. Um so we wanted to document the fact that we are um taking steps, making plans and implementing what we can to move in that direction and uh create diverse housing options for people to uh find a range of housings
that fit their um needs whether they're young people or older people. Certainly again the senior population is a uh what's called a sensitive population. Um, and so the more that we could talk about how the sensitive populations in town are being impacted by the site
today and will be um supported by the cleanup and um uh what do I say the the remediation and the reuse efforts that that all ties in very neatly to support the application. >> Thank you.
Anyone else have questions? Just curious, suppose [clears throat] that the site is cleaned up and and usable. What is the town's vision going forward for what they're going to do with the property? >> Mr. Town Manager,
>> great question. Uh, [clears throat] I guess that kind of depends on on what the what the new zoning would look like. Um, but we're obviously saying proposed because we're in conversations about
that. Um, I think uh the mixeduse um uh would be the most advantageous in my eye, but it's certainly uh going to have more than a few conversations in the next year or so to see what that's what's even allowed there. Uh the last
uh we had a nice conversation at at town council uh last Tuesday about what we wanted to see and I think one of the bigger points was uh to try to remove some of those uh sort of heavier industrial uses in the center of our
town. Uh so I think uh once we sort of nail down what what we want to what we want what we'll allow there, I think that will probably make the picture a little clearer about what will end up there. Um >> there will be ongoing meetings about that new zoning or how the zoning
>> Oh yeah, plenty. The the conversation uh is is still in full tilt and I expect to have begin and keep having this conversation until uh we we sort of get something that we all
uh find advantageous for the town. >> Yeah, this is just a starting point to get it cleaned up to to see what we're actually allowed. And you know, to your point, we're still miles away from that. >> Yeah. And I think uh you know, sort of time will tell. If we if we have a need
that arises in the next year or two and all of a sudden uh the the building or the the site could be used for for a town use, then I think that has to be part of the conversation as well. >> Anybody else have questions?
>> Yes, sir. >> Zoom recording just so the Zoom microphones are up here. You can come up there. >> Yeah. Come on in, George. >> Mr. Kingston, always a pleasure to have you here. >> Good to see you. Good to see you still there, Russ. I I don't know about that.
[laughter] >> We're not let him go anywhere. >> My question is simply this. If we get the money, we clean the place up and we sell it. That's 4 acres in the middle of town. We're going to get a lot of bucks for that. Can we do that or do we have
to give it back to the feds? Becca or Tom? >> Uh I would say it's our property. So we can choose to develop it. We can choose to sell it to a developer. Um either way, whether we're we're developing it or um selling it to developer, um we
would be able to collect tax dollars on it as long as the um town is not the owner of the property and the project. Uh that that results. Are there any Rebecca Are there any restrictions on or commitments that we
are making on behalf of anybody by accepting this grant if you understand what I'm saying? Are we committed to doing certain things automatically? only as far as um what's described in the ADPA like that's the plan as far as
I understand um that we're committing to that in terms of like the the how we're going to clean it up that is that is like what we're committing to we're committing to cleaning it up and and any further assessments and then it may be that the
assessments um you know based on what contamination is found and what levels it may drive what can be put there in in the future, but there's there's no other there's no other commitment other than the that to clean it up, >> right? >> Yeah, that's that's
>> there's no commitment to high density or anything like that then. >> No. >> Okay. That you know, because I I think that's a concern of everybody, you know, at this point. >> Yeah. [clears throat] We're not bound by anything whatsoever. >> Okay. >> And the grant's purely just for the cleanup of the site. >> Yeah. Good. >> All right. I just wanted to make sure there were no strings attached,
>> right? >> On the other on the back side. >> So, there there is that was an interesting point that that Lee brought up before. for and if you don't mind just going back through the uh I think it was five and six about um restricted use uh based on which alternative you
pick if you could just sort of re reiterate that again. >> Yeah, sure. So the soil cleanup levels there's one alternative that removed everything from the site so that you didn't have any uh contaminated soil that's still regul regulated so there'd
be no limitations on future site use. Whereas alternative six is um trying to we we looked at is it cheaper to leave something on site and cap it in place under a barrier um in which case you
would have limit limitations. You would never be able to develop that area of the site which I think we estimated around five or 6 thousand square feet. Um [snorts and gasps] you you'd have to maintain that barrier. or there'd be costs of uh reporting and
keeping keeping up with it over time. >> Great. >> That that necessarily doesn't seem to be a road that we would even think about going down. >> Well, again, I think uh thank you, Lee. Uh that that that that's sort of the point of listing all the arts alternatives. >> No, I understand it. Um I'm just all I
the only reason I asked the question is I want to make sure there's nothing on the backside that we're committed to. No, just just just putting putting putting uh the the the best application forward, okay, >> to get the grant >> because I support it. Don't get me wrong. I'm just
>> I understand. Listen, like Rebecca said, no, I haven't done one of these either. >> Yeah. >> Like these are this is this is a very comprehensive application. >> Yeah. And and >> uh it has a lot of uh different requirements. Oh, I I appreciate
everybody's hard work on this because I know it's not simply sit down and write a narrative, right? >> There's more homework to it. So, >> y >> Mr. Paige, did you uh wish to >> for clean up? >> Of course, you got to be on TV. >> Well, the town could use it. Town could sell it.
>> Another former esteemed member of the planning board. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um I guess my question comes to um >> to commit to >> you know labeling how we're going to clean it up. It sounds like the best way to do it would be to remove all
the soil that contains those. Um, but I'm just curious if we have to keep uh monitoring wells for the groundwater. If we do, how long do we have to monitor it for? And how would that affect uh a redevelopment of the site? That's the
first question. And the second question is um again if any of the contamination has moved off site, will this grant cover the additional sites surrounding the area? Do we have to get land owners
permission to do the cleanup or is it um basically once you get the grant that um you basically just keep going until the all the PCBs and all are cleaned up? >> Lot to ask. No, those are those are
great questions. Um, so there there is migration offsite in groundwater. The plume uh goes under under the neighborhood um for quite a ways. There's an existing network of about 65 monitoring wells. Um most of
them are put in public rights of way and other areas that are accessible without uh permission from from land owners. um some may be on private land that we'd have to renew a an access agreement to get to. [gasps] Um we estimated just based on the work
that had already been completed in the reduction of of contaminant that o over um about a 5-year period that it would take about another 5 years of of operating um that those remedial systems. So extracting groundwater and
and extracting vapors to reduce the concentrations in the source area and that that'll over time um shrink the plume back onto the site. It'll no it's like cutting off the head of the dragon. I guess you're um there there's no more
source for it to continue to go out and then the and the plume shrinks. And we've already seen that in the work that's been done um out there. So, we're fairly confident that it's it's a good approach. Um, so I think I answered a couple of your
questions. >> Yeah. >> So, >> what did I miss? >> No, I'm just saying if this project takes roughly 5 years to complete, four years, then you're expecting another five years after that of monitoring before the contamination level drops to
acce acceptable levels. So roughly 10 years from let's say today if we started today to hopefully the time when there's no more contaminations being found, >> right? Yep. So it could take several
years to to reach that um level where you you could reach a site closure status. Um that doesn't preclude redevelopment though. you could still move forward with with demolishing the existing building and and constructing new
buildings. You would just have to maintain some of those monitoring wells. Um so, and it does limit a little bit of what you can do in the southern end of the site where that source area exists. Um cuz you'd have to maintain um again
it's about a 5 or 6 th000 square foot footprint of uh the very southern tip of the site where that barrier system and soil vapor system exist. Is there a rough cost uh uh after the
grant's done of what the cost to monitoring the wells are >> that um 3 million or so to to do that alternative includes the long-term monitoring and that's that's the main primary cost driver.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sir, I saw you with the microphone. >> Hello. Oh, there we go. Um, wake us up. >> Just two quick questions. Uh, one, who would be doing the cleanup and overseeing the cleanup? Would that be
the town itself or is there an outside company that would be coming to do that work? >> So, typically, uh, it would go out to bid to to contractors that remedial contractors to do that type of work and it's overseen by a a licensed site
professional. >> Okay. And I guess my second question would be, do the funds in this application cover contingencies or are we going to end up four years down the road saying, "Oh, no, we need another $250,000 because this happened."
>> So, a couple uh there is a 25% contingency included in the costs and there is also an inflation factor included in the cost assuming that some of this work might not start until 2028 or so. So we're not hit with, you know, those those inflation issues.
>> Yeah. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Inflation. Oh, yeah. >> Anyone else have questions, concerns, statements? >> Rebecca, do you want to bring this to a close? Anything you want to finish with?
Or Tom? >> Somebody? Oh, I just want to um you know, we made this point in council uh last Tuesday when we had asked for the town support um in committing some funds to the project and the council approved
the appropriation of $250,000 um to a project that is clearly going to um exceed $4 million. Um and the point that we made was that this has been a really um collaborative effort. We really feel like um the state D has been
supporting us with prior assessment needs and then future um cleanup support. Uh we're the recipients of the support of Weston and Samson uh out of the um Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission's EPA um assessment grant. And I I just feel like we have a a lot of pieces in place, including um uh Yukon Tab is another sort of uh partner that has looked at the site and um
discuss potential um reuse plans. And so it's it's been a long time in the making. Um, number one, like this application is coming together now because this is when the solicitation has opened, but um, we've been picking away at different pieces of this for
about two years and and now the the fruits of all those efforts and our ability to collaborate to make this application happen is is before us now. >> Okay. >> Would it help if this board took a vote of endorsement?
Um, as far as I understand, the application process has changed this year in that we um we are not allowed to submit letters of support from community stakeholders. Um, we're only allowed to submit letters
of commitment for um funds that have been committed or whether they're secured or unsecured. Um, those are the only sort of attachments that the application is looking for. And Lee, because you're more familiar with than
me, um, you might speak to that. >> I think you you hit it right on the head. >> That's fine. >> That's okay. >> Thank you for the offer. Yeah. [laughter] >> If there's no other questions, statements, concerns, I'll have a motion
to uh adjourn the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Do I have a second? >> A second. >> All in favor say I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Lee. >> Thank you, everyone. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> I find it interesting that the town has so many options after it's cleaned up
though, either to use it for town function. Yeah. I mean, sell it or incorporate it into the downtown into the the center squared redevelopment. Yeah. >> Oh, and and obviously the the here is a clean site. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Rob. Get inside if you don't mind. >> We'll uh let quiet down first. Thank you all. Appreciate it. >> I'm going to grab a microphone if that's okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Good luck. Yeah. Good luck. >> I'd like to know what exactly what that is.
>> It's a board. Can you guys hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Oh, you're sitting right next to me, Pete. So, you can't hear your end. [laughter] >> So, uh include your next six meetings. to the second uh meeting Scotty. >> Um we don't have any upcoming public
hearings at the moment. So your next meeting on February 3rd is going to be a very light one. Um in terms of ongoing projects, I want to reiterate again that we're still doing our comprehensive zoning survey. The survey is still live on the town's website. Just go to the planning community development web page.
You'll see a link for it right there. There are physical pickup locations available here and the library at their reception desk. The survey will remain open till February 6, 2026. We're hoping that folks can give us feedback on the town's zoning bylaws and give us an idea
of what they want to see in their neighborhood. And lastly, we have an update on the Rear Peas Road Solar Facility. Um, so the Rear Peas Road Solar Project is actually in their building permit process as we speak.
We are currently reviewing their submitted decommissioning plan with their draft decommissioning bond language and our town attorney uh Jesse Belure Timmy is actually reviewing that for us as we speak. Maybe not at this exact moment but he is reviewing it for us.
>> So I have a question on this. >> Yes. >> So is this the group that took the town to court? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Yes, it is. So my vague recollection of the zoning bylaws is they have to act within two years of receiving their site
plan approval. >> Is that correct? >> So appeals do not count towards that timeline and is also just from reviewing the language. Technically there isn't anything under statute and state law that allows for the town to do that.
>> But do we have it in our town bylaws? >> We I don't know if we still do. I have to review that. So, would you please review that and let me know? >> Sure. >> And if they have not started construction or >> and there's a two-year period >> and there's a two-year period that would require them to come back in front of
this board >> for site plan approval. >> So, >> I can't think of a group that we should require that more than anyone else that I can think of. >> So, they we also include their ability to start the building per process to account for that as well. And I believe they had started a building permit prior
for a different part of the project. So if anything, Russell, I think they're all set on their end from there. The last item they have to meet is submitting a decommissioning plan, which is a condition of their site plan review, but also in reselling bylaw, they have to submit and furnish the
decommissioning bond um before they can do anything. So right now, they have an application that's active. Once they give us um you know Jesse gives us feedback, we're okay with the language of both the bond and the plan itself, they would go ahead and
file the bond with the registry of deeds and with us we'd execute it. Then they can move forward with their building permits after the fact. They also still have an active variance for site access which because they were doing site work
already does not disqualify them from retaining the rights of their variants as well. So this project is as soon as the decommissioning stuff is signed off and executed they can go ahead and continue the rest of their building prior process aside from other
departments that might have to weigh in here. >> Sounds like >> that's just from planning and zoning. So, this is the access road up here. >> Exactly. >> Not sure which property specifically, but I know it goes through somebody else's land. They have an e easement that was filed right around the time
they got the variance approved and that was a condition of the variance. They had to get the easement signed and filed before they could do anything there. >> It's a long way from Peas Road to the back of that property. >> It's a pretty long distance between the two years. >> We're we're January of 20.
I am 100% sure that their appeals were done more than two years ago. >> Well, also there was a permit extension act too, Russell. You have to remember it was from January 2023 to January 2025 that actually put another um freeze on
that timeline. >> Who did that? The state. >> The governor did. Yeah. >> It was the third permit extension act. So if anything, they're still within their statute to to construct the solar facility on site. I know it's quite confusing with all these timelines just going at each other. Um but yeah, I so
they're looking like they're going to start construction soon, but also the reason for the delay could also be because of the federal um solar tax cuts. So you're going to be seeing a lot of facilities affected by that besides this. >> Yeah. >> And that's why we're really pushing for
the decommissioning bond in the event that funding runs out for any reason. It's a good security for the town to have. So, we're going to get that filed and squared away once our lawyers had time to review it and go from there. >> So, the last document that they forwarded to this board still had
reference to other communities in their decommissioning language. >> Rather than mentioning the town of Islong Meadow, >> so they've sent us a new draft that we're going to review and make sure it's finalized, it's written in the form that we're okay with, as well as the bond
language. And once all that's been confirmed, reviewed by town management, accepted by the town management office, uh we'll execute that with the developer and have that filed. And yeah, we're doing everything by the book here so we don't miss anything. >> Yeah. In the situation. >> Okay, that's all I have for my update
today. Thank you. >> Any other issues? >> A motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. I. Thank you.