We have the planning board meeting for Tuesday, November 4th. Uh open at this time it's continuation of the public hearing regard to Mount Wes Community College at 42 Lannis Lane Avenue the building addition additional
sites. Mr. Stevens at this time. >> Jason, >> Jason, please. >> Um, so the plans were edited uh and sent over on I think delivered on October 31st. Um,
so just a couple days ago. Um, not enough time for any of us to give it a proper review given that it's a definitive um, site plans. a little bit less in scope uh for the parking. Um
so I've give them the recommendation that we'll continue this to the next meeting which looks to be like it's going to be on December uh 9th so we can continue the public hearing for then and give a quality review of uh of the
definitive site plans uh that were resubmitted. >> Motion on the floor. Make a motion of a continuation on the Machuset plan. >> Second. >> All those in favor of the continuation to the next meeting by saying I. >> I.
>> Opposed. So moved. >> And at this time, do we want to continue with the regular meeting or do you want to wait till >> continue with the regular meeting? Okay. Business. >> Very good. Underneath new business, the preliminary site plan review for Gamma 827 Green Street. the proposed building
construction. Do we have a representative? >> Can I use the T? >> Yeah. >> Please state your name and affiliation, please. For the record. For >> the record. Record. Wesley PL McCarti
Engineering. I'm here to represent That's good I can talk. All right. So, the the reason we're in front of you this evening is for a site plan review. Uh trigger two sections of the site plan review regulations. um one being for 15 parking spaces
and then the second being for the size of the building. And so the property that we're looking at is their 827 Green Street property which I showed here which is uh outlined in the blue. Uh that's their main piece
of property uh located adjacent to the Green Street intersection at the bottom of the hill uh where the old horse track is. And so right now, currently, the Eric uh dollhouse is located in this location here. They have a couple other barns on the property and sheds on the
property that they use as part of the the operations that they have going on on the property. Uh the property is approximately 115 acres and they're looking to u put up a new barn. Um also in this location here, I
know I think the board had seen it at least. I know the conseration commission has the plan of the conseration mission is the this new cell tower that's being built on their property is in this little block here. That's the block that they have uh deed over to the cell town cell tower company. And so that's the
location there. And so what we're proposing in front of you this evening, see if I can zoom in a little better for you guys here. buttons moving. So again, the the property that
we're looking at is adjacent to the dollhouse and the barns that they have on the property. So this is the the dollhouse here. So there are the two barns on the property. There's an isolated section of wetlands and then the big fields that they have in the back. Uh I know a lot of it's
fenced off in different locations with the use for the farm animals on the property. And so what we're proposing to do is um tie into the the driveway that's there now basically ends here. The cell tower is constructing a new driveway, an extension to the driveway
out to the back of the property. We're looking to tie into their driveway with a 15 space parking lot um to the left of the new building. So, we're looking at a 74 uh foot by 100 foot building, basically a barn building. Inside the barn, um we're looking to do some
offices and classrooms along this section of the the building. Uh they will have a couple um cl I would say I call them classrooms. What they do is uh they use the animals on the property as bright treatment for their treatment. Um, and so they can have a smaller
section of the barn located in here so they can do one-on-one training with their clientele with an animal. And so they'll have a, like I said, a smaller building, a smaller room in there, do some one-on-one training. And then the rest of the barn, which is this part of the barn, will be the larger section for
the animals to do some more roof um, instruction, stuff like that, and have more room for the animals is what they're looking to do in that building. And so we raise it's going to be offices, classrooms, but a lot of really, you know, just extension of what they already have running for their operation, but they need more space to
to better service their clientele. As part of the proposal, as I said, we're proposing to have 15 uh parking spaces. We'll have a couple handicap spaces adjacent to the building. We'll have a concrete sidewalk in front of the building to their main entrance. Um there'll be two uh overhead doors on the
uh right hand side of the building to be able to access into the building for their vehicles but also for their uh farm animals. And then there'll be a couple other doors on the back side of the building for man doors. There are a number of wetlands on the property and I can zoom out a little bit
for you to show you. And so we are actually uh we have filed a notice of intent with the conservation commission for work within the buffer zones of those wetlands. I actually have a sitewalk uh Thursday morning with the commission. Um and then I'm meeting with them next Monday evening also for the
notice of intent filing. We also have the the site and granny plan. I know it's kind of busy. I'll try to zoom in a little bit so we can see a little better. Um, as always, as I said, the this portion of the driveway is really the portion of the driveway that's being
constructed now as part of the south tower. We're going to connect off of that for the the new parking lot. Uh, the grades out here are fairly flat on the property. Uh, we've done some soil testing on the property uh for the drainage infrastructure, but also for the septic system, a new septic system
for the building. Um the soils on their site are mapped as an A/D soil, similar to like if you're in school, right? A is real good, a D is real bad. Um the reason being is out here it's there's a very high groundwater table. And so during the summertime, the soil is
actually a great for infiltration, but when the high groundwater elevation, you know, it's when it's elevated in the wet time of the year, we're not getting a lot of recharge back into the groundwater. And so that's why when we looked at it, like I said, it it was consistent when when we did the soil testing out there with the mapping it being an A/D soil. Uh because of the
high groundwater elevation, we do show a mounted septic system in the rear of the property before. And then the other uh issue that high groundwater causes is trying to do uh the uh drainage infrastructure on the project. And so I know the the city just
enacted the stor regulations not too long ago similar to all the rest of the communities where uh typically we have to recharge one inch of runoff um for any impervious surfaces that we have on the property. Again the the problem on this is the high groundwater and so
below the the base of your infiltration structures you have to have 2 ft of groundwater separation. We're able to achieve that around the building because we're building up the site around the building to raise that a little bit. And so around the building, we show pone diaphragms which we show enough volume
within those pie diaphragms to account for that 1 in of runoff for the building itself. But because of the grade of the driveway being very similar to what the existing grade is on the property, we're not not able to achieve the twoft offset to the groundwater between the bottom of
any kind of infiltration um storm water BMP for the driveway and also the parking lot. And so as part of our drainage report, because it was mapped as an A/D soil under the storm water management standards for C or SL C and D
soils, you're they talk about meeting the extent of their regulations to the maximum extent practical. So what we tried to do is designing our storm water system to the maximum extent practical we could on the site. And so what we did is we prop it still a PON diaphragm along the driveway to create some u
pre-treatment of the storm water before it got into the detention base that we're proposing on the site. So we'll go into the Pstone diaphragm along the driveway that's already been constructed and then to a four bay here and then into the detention basin part of the um to the storm water BMP. We're not able
to include any of this as infiltration because we don't have that twoft offset to the groundwater elevation during the summertime. Yes, we will get infiltration into the groundwater but in the wet seasons we will not get any infiltration out of these uh structures. It'll act as a detention basin. Because of that, we were being conservative in
our calculations for the TSS calcs um hand, you know, treating it as a D soil um not having any infiltration out of the basin. And we did show the TSS removal calcs for that. We're not able to meet the 80% TSS removal um rates for that. Um and and something that Rob and
I actually talked again today. I talked to him previously before we submitted this to talking about different ways to do this. Uh because of the shallow groundwater depth, um we weren't really able to put any catch basins or any kind of pre-treatment. um you know physical BMPs in and so we were trying to go with
the the Pstone diaphragms and the 4 bay something a little more natural um to meet that standard as best as we could and I know we did receive some comments from Rob today also um regards to our drainage uh calculations in our report and we will respond back to those but
that was the intent of the the design here was to meet those standards to the maximum extent practical as we could. Um, like I said, we are able to do it for the building, but not for the parking in the driveway. Um, as I stated, we do have a proposed septic system in the back for the wastewater. And then we are working with another
firm now to work on for a proposed well for future well for this building. And so that's something that we will work with the board of health and the state with for the for the water supply for this. Um but that's a bigger item um that we will handle as a separate item um with the board of health and and
we'll have to come back to the conseration commission for that item also. But in the meantime, we're trying to get at least get the the building and everything related to the building, the drainage and the the waste water approved by the planning board and the conservation commission, the board of health at least right now at least move that part of the project forward. Um you
know we show h those actually show waddles in for ro control. Again, the site is very flat out here. So, we don't expect a lot of erosion out here. So, we do show the strong waters along the edge of the disturbance along the wetlands and we will work with the conservation
conservation commission to make sure they're comfortable with what we're proposing for erosion control barriers on the property. Other than that, it's it's very uh you know, straightforward as it comes, I guess, on a project like this. Um there's not a lot of site grading with it. Like I said, the site's fairly flat out there. It's
which is good and bad for construction. It's good costwise, but it's bad because we can't move a lot of the drainage, right? And we don't have a lot of room to >> u do a lot of grading to to raise it. And that's where really we were into a lot of issues trying to we don't want to bring the site up too much and then make everything else kind of sit down low and
cause more water issues on the property. So, but that's that's the project in a nutshell. We can I can ask answer any questions any of you guys may have on this. Like I said, it's fairly straightforward for what they're trying to do. So, >> what kind of building is being erected there? Is it a a steel building, a wood
frame or >> I think it's uh you know if I submitted I looked So I think it's for one I remember talking to the architects. I think it's a steel and then from what I think they're talking for like the
color is light gray right now. Okay. >> Just something that isn't overpowering out there. Just kind of blending in what else whatever else they have on the property. Nothing nothing crazy. Not a bright red barn necessarily that they're looking to build up there. But >> is that a metal roof?
They uh let me check if I have I don't think he calls that on his plan. >> Probably if everything's metal, I'm sure it's >> Yeah, that's but I I I'll get that answer for you, Eric. >> I'll find out exactly what >> that's what it looks like from there. Yeah, >> I think I think it's just regarded as
clean. >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's what I I'll find out what what material it's going to be because I know I I know where the question >> given that there's no zoning requirements for the proposed use uh in
R2. Um I'm assuming that the 15 spaces that the 13 standard size and the two accessible are reasonably expected to accommodate all the >> trips to and from from the building. >> Yeah. And I know that was one of the thing the building inspector brought up
at the uh Yeah. Right. And so one of the things that we're going to do is >> once we're waiting kind of waiting to see what other comments we got back to make revisions to the plans. And I know that was one of the things the building inspector asked us is to break down the square footage in the building with regards to office and classroom >> just to show that we have enough parking
>> just mixed use. We'll just need a little bit more information. >> And so we have Yeah. So we'll provide those extra parking that the building inspirector was asking for just to make sure we have enough spaces. But I know from a the user standpoint, they were comfortable with the 15 spaces and probably, you know, they if we needed to reduce them, they were happy to reduce
them. But I don't think they were thinking they were going to fill all 50 of them all the time, right? There may be times that the site may use the spaces to better place cars in a right because right now it's kind of a >> not a great centralized location for the
parking, right? It's kind of all over the place right now. So, >> but that was their thought is to kind of have a better location for everybody to park when they're on the site. uh question about the drainage. So I know understand the issues with infiltration and desoils and high ground water. Um, is there a provision in the
storm water standards that allows you to meet standards four and six since this is a outstanding resource water area to max extent practical due to class D soils because I thought that had to be met. So that was one of the things that Rob and I were talking about actually so he called me today is so for the
building we so typically for storm water right you have to have the pre-treatment before any kind of infiltration device and so we do have the infiltration device now we got to find out about the roof type make sure it's not metal I guess from the stand what what's clean considered clean and what's what isn't considered clean right for the roof
that's why for this we were trying to propose at least 44% removal before it got to the detention basin because the thought is during the dry season it's going act as an infiltration basin, right? So, we wouldn't be able to meet the TSS rule calcs if this was an infiltration basin, but during the wet season, we're not
going to be able to get that that number there. And so, that was the intent is to provide as much as we could. Um, you know, that's why like the PO diaphragm plus the 4 bay is the 44% pre-treatment before an infiltration device during >> dry season.
>> And the and the bottom of the basin, where is that elevation wise? It's a seasonal high ground. It's right on top of the seasonal Honda. And so that was the issue we ran into, right? Is the seasonal high ground water is 18 inches below surface. >> Okay. >> So that's the biggest issue that we ran into is if it was 4T then we could we
can meet that twoft offset. It's not a deep basin, right? We're looking at a twoft high basin and really a foot and a half of water at the max, right? So it's not a big basin. It's it's really there for treatment of the water before it goes into the wetland. >> We'd expect ground water to rise above
the surface elevation of it. it would be right at the bottom of it, right? And so that's where it's very close to being the elevation of the wetland there. So in the wet season, it's going to be right at the bottom. So that's why I'm saying we're not going to have that twoft offset during wet seasons. We went out the summertime and we were
able to do the perks with no problem and they actually ran fairly well, too. The soil type, the soils itself aren't terrible. It's just the high ground water out here, which makes a great farm. >> Yeah. >> Right. but not for drainage. And you know, makes a good mount for a septic
system. Any further comment from the board? roofs. >> I know that's what and we run into it too. That's what's >> seems like there's a special requirement also in the is this a zone two or a >> it's a zone
>> zone C zone C. So this area the site is out of the zone A I know a portion of their site is when the zone that's thing that robs the ground water and surface water >> and so it falls within the city's wershed protection district but it's not
doesn't consider that as a right an additional standard but still would be the pre-treatment before an infiltration device is is that 44% instead of just a normal 25 right is so and then it goes to half in one instead of a half inch. But because we don't have the high
ground water, we can even provide like I have storage in the basin for the 1 in if we had the two foot offset to the groundwater. >> But that's that's where the >> and I guess if you guess any questions about the operation, we have we do have a representative
>> already. I thought I was early. I believe we took it a little early so we could get you out of here a little. >> Oh, okay. Great. >> Sorry. >> Other questions? >> So, we will continue this to the next regular meeting as
>> Yeah, we'll plan out the scheduling of the public hearing for this if we have no further comments. Rob's already submitted his. Um, so I'll notify >> the US and the applicant of the um information I need just to hand over to
the advertising company for the news mailings >> um and the certified mail >> that we'll be sending. >> We have an account with the gardener news. So >> perfect. >> We fill it to that. >> I'll just send over the um the >> legal y
thanks for coming. Do you have any comment that you'd like to get to the board? I >> answer. >> Yeah. Do you guys have any questions? Anything? >> I think the questions were asked pretty much at this time. So, >> okay. >> Very good. Well, thank you. Appreciate
seeing. >> Okay, moving on. to go to the preliminary site plan for the Walmart 60 677 Tiffany Boulevard proposed fueling station. Could you please give us your name and affiliation? >> Conor and Polar engineer.
The floor is yours. >> Uh, good evening. My name is Connor and I'm with Royal Engineering for the civil design and and permit expediters for the applicant Walmart real estate business trust here to present the uh preliminary section review application for proposed
Walmart fuel station at 677 Tiffany Boulevard. Uh so I'll just start by giving an overview of the existing conditions on site and then go into what Walmart is looking to propose. So the subject property is 677 677 Tiffany Boulevard. Uh it's within the
commercial 2 district. Um and currently on site is just a Walmart super center, the associated parking lot uh to landscaping and utility connections associated with the Walmart use. Uh there's two access drives to the overall property. The southernmost uh being the
Walmart's primary access drive for customers to to get to the super center. And then more than most um access drive is mainly used for delivery vehicles to get to to the rear of the rear of the building and and handle their deliveries. Uh the subject site for the
fuel station is within a small portion of the existing paid parking area kind of the eastern portion of the site and that area is bound by wetland area directly north to it. Tiffany Boulevard to the east, the Super Center to the west, and then the Walmart internal
access drive and additional wetlands to the south. So, what Walmart is looking to propose is to redevelop the area and construct a new 1,600. look to construct a 1,618
square foot convenience store with a 4,800 square foot fuel canopy uh with eight multiproes. Um other site improvements consist of new landscaping, new pave parking areas,
trash enclosure, new site lighting, um and and other utility connections. And then associated with the fuel use, you have two 20,000galon underground fuel tanks and one 10,000 underground fuel tanks to the right portion there. There also will be looking to replace the
existing freestanding sign with a new sign uh that just has the reader board with the for fuel prices. Uh this layout provides seven proposed parking spaces for the convenience store use which brings the total parking count
for the overall property to 511 parking spaces which meets the minimum requirement of 483 for the the overall property. Two access drives are proposed uh on site here. Both of them connecting to
this internal Walmart um access drive. And there's no proposed modifications to Tiffany Boulevards or or that intersection. Uh we're providing a public sidewalk connection to the convenience store. You see here
that connects to the existing Walmart um public sidewalk that then goes to Tiffany Boulevard. It's not showing up well in this plan, but that continues back to the Walmart Super Center. Uh overall this layout uh results in an
increase of imperous area by about 1,445 square ft. Uh to mitigate that new imperous area, we're proposing a new storm water management system uh which is designed to reduce peak rates and and runoff and then also provide water
quality treatment for the development. Um and and we'll design it to to meet the city and and state requirements there. And essentially the design is the purpose is to capture runoff in deep south hooded catch basins which are then
conveyed to an underground uh basin which is this this dash line there prior to discharging to the wetlands to the north of the site. Those under existing condition runoff on the site sheet flows across the the parking area directly into the catch basin untreated and
discharges to to the same area. um other utility connections on site. Um we are proposing a new electric service with new above ground transformer which would then connect all
the way back to a ex an existing utility pole on the Walmart property and a new water and sewer services are proposed that will connect to the Walmart infrastructure as well. This will be a an electric only building so no gas service is proposed. Um and then except
the the underground fuel tanks uh which will be regulated and and permitted through the state and and city as required for the fuel tanks. Um moving on to landscaping proposing all
new landscaping on this site. Uh it's in total there are 17 new trees and 130 new shrubs. Um bulk of landscaping being at the the front here right where you come in off Tiffany Boulevard. you know, today there's some pretty good landscaping there. So, the the purpose
of this is to looking to replicate that while also providing some some nice landscaping around the the convenience store itself. Um, with that, I attended the development review committee back in October. Uh, there were some great suggestions on on
landscaping there as well. And for the next revision of plans, we'll be looking to provide some additional landscaping, whether it's a mix of shrubs and trees along the head of these these parking spaces. And the purpose of that is to just deter customers parked here walking
across that drive aisle to the convenience store. Um there there were some other questions at that uh meeting u about the building. I passed those questions on to the architect still waiting on confirmation on that. One of which is ensuring that
the store clerk has full visibility to each fuel station. Um, and ensuring that and then you asked a question about metal roofs previously. Um, still weighing our response there. We do have architectural plans. They called it out
as metal canopies. Um, what I'm trying to determine if that's the material on the top or if it's just the the side where the signages are. So, so we respond on that and I'll get back to you. Um other items since development review committee I I met separately with
the conservation commission agent uh just to discuss the the project and the the proposed work within the buffers. We will be required to submit an NOI which we will be looking to submit shortly after uh the CRM. We just want to incorporate any feedback or any comments that we have from from the planning
board before we file that as well. Last thing I want to note on on the permanent side is the motor vehicle fueling station is a permitted use by special be a special permit in the zone. So we'll be filing a special permit application
through the ZBA as well. >> And that was a special permit for the use to um and with that I'll turn it over to board for any questions.
I guess you I just want to clarify uh the I know there's an entrance and an exit. There's two of them, but the only way you can get in to the service station is at the lights itself, right? The main entrance to Walmart. >> Yes. >> You didn't say You didn't say you were proposing another one off Tiffany. Another
>> No. Okay. >> I just wanted to clarify. I thought that was better. >> That was my only question. It's >> Yeah, there's there's one along the top too Walmart site, but I don't >> Right. That I know. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, I just want to clarify if there wasn't >> one of the things I don't believe we
might have mentioned to the development review committee was in relation to the architectural plans and signage uh proposed. Um, so freestanding signs allowed in Gardener are max 15 feet with a max uh square footage of 50 feet. Um,
I know option A has a total square footage of 57.68 square ft. Um, and option B has a total square footage of 48.86. So, um just in terms of what signage is
permitted by right um for this as a separate considered a separate structure um then the Walmart as the one permitted freestanding sign um for this um option B would probably be your your best bet. Okay,
>> that's in I have it written down here. Um 675970 subsection E if you want to take a look. And then for the wall and individual letter signs, I've already taken a look on that. That's subsection A in the same
section of the ordinance. Um, and all your plans for that are in the proposed signage are all well within the uh metrics there requirements there. So, just wanted to
make sure that was mentioned as well. Um and then in terms of parking, in case anyone um didn't see the mention on the sides, it's as Connor said, it's 1618 ft. Um given our current zone the zoning
for the space, um it well meets the um parking requirements of one space per um the net floor area um being under 5,000 square feet. So, it's
all set there as well. >> Is the uh subsurface infiltration unit is that set back 50 ft from the wetland area? >> It is. It is not. Um and we're currently reviewing that with conservation commission agent. We're going through some options there. So, it's currently proposed is a infiltration. Um just
reviewing boring logs that we have. We haven't done any test fits yet, but from boring information it and just mapping the map is C D soils and with proximity to the wetlands, it's probably not suitable for infiltration. Um, and then also looking at the infiltration rates
from boing logs to and the makeup of the soil. It's very silty and fine. So, it doesn't it's not great for infiltration. Um, so we're we're considering dialing that back and and going to tension and then proposing a a water quality unit that's specifically designed to treat
phosphorus and and nitrogen and those sorts. So we can still meet the the city requirements there and then meet the state requirements for redevelopment. Um, >> and uh about the classification as redevelopment. You said this was an increase in impervious, right?
>> Yeah. Increase in 1450 ft impervious. So we'd be looking to to mitigate that through the peak rates, provide the water quality and then recharge. Uh we we lean on to maximum extent practical practical >> just the increase in impervious. I think
we'd want to see that classified as a mix of redevelopment and new development. >> Okay. at a minimum >> and would that the new development would only apply to the 1,000 square ft the increase >> as far as like required recharge volume
calculations. >> Well, yeah, if I can jump in. Typically, redevelopment can't have an increase in impervious area. So, it would be as far as I'm would need to meet new development. Yeah. Um I think didn't we talk about that at
the >> I believe we did a lot of detail on that mentioned that um >> um if if I can just jump into um in looking at the soil logs it looks like there's a lot of fill from when they built this. >> So you can't typically infiltrate and
fill anyway. >> So you may have to come up with just pure detention and or or figure out a way to get your infiltration. Um but yeah, it's definitely going to be a challenge. >> Okay. So, what are the options for the
the recharge requirement? Um >> that's hard to say. I mean, your fill, you might have to determine what the existing divergence soils below your fills are. Um >> assuming wetlands so close by, they're not going to be great. But I think when
you do if you do some deep hole testing um for your runoff, you're going to you're going to kind of have to figure that out >> to get down below your fills to see what was there um before the fill construction. >> So you're calling you're considering
this um is a new development or still just a mix of new and and redevelopment. Um >> I mean my inter >> it's sorry >> go ahead. I'm sorry. the the site as it is is entirely paved paved parking. I >> I understand it was always my and and I
believe years ago had gotten a a ruling from D that redevelopment can't include an increase in impervious area. Um I'd have to check the definitions um over the years. That's what I had stuck with. Um if you can get a different take on it, that's fine. But again, that's a
conservation commission issue as well. Um I'm only here for the planning board. I'm not I'm not enforcing the wetlands protection act. Um but as far as it relates to your storm water, I'd be looking at it as new development. Um for
for everything else, um yeah, you can have a conversation as well with the conservation agent to find out whether or not the increase in impervious surface would
consider this a new development or not. We may need a determination by mass D. So we might have to reach out to them as well, but we can include you on the that conversation. >> From my experience, I've seen D want to see at least like the uh net change in impervious factored into the recharge
calculations and the water quality. That's one of the items on the the checklist is uh mix of mix of new and and redevelopment >> and that and that's fine if that's >> I'm not opposed to that. >> Um one other thing I actually want to
bring up as we were sitting here tonight. Um I was thinking about the lights at Tony Boulevard and the impact of traffic into the site. So I don't know if you guys have looked at that. >> Yeah, we had prepared a traffic report. Um believe that was submitted as well. Okay. Did not look at that.
>> And the conclusions were that uh with the the build future build conditions, the the intersection was still not operated at a level of service today. Okay. The conclusions of the traffic report are on page I want to say 30 around there.
>> It's it's numbered page 14. Okay. >> But it's >> that's fine. I I can scout it after that. >> I don't need to look at it right now. I >> I think we mentioned this in the development review. I wasn't recalling. Do you know if this is going to be open uh 24/7 or is it maybe you don't know
the times on that? >> Uh typically they're open the same hours as the would would operate and this one's open 6 a.m. to 11. >> Yeah, I don't I don't know. in lighting as far as the lighting up of Route 68. Could that be directed more?
Is that under consideration as far as there's no spillage going up to 68? >> No, this is uh sent out to Walmart's lighting vendor. Uh and they it's all designed to meet the city's city's ordinance there. It's all dark sky compliant, including the the lights underneath the canopy also dark sky
compliant. So it's design abundant properties or the right way. >> Any further questions? >> Is the price going to be the same? 289. >> You write that down.
>> Yeah, that's a condition of approval. >> Put in the order. Um well then I think there's a couple items that we'll wait to see updates to the storm water given the increase in peria surfaces and a couple other things
that we had discussed. Um whether or not this is considered in entirety a new development or or whether or not it's a mix of new and redevelopment given that most of the majority of the surface area is already uh impervious at the start.
Um, we just need a determination, I think, from um the conservation commission of of whether or not that'll be the case. Um, sorry, keep going. >> No, I'm sorry. I cut you off. And if we find areas here where we can reduce that in previous coverage to to match, then
we would meet the redevelopment. Say if the the net is zero, um, that would that would be a potential solution. Issue we're unable to recharge. >> Yeah. Um,
so we'll wait on getting some of those items. Um, if you're able to get them in in time for us to review uh before the next meeting, then we can um advertise for the public hearing and continue on to definitive. But we'll wait to hear
back whether or not >> you're in for December or whether or not we continue this in January. Yeah, I know we were preparing them too to submit for the the ZA and conservation, but we'll we'll take a second look at the storm water and get that all sorted
out before we move on to definitive and public piece. >> Did they have a timetable when they kind of want to start this project? >> Uh in this late spring, >> late spring, >> next year. Mhm.
>> Okay. >> Very good. >> Anything else? >> Anything else on the board? >> All right. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Well, you know, saying no, no, no, that's not. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Do you want to go forward with the uh 116874 now or >> um >> we can approve the meeting minutes and then we can move on from there to 11688 for the cottage kitchens.
>> Okay, we need a vote to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 14th. >> I make a motion we accept the minutes of the last meeting. >> I second that. >> Motions remain seconded. All those in favor I >> I >> opposed. Not so moved.
>> Definitive site plans. Got that on for the uh watches a community college. That'll be on the next meeting. Jason. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Those plans have all been disseminated
to you all. So we can review those and address the changes that they've made at the next meeting. Okay, moving on to 3.3 item 11688, an ordinance to amend chapter 675 of the code of the city of Gardner there entitled zoning to allow for the
operation of use of cottage kitchens and residential districts within the city of Gardner. Open for discussion on the floor. >> It was a pretty straightforward ordinance change. Um, a lot of these are
operating already. Um, but it's just allowing them by right to operate. Um, I know the chair, who is not able to make it here tonight, had a couple questions in regards to um, signage, but those stipulations are already reflective in
the current zoning for um, signage in relation to residential structures operating out of residential structures. Um, so they would have to comply with the existing ordinances that are already in place. Um, if any of you want to see
those those ordinances, um, I can pull up the, um, signage requirements for residential structures. Um, I have no comments for it. >> Very good. I think it was discussed last night that >> all I'm sorry the u all rules and
regulations that were as far as board of health or what they have to meet and that's all incorporated within there. So there's no change in all >> just as if there any other restaurant or food production facility in the city. >> Good. >> Um motion to send it back to the city
council with affirmative vote from the plan. Yeah. Make a motion. We recommend item 11688, ordinance to amend the zoning change 675 675 back to city council. >> Second. >> As presented. >> As presented. Thank you. All those in
favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. 3.4 item 11704. an ordinance to amend chapter 675 of the code of the city of gardener there of entitled zoning to promote housing growth and production in the city of
gardener discussion on the floor. >> So I know one of the major components to this um in terms of the discussion last night um was in terms of the parking for
uh it being the one per dwelling one one parking space per dwelling unit. Um, I didn't have this letter with me at the time, but there was a letter submitted to me that I would just, I think, like to read out. I'm going to share with the city council as well at their meeting. Um, it's from a woman who operates uh,
Anita Muhammad um, out of Franklin Court. She says, "To whom it may concern as a resident property manager of Simplified Management, I oversee the management of more than 200 residential units in the greater Worcester area with the majority located here in Gardener.
My experience, the vast majority of renters and residents maintain only one vehicle per household. In cases where a resident has more than one vehicle, our team is consistently able to find a reasonable solution prior to lease signing and handle it effectively on a case-byase basis. I strongly support the
proposed zoning ordinance updates and reduce park parking requirements to one space per unit, expand by right multif family development, and allow for greater flexibility with accessory dwelling units and tiny homes. These changes will encourage responsible growth, make housing developments more
feasible, and help revolutionize, revitalize underutilized and blighted properties throughout the city. Thank you for your consideration and continue to make continuing to make gardener a more accessible and development friendly community. Thank you, Anita Muhammad.
So, I will submit that to city council. Um, as like I had mentioned, much of the discourse that was heard last night in terms of uh the city council feedback and questions to the mayor and uh
councelor Hardurn were in relation to the um reduced parking requirements um proposed in the ordinance. So, >> so just to confirm what's proposed is one parking space per three units,
>> one parking space per dwelling unit. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And then is the >> there there are a number of proposals um in this it adds a uh section on tiny homes and a efficient
homes um allowing for um smaller lowerc cost homes making it easier for um residents to purchase u build up the housing market and address
the aging stock of homes uh in gardener. There is I guess the time is where I was saying the one per three units. Let's get through the graphs first.
10 pages of graphs. I know the ADUs that they have is uh if it's u located within one half mile of a public transit stop and no additional parking is necessary. So there's a difference between the different uh
levels. Yes. For the for the tiny homes, it is listed that the parking is one off streetet um parking space per three dwelling units and parking is also provided in shared lots or on street as approved by
the planning board. uh for those for ADUs an expansion on the existing section currently listed as in-law apartment in-law units I believe they're called or in-law in-law
apartments changing those to the modern term of ADUs or accessory dwellings uh for parking no additional parking spaces are required for ADUs located within 1/2 mile of a public transit stop. And for ADUs located farther than 1/2 mile from
a public transit stop, one additional off- streetet parking space shall be provided. There is also an expansion on with the addition of subsection 675-860 for expedited permit of housing
developments. This is to streamline the and expedite the permitting process for residential developments in the city um in order to promote the creation of housing. Um so this puts in for expedited review
requirements that the city shall review, process and render a final decision on all applications um covered under this section within 90 days upon receipt of a complete application. So that puts our site plan review timeline on for preliminary well
development review initially. Um well actually no development review would be would would be um separate when prelim preliminary site plan review applications would be received. that would start the 90-day process from there for us to go through preliminary
site plan review definitive and moving forward with an order of conditions within 90 days. Um, >> I assume if we're looking for more information on something and they need to continue that we would
would that extend that if we're seeing something come in front of us for the first time that we need longer than 90 days. Anything longer than 90 days I believe would be considered in cases where additional information is required by the applicant. the 90-day
period shall be told from the date that the city requests additional materials until until such materials are submitted. So if there is an interim such as currently what we're dealing with with Mount Wuset where they're changing the plans and we need those
additional materials to move forward, these this interim period where we've had a delay um in continuing that public meeting uh the public hearing with their finalized plans would be considered um
not applicable to the 90-day period. It includes an overlay district for starter homes. Uh so single family dwelling units not exceeding 1,850 square ft of heated living area. Um the zoning district established under this
ordinance. Um complies with chapter 40. Um this puts the density at this overlay area as uh density of a minimum of minimum of four
starter homes per acre of developable land area. Uh bedroom count at least 50% of starter homes that shall contain no fewer than three bedrooms. Um, for developments of more than 12 starter homes, um, at least 10% shall be
affordable to households earning less than 110% of the area median income and ADUs of no more than 600 square ft may be permitted subject to compliance with applicable applicable regulations.
development shall incorporate sustainable development standards including the preservation of open space and low impact storm water management practices just the same as any other. Um and this is also uh planning board shall render the decision within 90 days of the receiving complete application
unless an extension is mutually agreed upon and we may approve the site plan subject to conditions necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance and to mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Um and the the
same um tolling period is applicable here as well for all the 90-day periods. The tolling period for uh waiting any submitts um is applicable. So we would have I guess if you're counting dayto
day longer than 90 days if there's any delay in um in submittals being uh timely for us to have three total meetings to go through from receal of the initial uh application to um order
the their um order of conditions. It's the the starter home overlay district. Is that established already like geographically or is this just like enabling that? >> This is enabling the Yeah. >> the housing priority overlay district
which is encourages the development of of general housing in areas well served by transit municipal services, increasing housing density, promoting compact sustainable development patterns. Um,
let's see. Minimum of make sure I have this right. Yeah, minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre unless otherwise approved for environmental infrastructure consideration. So, this these are for multif family um units now by right. um
and that overlay district that's included and labeled out in um I believe further into the presentation the mayor provided yesterday but if anyone wants a copy of the um yeah
>> wasn't there a question also about possibility of enhancing that that area >> yeah there was a resident president who I had actually spoken with earlier that day and recommended that he attend um
last night's meeting. Uh he owns um probably looking at GI the GIS maps probably the largest undeveloped section of residential land um one of the largest sections of undeveloped residential land in South
Gardener uh with it being just over an acre and currently nothing's on it. Um, it's right off of Mechanic Street. Um, it used to have frontage, um, off Tony Boulevard. Uh, or maybe where Mechanic Street connected to before Tany
Boulevard was put in place. When Tiffany Boulevard was put in place, they lost a good chunk of frontage there. So not being enabled for multif family by right um was you know something that he was looking to be
included in for the housing priority overlay zone. So the city is is perfectly amicable and the mayor has admitted as such in last night's meeting that you know this isn't a one-sizefits-all. We're not going to get 100% right. I
don't think any ordinance is 100% right. maybe on the on the first first try and amendments um you know will certainly come down the pipeline as as you know we've uh developed this plan um and you
know as we hear feedback from from residents of expansion of this housing priority zone um or other changes that are recommended to uh the other section that this is a continuously living and breathing document that represents the needs of the city and currently The
needs of the city are that we are 750 housing units short of the demand that the city faces. Um the housing stock, like I've said, is aging. Um and new development needs to happen if we're
going to both develop the city or and and grow the population in in the way that you know, Gardner's positioning itself for future economic development. So I that's that's my uh my soap box I
guess for for it. Um but if anyone has any unfortunately the mayor's not here as it's election night >> um he has other other duties to attend to. Um but if there are any questions from last night's meeting >> the only other issue was with the ADUs
increased also from 900 ft to maximum,200 ft. Was that >> Yeah. So the that is the >> why I knew I should have stapled this together. That one's either.
>> So the state requirement is 900 square ft of gross floor area is is I'm I'm Yeah. So whether or not that meets the this gardener's requirements, um whether
or not we increase that to 1,200, we just cannot go lower than 900. Um so if we find that ADU um applications are coming in and you know the applicant is
not happy with the fact that their ADU cannot exceed 900 square feet and the city wants to increase that based off of public feedback. Again this is a living breathing document meant to represent the you know comments and feedback that
we get from um from the public. So the 900 is based off of state requirements to put in a word. >> Yeah, very easy. >> I believe the state requirement is based on the existing structure
percentage-wise up to a maximum of 900 ft. >> Okay. >> We're just saying maximum of 1250 >> more. >> Oh, gotcha. So I don't know if it needs to include that the great you know the the percentage of the existing structure
>> to to kind of go along with the state um ADU requirements or regulations >> because what's the state it's 900 or 50% whichever is higher or lower I think lower right >> I think lower the maximum of 900 >> because I think as long as we're
less stringent than the state >> and I believe that's already been forwarded and we passed it 1250 but whether or not they include that other with the size of the building like the state has. >> You you get ADUs bigger than the existing dwelling.
>> Yeah, >> if you want to send that over to me if the board is amicable to me making that recommendation of Sorry. >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Do we need a mo we need a motion on the
floor to uh >> is there any other comments um in relation to it? >> Um any other edits to the existing ordinance that you know based off the feedback we heard last night um or
anything currently want to voice now that we would like to recommend to the the city council. Uh this is this this is our chance to to make those recommendations for any changes. >> I didn't hear anything.
>> The um the paved surface setback for reducing the required buffer between parking and lot lines from 10 to 5 ft. >> Yep. Mhm. >> Only concern with that is I feel like that might end up with a lot of could end up with a lot of additional impervious
just kind of pushing the parking as far out as you can go and also just bringing that closer to neighboring lots or public roadways. >> What is that section 13? Section 13. >> Not necessarily opposed to that. Just a
little hesitant. 5T's also not that big of a difference. So, it's not a huge change. And I think that's again to meet the parking requirements that I had post I had mentioned of the
one unit per three uh or one parking uh space per three units as well as the additional shared parking um lots um as recommended by the planning board is I believe how it was written.
Just make sure I have my You know, off streetet parking also is fine, but we know we live in gardener and uh what happens in gardener here snow and you can't park on the side of the road anymore. You're going to then you have to find a place to park. >> Yeah. again the only thing
>> for so they so whatever stuff they do at the state they kind of forget where we live in central Massachusetts up >> up here at Gaga. >> So yeah for those again it is one off- streetet parking space per three dwelling units and parking is also
provided in shared lots or on street as approved and recommended by the planning board. So whether or not we find that there's um >> there's not much we could do about it. I mean if that's what It is what it is. >> But I can certainly include it is what it is. They're going to have to find a place to park.
>> Yeah. Within 1100 ft. >> I can certainly include as well whether or not the uh council might be amicable towards being flexible with the um current uh buffer between parking area and lot lines from 10 to 5t. Um,
>> yeah. I don't know that I feel strongly enough about it to make it a recommendation. I don't know. Does anyone else have any opinion on that, please? I don't 5 feet. >> I mean, it could it could make a
difference like you said to the total impervious surfaces that are proposed just because they're more flexible with how many that they're able to >> right >> add in. >> I get that it's trying to make it more flexible and that just means like maxing out more space on the lot which can lead
itself to more >> impervious. I'm wondering in fact can we give 5T if you would have said 4 feet and you given them more but if you're going the other way I don't know if we can again the what this proposed from the
state >> I think this is separate from the state though right this is just like our >> this is ours back that's just ours >> oh I misunderstood >> no the the only the ADUs are we're following the state recommend
said state minimum requirements for ADUs. Um tiny homes that were currently um addressing that in the housing priority zone, those are being adopted by, you know, some municipalities and
and slowly um more and more. So, this isn't a a state requirement um for us to to add these ordinances in. It certainly addresses the
housing needs. >> Well, make a motion to recommend item 11704 ordinance to amend zoning change 675 uh promoting housing growth. second
>> motion along with the uh notes that summarize. >> Yeah, that with it. >> That'll be with a conversation I'll have with the mayor in regards to the buffer as well as the I must have made a note of it
>> the reference to the existing structure on the >> Y. Yes. Yeah, it's right here. >> Okay. Any further comment? No. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. So moved.
Do we have any further announcements at this time? The only one I have is that at the next planning board meeting um we will likely also have um discussing the
uh master plan which we the city has been um undertaking. So nothing for us to discuss here today but just to notify um people watching as well as the board here. I'll be sharing around the current inventory and assessment as well as
drafted uh goals um and um a lot of the language that's that's been drafted for that plan. Um I believe the planning group that's behind it is planning on attending the next planning board meeting just to make first introductions because the planning
board itself is the approving authority on the eventual uh final draft of that master plan. So, I'll share that out with everyone um shortly, probably tomorrow morning, and we can discuss that at the next meeting. Um based on
the timing, it seems like the next meeting is going to be on >> December 9th. >> December 9th at 6:30. Um but that's the only announcement for for everyone. >> After that, >> that finishes our business for the
evening. I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion we adjourn. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. So moved. Thank you. Thank you everyone.