this week. All right. 13th planning board meeting is now called to order. First, we have uh continuation of public hearings. 827 Green Street. >> Yeah. So, uh, John Clifkco Marti Engineering
here tonight representing the applicant. At the last meeting, West Bliss from my office, uh, in response to the comments issued by this board, uh, went made a bunch of changes to the plan set. Uh, understandably, I think we issued them that day of, so staff and board didn't
have a ton of time to review them. Uh, so there's been no further changes to the plan since that last meeting. However, since that time, we we received our conservation approval last night and we've also received an email from Mr.
Oliver here accepting the changes that were provided. So, um I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have, but we're looking for, you know, site plan removal for the proposed improvements. >> Any comments from staff?
>> No, I I've reviewed it and I'm happy with the changes. If you want, I can go over the conditions of approval that I already have drafted. I I had sent it over to Wes over at Mccardi. Um, and I heard back he didn't have any any
issues with it, but I'll read them aloud. Um, so for the site plan development for Gamma, Inc. with cover sheet dated September 22nd, 2025 and a revise through December 3rd, 2025. Plan depicting proposed farm building and parking area with 15 new parking spaces,
13 normal and two handicapped parking spaces. Conditions one, all works will be conducted strictly in accordance with the plans entitled quote Gamma Inc. 827 Green Street, dated September 22nd, 2025, revised December 3rd, 2025,
including wetland boundaries, 30 foot no disturb zones, 60 foot no build zones, and 100 foot wetland buffer zones as shown on sheets two and three of the site plan set. All storm two, all storm water management facilities shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the storm water management report
prepared by McCarti Engineering, Inc. dated September 22nd, 2025 and revised December 3rd, 2025, including all assumptions, calculations, and best management practices contained therein. Three, erosion and sediment control measures shown on the approved grading and drainage plan, including silt
fencing, compost socks, and straw waddles, shall be installed prior to any clearing or excavation, and shall be continuously maintained until all disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Four, that the operation and maintenance plan for the storm water management system dated December 3rd, 2025 shall be recorded at the registry
of deeds as a covenant running with the land prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project. Five, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the new buildings or parking facilities until all storm water best manage management practices have
been installed. All O andM documents have been recorded and the city engineer has provided written confirmation to the applicant and planning board that the project has been constructed in compliance with this decision. Six, all represent all representations made by the applicant engineering documents submitted as part of the site
plan review process are considered binding conditions of approval. And finally, seven, the planning board reserves the right to inspect the site or request documentation at any time to ensure ongoing compliance with these conditions. >> We're amendable to those. The only thing I might comment is pertaining to the
operation maintenance plan. I believe conservation already had that in there. >> The conservation agent was unexpectedly out today, so I didn't get to confirm with him of whether or not >> I know it's just it was related to me that you guys tried not to have overlapping conditions. Um, but neither.
Yeah, with him like just getting it completed last night. I hadn't had a chance to to discuss that with him. Um >> so if the board is amicable to that, I can print out um a new copy of the site plan review decision uh nixing out uh
number four for the O andM plan being recorded and um that would be the conditions for the site plan approval for tonight. >> Sounds good to me. >> Any other comments from the board? Comments from the public
motion. >> Make a motion that we close the public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Um, do we have a motion to approve the site plan decision with the conditions as stated by staff?
>> I make a motion. So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I opposed. All right, that's approved. >> Wait until the end of the meeting. Uh, if you want, I can have it signed off by staff. I'll just have to print out a new
one. Um, or I can have it in my office for for you guys to >> um, yeah, I can wait and I guess >> that's fine. >> All right, moving on to old business. We have item 21, definitive site plan
review for Gamma 8. Uh, oh, sorry. We just covered that mass DP referral Templeton pond expansion item 22, >> which is the same as last one as the last meeting. I forgot to edit that and change to Hubbertston instead of
Templeton. Um, I believe we have the applicant here. Um he had submitted [clears throat] a few new documents in regards to the distance um for the pond comparative to snake pond 2 um which are in front of
the board. Um, and I I I think at the the last meeting kind of the the question that we had as a board was do we have the justification ourselves to make a determination on
this for the project itself being in Hubardston while us the planning board in Gardner weighing in on said project. Um, so I don't know if anyone on the board had any questions in regards to
the documents. Um, but I thought, you know, I would give kind of my recommendation because I know you're still looking to get approval through Mass D and I think you've provided all the documentation that you can in
regards to the project area um and your um intent that under your um company Christopher Environmental Associates that you've reviewed the provisions um and that you believe that the activity will not have a negative effect on the
snake pond. Well, um, regardless of our ability to weigh in on that decision, I think mass D should be should know that these documents have been presented to the planning board
here that you've [snorts] I think in done your due diligence to at least in my professional opinion done your due diligence to share the relevant documents about the project in the project area and that this should be a
decision for Hubardston. It's a Hubard project and Mass D, you know, I understand they wanted to make sure that we were aware >> of the project. Um, and I think the scope of what you've sent to us as well as the recordings for these should be
sent to them as part of their review of of the town, the city itself being aware, >> right, >> of the project continuing. Uh if uh the board is willing to put that [clears throat] in the form of the letter, um I will uh include that in my
packet when I meet with the Hubbetson Conservation Commission. And when I file a notice of intent uh excuse me, with the Hobbitson Planning Board and when I file uh a notice of intent with Conservation Commission, I will include
it in that packet as part of the notice and forward that on to D. Um, I hope that you had a chance to uh look at the scope of material that I sent you. It it is extensive and I appreciate the time you're taking to uh
review it. Uh only other uh uh consideration that I would ask is in your um letter to me or whomever uh that you make note uh whether or not you have any objections to uh converting the uh
open detention basis [clears throat] to a closed system. If you have any questions about that, I'd certainly be happy to answer that. But uh we see it as a positive benefit. So, I think um
I certainly think it's fine for staff to submit a letter listing the documentation that we were provided. I still personally don't feel like we should offer any formal objection or
approval or any sort of real formal opinion over what the work is and how it relates to the water supply for the city of Gardner. I think it's just outside of the scope of our review. I understand that D referenced the city and the city's
ordinance in their superseding determination of applicability, but I I still just don't think that there's that it's really appropriate for us to be rendering any any sort of opinion either for or against the work in >> relation. We appreciate that. But I think I think like a a letter from the
city administration stating what's been provided to our office and that we've discussed it at two >> public meetings would be yeah perfectly fine. I agree. >> I'd be fine with that drafting that letter. Um >> and then >> well we're we're good with that. Thank
you very much. Uh it's uh we're just trying to perform our due diligence and make sure that this go through and it has been approved once and they're making a little more difficult to approve it a second time because we are increasing the area and things like that. But again uh I thank you very much
gentlemen. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Tom. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Do you need a um motion? Excuse me Mr. Chairman. a motion to have meward draft a letter in regards to the documentation that we provided and that we feel like
we are accurately >> aware of the project and its scope as a city that the board is >> I would just list the documents that have been provided and state that we discussed them at two public meetings so fine >> I'll make a motion so moved
>> second all in favor >> I opposed all right >> thank you gentlemen >> you thank you sir Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Item number three, new business preliminary site plan review. Uh we have the FWP Realy Partners LLC
Pearl Street subdivision. Applicant come up and introduce themselves. Afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Dan Sheen with Haley Ward. Um, honestly, first time I've been here before this board, so I don't know how you guys like to normally uh conduct your meetings.
Um, but I can be more than happy to kind of go through kind of the scope of this general work. Um, and then answer any technical questions. >> Could you ask me the smaller panels right there to Rob? More manageable.
>> Yes. What I also have here too uh is I like to call it a presentation plan. Pretty much it's just more of a color u picture of it. I think it's a little bit easier to kind of see everything because it is kind of a busy plan. So I do understand that. Plenty of copies here for
everybody. >> I agree. It's easy to see. >> I'm all right. I don't need my magnifying glass. >> All right. Beautiful. Go ahead and give an overview of the project. >> Great. Absolutely. So, um the parcel
itself here that we are proposing uh a preliminary subdivision plan for year four is approximately 55 acres in total. Um what we are proposing here to do is about a 3,000 uh linear foot uh loop road around um the parcel itself. We
have tried to mitigate as much as possible to the wetland system. There is an extensive wetland system that kind of bisects the property from the south and the northern portion of it. Um I think that's easier to see on uh the existing conditions plan that shows the entire site itself. Um
besides that uh we have kind of looked at you know storm water management areas. Um we kind of try to show them on the plan set here as a heavy dash line with some uh hatching through it. Um, again, no real definitive plans have been done yet, so we don't really know the true size of these storm water
basins, but we think it's always best to kind of be on the the safer side and go with larger systems than smaller. Um, besides that, we are also proposing to do a sidewalk on one side of the um roadway here. What this is going to do, the reason why I kind of chose the uh
eastern sides, we're trying to connect it back into an existing um sidewalk system along Pearl Street. It should be noted that the existing sidewalk system on Pearl Street actually butts right up against the curbing itself. There's no grass strip as you know stated in the subdivision rules and regulations.
And that's really all I have. Um I should also state though that this part of the subdivision plan itself um it's going to be 12 lots. Uh they're going to be all residential. There's going to be several quadlexes and a duplex. The reasoning for the duplex unit there is
because there is a certified vernal pool. um it's on the um abudding property, so it wasn't able to be fully delineated at this time, but just based on site some site visits and kind of what we were able to see from MassGis, seems to be in that uh neck of the woods or ballpark area, if you will. Um I
should also let you guys know as well the total number of units. So, we are proposing 46 dwelling units um between the uh multiple quadplexes and the one duplex. That's really all I have. I'd be more than happy to answer any other questions or concerns that the board may
have. So, I know the original plans included the wetland crossing over to the other side of Matthew Street. I kind I kind of assume with these change in plans that both the non-existent utilities over the other side and the
wetland crossing were kind of the the detriment to the change that we're seeing here today. >> Yep. Uh to kind of speak on that, uh Jason, uh we did go before the design review board back last year in April, um with a much more extensive project and
like Jason had stated that this was going to be a lot more significant requiring a huge wetland crossing to kind of uh abut the other adjacent part uh property on Matthew Street. Um there was just a lot of um lack of better term hardships with that. So what we try to
do is kind of condense it down to just this one side of the road itself. uh I'm sorry on the side of the wetland system itself and have more of an internal loop of uh utilities. >> Have you already had this reviewed through the concom? I know I know like
with the last project in this one as well there's you know some some wetlands that you know would they probably want replicated to a you know 2:1 or you know some similar ratio. >> Of course uh we haven't had a discussion with the conservation commission yet
where this is still very preliminary. Um we just don't know the extent that the replication would be needed. I agree. Um where we are proposing a filling, it's a very small portion at the entrance there. Um we would obviously have to replicate that and and accommodate whatever the conservation commission
would want that um at that time. Yeah, I've had some discussions with um the agent there um before as well kind of leading up to this, but nothing showing this exact revision just for full transparency. Rob, did you have any initial comments?
>> Um, just thoughts. Um, I see you loop in the water now, so that's a good thing. >> Um, what's going to happen with the remainder of the parcel outside of what's being developed? >> Um, so the remainder of the parcel on the other side of the wetland, we're just going to leave it as is as open space is definitely currently uh
envisioned for that. It's owned by a couple different owners, too. So, I'm guessing you had consolid like this was a consolidated parcel like to begin with. So, >> you were just looking to move forward with just the owners of of the parcel here. >> Correct.
>> Yeah. >> Was there any uh consideration of doing this as an open space residential subdivision to like increase the density and preserve the open space on one side of the site? >> Yeah, honestly, we haven't considered that yet. Um, but going into definitive
plan, be more than happy to, you know, look into that avenue by all means. >> I think I I understand like why the lots are laid out as they are given the lot requirements for the zoning district. Um, my understanding is that rural
residential you are eligible to do the open space residential development if with the special permit through the planning board. Jason, feel free to correct me if I'm >> No, that is correct. wrong on that. Um, I guess I just look at this and think it looks kind of funky to see such large
lots with these forplexes. Um, and think there, you know, could be a benefit in having smaller lot sizes with a higher density that maybe disturbs less overall land and sets aside a larger portion of the site as open space.
>> Absolutely. Do you happen to have have you guys reviewed I know it's we were discussing it um in our in a couple of our previous meetings up until it was adopted by the city uh council last year, but the new
home zoning ordinance that changes the um includes a housing priority over district, multif family by right zoning, um language for tiny homes. um you know it it allows flexibility for housing
developments. So um you know I know you guys have been working on this probably since the last time you were in front of us for development review. So, as that hasn't been implemented in the e-code yet, if that's of interest to um you
know, alter, I feel like you should be aware of all of the available ordinances that are relevant to residential developments as you're the first residential development coming in front of us as now that that's been adopted into city code. So, if that's something that you're looking to um delve into as
as kind of provide some variability to the plans as you have them presented um we could certainly talk um following this meeting and share the language for that. >> Absolutely. I know uh I think we had talked before Jason a little bit um and we did bring it before the applicant
about the tiny homes. Um again, I think once all the regulations are kind of prepared, if you could provide us with something, we can also look into that as part of the definitive. Um, but I do know that um, based on my discussions with the applicant, this is kind of the layout that they would desire more so than anything. I do believe that the
open space residential development uh, would warrant a discussion. Um, again, allowing uh, more density but also less disturbance I think is a good idea. Um, we can obviously look into that when we go into more of a definitive plan. Um, but that's kind of my understanding at
least um, to this day. So, >> okay. Any other questions or comments from the board? >> So I guess the only thing is we we have one entrance off Pearl Street. Is that is that correct? >> That is correct. >> In and out of Pearl
and there's no uh I guess for emergency uh entrance. We don't have anything. >> No, this is this is currently the only entrance. Um if there's concern with emergency uh just food for thought for everybody here. Um, we would be opposed
to like a boulevard entrance. At least that way if something were to happen at the, you know, I guess the main egress, at least you could ident have like a split between the two lanes, you could have a bit more flexibility there. Um, but it's really all I have for some food
here. Cena fire chief maybe kind of maybe wondering about >> Well, the one one thing I was going to ask um so you're 800 feet to the intersection which it it is not at the
900 ft we allow for culde-sacs. So by by having the loop come back at 800 ft we're shorter than our maximum 900 feet in the entryway and then it's looping back. So, you kind of look at it as um
that's as long as you don't exceed 900 ft there, >> I wouldn't be looking for something like a boulevard. And I know DPW probably wouldn't want one just cuz they're they're hard to maintain. If anything, if the board was, I think, concerned about access and that being the only
access point, maybe you make it a little wider, you know, rather than the 24 ft, you go a little bit wider. Just, you know, as an aside, something to think about. I'm not >> That's just something. Yeah. So, Um, >> and it was just more of a question. It was just kind of >> Yeah. No, and it's a good question because I was going to raise the point
so you understood why it's kind of laid out at that 800 ft to that, you know, where the road comes back upon itself because it >> it makes sure it's less than the 900t maximum length for a dead end that we allow. >> That's all I have. the wetland that's uh
the crossing on the way in that would be the reclamation. Would that be in that area to increase that some? >> Yeah, it would be continuous to that wetland system. [clears throat] >> And the plan for storm water management is it tenatively to do just open
infiltration basins in those hatched out locations? >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Have you done testing in those areas yet? We have not done testing those areas yet. >> One other thing I was going to mention and this is for the definitive um one of the wetland series I think it's right at
the intersection with 140. Um I think it shows yeah it's wetland flag 1 to 16. I think it's right down in the corner with 140 and pearl. Um you'll probably need to get some more flags there to extend it because you could depending on how far up along 140 it comes you could have
a problem there. Oh, absolutely. >> Yeah, we had when we were looking into that [clears throat] as well. >> Okay. >> And through the active chair, u would it uh be best for me to also read out some of these waiver requests or have you guys had a chance to review all of those? >> We got the letter. I don't know does the
board want to go through all those individually right now? >> I don't. All right. Appreciate it though. All right. Any comments from the public? Assuming not. >> It's not a public hearing. >> All right. There we go. So, at this
point, do you want to just wait until we get a new plan set in order to move forward with the definitive or is there a motion we need to make tonight? Unless um >> sounds like there's some potential redesign and things are in the fairly
early stage at the moment, right? >> Yeah, we'll be looking into if that open space residential development. I don't know if it would make sense to provide another preliminary plan if we wanted to go directly into definitive plan with that. Um obviously amenable to whatever the board would prefer.
I have a question of the time lapse the preliminary if we were not to wait for the new set of plans and wait till then put the clocks down at that point where it's nothing's definitive at this point >> which way they're going to go be open space or
>> if the plan set could change considerably from its current state to its final that it would move forward from preliminary to definitive end then I'd recommend that we stay in prelimary ary and then >> okay >> move forward with a new set of plans
once the open space development has been vetted as well as the other home ordinances have been vetted as potential options to potentially change the layout. I know you said that the applicant is most likely looking forward to move forward with the move forward with this option. Um
but I'd say let's stick with this in preliminary for the February meeting. Um and then we can move from there and and decide to move it into definitive. >> 45 days for preliminary. Would you need
an extension from the applicant? >> Yes. Yeah, we would >> amendable to extending until >> Yeah. I don't think there'd be any chance provided. >> All right. So, we'll take this up at a future meeting then. >> Yep. >> Thank you guys very much.
>> Thank you. >> Announcements, news, next meeting on the 10th of February. >> Uh, currently, yes. Um, just something that I think we should um say in the scope of of this meeting with
the new home ordinance adopted and the time lapse for a lot of residential properties um being the the 90-day period uh that we have to review. I think it's
a potential that we might have to meet more often than once a month in order to see through um smaller residential developments as well as multif family. I think subdivision there's a couple questions that the board has in regards
to um how that will be um amended versus the subdivision rules and regs as well as the new home zoning ordinance. So, um, that won't be applicable until those questions are answered. But at least for multif family by right, the housing
overlay district, um, tiny homes, those all give a 90-day review period for us. Um, so currently we'll have the next meeting at February 10th, but both the board um, as well as the public watching should be aware that the um, occurrence
of the planning board meetings might um, go from once a month to twice a month. So, bi-weekly, but um yes, the currently the the meeting will stand uh at Tuesday uh February 10th at 6:30.
>> Sounds good. >> All right. If there's nothing else, do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Make a motion we adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I post. All right.