evening >> and it's being recorded. Thank you all for attending. Um just a couple of minutes straight of things. There's two public hearings this evening. The second meeting is scheduled for 7 o'clock. So depending on where we are, we're going
to adjourn the first one, do the 7 o'clock meeting, which should be brief, 10 minutes or so, and then come back in to the six o'clock meeting. Sir, >> I also want to mention uh this evening that we are a five member board and will
become a four member board as this is Christina's last meeting and I just wanted to recognize her service to the planning board over uh certainly in my tenure and in previously working with John and his team. Uh really enjoyed and
appreciate her hard work. I know the select board feels the same way and we wish you the best of luck going to Casper, Wyoming. When do they find out you're on the plant? You were a planning board person. >> They they know. I actually talked to the planner out there when we were looking at land. She's like, "How do you know what a GIS is?"
>> So, best wishes to you and your family. I'm going to miss you coming in with one minute to go before start time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So I know >> another item to discuss we know the agenda for this evening but uh and I
mentioned with Christina leaving we're going we're five member board we will become a four member board and I know uh just there was a conversation with the applicant a few minutes ago. So the the as as for background so after this
evening we become a four member board and uh the dynamics of the voting change obviously going from five to four uh and one thought and one approach that we spoke about was the applicant could
withdraw their application without prejudice this evening if they thought they wanted to come back into the process when we become a five member board versus I'll say take the the risks of being, you know, in a four member board environment. So, uh, but
otherwise, you know, I know that's came upon you quickly. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that or if you just want to proceed. I don't know that we'll be voting this evening. Um, we have a lot of new material that you will talk to. So that's sort of the sense I I thought
originally we could get through the material and vote this evening. Decent chance. I'm not so sure now. So you're now we're coming out of this into a four four member board environment through the chair. Um Rob Lec from
Marlobec Associates. I did confer with my client. They didn't give me any direction. They said my choice. So, uh, what I would love to do is see where we're at and then, um, I do think a lot of the items that are remaining have been resolved. I think can boil some of
that down. We'll see where we're at if that's okay with the board and then I can make a judgment call, I guess, on the floor, so to speak. I hate to say that, but if that's okay. So we would we'll go through the material this
evening and then at some point um you might decide to withdraw without prejudice >> really mean to me I might >> and then and after we've >> after we gone through some material and then
you would come back in return to being a five member board is that >> um I'm of the mind I don't know that there's I don't want to necessarily discuss the outside of public hearing, but are we in the public hearing? >> Yes. >> Yes, we are. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, okay. I
apologize. I didn't realize. So, um I would say I would like to proceed. Um I don't know that there are changes that have major that would change the project coming back later. Okay. I think, you
know, there's only so much we can do. Um we want I think we like to at this point. >> Okay. All right. Well, that's Is that clear to everyone? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> If he changes his mind later, it's still
okay. >> Yes. >> You good with that, Joe? >> I'm okay. >> You good with that? >> Sorry. You're you were yesing to the >> I was allowing make a decision. Yes. >> Okay. All right. So if it wasn't clear,
of course the public meeting was opened and uh at this point I'll go back to my original thoughts on the evening which would then let me just chat for a second on that which was you know we received the original materials from from Arloc
and we received revised materials with additional materials this evening now. So Arloc is going to we'll review the materials tonight. will explain what has changed architecturally and will review the revised site plans
and storm water report. their review will excuse me their review will include responses to the time band comment but that's my first look at your materials and I thought how we could kind of get through this as efficiently
without having to go line by line and I thought if you could provide sort of summary comments about any highlights and any outstanding issues that would still move us this is still current >> efficiently absolutely okay so going
great Um so Aaron from Hi Rob Marlo Associates. Um so as you mentioned peer review with Tabond um there's been a couple rounds of comments that
um I think the biggest item or most interesting item is related to the um the zone one and the multiple zone one that exists but the public water supplies you know the water in downtown
if we're calling that downtown. Um so we are uh we had to revise our storm water design to include uh an impervious layer which seems counterintuitive to me but in general there's an impervious layer that is required so that we don't have infiltration or exfiltration out the
bottom of the basin to um the well that exists. There's pre-existing non-conforming well right on site. We have communicated with Christine Samar from Mass Empire to an administrative consent order for the use of that well that is not dissimilar from use of other
wells in the area. For example, Hampton House Street also has a pre-existing non-forming well with a a an administrative consent order and typically those are capped at 1,000 gallons per day will work for us for this use. uh no major uh usage of water
that would have increased immediately over that. So we communicated with Christine. So as far as the storm water basin um there was a comment uh a second round comment from Bond related related to the impervious barrier that we were
putting. Uh it was a clay layer um and it was a portion of the basin. Uh they suggested that we extend that include the entirety of the basin. They also questioned the type of barrier whether it be their their questions were related to the fines um migrating into the other
material uh below it. Um so an alternate solution um has kind of suggested uh is a 40 mil liner uh that would line the basin prevent the exfiltration from the bottom of the basin. this extended dry detention basin that would um
basically have an outlet. Um so so this would remain dry but it's a detention based detention. So we're not retaining the water, we're allowing it to go as an outlet. Um so we've included so I guess to boil down that comment, we have included a boring mill liner at the
bottom of the basin and also underneath the swale water quality swale um to address that comment. So, that's that's one item. Um, there were a couple of other uh pedestrian related comments that I think Aaron would um we we
consulted with Bowman about how to best direct pedestrian traffic off site. There was some discussion related to the plaza next door. Obviously, um I have communicated with my client. Um they were willing to look at those items. I
did communicate with Bowman Associates and had a meeting with them earlier uh in the week and we discussed the overarching question question that I wanted to to present to the board is what is the solution to this intersection right there's an intersection that's underperforming
right uh right now and I'm not stealing thunder locally but um meets the warrant uh for a signal there as is without any of the builds out scenario um so I communicate with my client so that I could accurately depict to the planning
board what what willingness they have for any sort of cooperation related to that. Um their response was that there is a an existing condition which we all know. Um and that um you know there's a plaza next door that contributes to it. There's you know there's the golf course
across the street. There's all these different contributo factors. So they were basically saying you know we don't see that as our issue. They're already there at the plaza next door. they're going to be coming over. Their thought was, you know, we'll do what we need to to make people safe on the land we
control. They don't they don't control the plumbing spot next door. They also don't control the plaza across the street, nor do they control the rightway. So, you know, there's other pedestrian related questions. Um certainly we handled what we believe would be the logical approach to connect
to off-site locations from a pedestrian standpoint, but we didn't carry those into the rightway. We didn't carry them up the street. Didn't carry anything onto the land of the plumbing folks or to the plaza across the street. So what you essentially have are pedestrian improvements extending to East Long
Meadow Road. We've terminated that in a manner that was based on Bowman's input would meet the pedestrian requirements and the um technical warning etc all that stuff. So I think I covered that item. Um if you want to talk just a
little bit more about the the warrant and the additional traffic information that was provided at as requested by Ibot. >> Sure. Um I guess yeah. Um again for the record Eric Fet with Bowman Consulting Group. um traffic engineers on the
project. So last time we were in front of you, we talked through the traffic impact study that we had completed some of the initial comments from Tyen Bond. Um during that meeting, we received a lot of comments. Um we also heard comments from the highway superintendent. Um and so based on those comments, we we actually went back out
into the field and did additional data collection. Um we did 12-hour turning movement counts at our the adjacent intersection um East Hampton and Summers Road, but we also did 12-hour counts down at Main Street. Um and so we have a lot of data um that we've compiled and
we also analyzed um for the weekday morning and weekday afternoon which is what we did previously but we also took a look at the school dismissal hour and we also looked at Saturday um just to make sure we were covering all our bases because I know that was one of the concerns is that you know we only looked at certain times of day and so we we
looked at that data we analyzed it um we layered in all of the trips associated with the proposed development and based on the updated analysis. Um the the finding from the original study still held that there was you know no significant um impact to traffic
operations based on the analysis that was presented. But now we have a little bit more information kind of more solidly identifying that. Um we also use those 12-hour turning movement counts to conduct a more detailed signal warrant analysis. Um which is part of the the the revised or the supplemental memo
that we pulled together. Um, again, information that documents that the the existing conditions warrant an analysis and that the project itself doesn't um necessitate the installation of a signal, but all information um should be helpful to town staff should they want
to pursue anything additional either of those locations. Um, we we did submit that time bond reviewed it. They did provide um a handful of comments. Um I think the the the initial one was a recommendation of some additional
signage approaching the stock controlled intersection um and the the curve um on each of the the roadways. Um and then there were some um I think identified as outstanding comments on the site plan regarding turn radi and whatnot. I think Rob you've taken care of those. Um so I
think from a traffic perspective we've addressed um the things that I know we've heard through um the superintendent and through time and bond. Um, and yeah, happy to answer any other questions that come up tonight. >> Uh, from a kind of a pseudographic
standpoint, there was also questions related to the stacking of the Dunkin Donuts. Everybody goes through Dunkin Donuts. They, you know, we're all experts, right? So, the reality is um when when looking at the stacking, there's a significant amount of stacking, but we know and we have kind
of a rule for these Dunkin Donuts. Build it, they will come. So, we understand that there will be significant stacking. um an option and this is oftentimes what we would ask planning courts to do is we we have no problem accepting uh an included condition in a permit that has
a look back provision. Um we have an option here where we could take the um the pickup if you remember the layout the pickup window is here ordering kiosk being here. We can adjust that if there was ever a stacking issue where we were worried about East Long Road or
anything. Um we we often can train most you know we we um some uh Allan Kulie area in Springfield we actually had cones set up to train people how to you know how they would come in each morning because these are typically pi pass by trips folks that are going almost every
morning and once they get the system down they you know they understand it but let's just say we find that there's a lot of stacking from particular location what we can do is route a drive-thru around the front of the building. So, worst case scenario, we
could have all that additional stacking. Not to mention that we do fully expect that Summers Road will generate a certain amount of customer traffic into the site where they would be coming around here anyway and kind of meeting up. But if for some reason we did have a stacking issue, we certainly have done
this in the past where we monitor these things. We communicate with the towns. We don't want a problem. Uh Peter Martins from Small Realy is very specific about customer experience. it's customer experience is not good. It's not good for the town. It's not historic and with business own
you know in design works but in practice as well. So we have accepted those decisions in the past but we do understand the potential concerns. Uh so certainly that could be rerouted that was also I think identified um as an item. There are a few other items
related to storm water phosphorus calculations. Those are those types of calculations have all been addressed and suspended. Um certainly if there was a condition for example if you have a full court tonight and if there was a condition that said you know we need to satisfy you know the peer review or
something like that where we were able to you know we certainly accept those types of contestants given the nature of the makeup >> right. Um, so I think I kind of paraphrased like you said, kind of breezed over some of the stuff. A lot of
the items if you look through the the the letter basically say addressed or or no further those types of things. >> Yes. Yeah. I know >> if there are any others that I've missed be happy to certainly address those 18.
>> I had you know when I looked at the at the plan But my question, Rob, I saw this I I, you know, I had a in my head that the greenhouse is going to be removed, >> right? >> And then then I see what looks like another structure there. Or is that the greenhouse?
>> So I would say that that's not the best drawing in the world to be honest. >> Just going to have to be a oneway. So the the main portion of the octagonal building that would be the the dun there was as part of the I don't know that it
would necessarily be it wouldn't be the greenhouse structure. It would be basically that calling that a placeholder they would like to if if you know if the market is there and they have that space uh utilize that potentially for retail. So, from the beginning of the project, we've
contemplated that as kind of a light >> retail use or some sort of symbiotic use with a Dunkin Donuts. Um, you know, um, couldn't be too water intensive because we don't have a a lot of extra water. >> Um, but I would think light retail could
go there. We don't have it's on spec completely. We do not have a a tenant earmarked for that at this point. And that would be something to be built is you know the >> um that would be um whatever they would need to do and they you know I think
they would be retrofitting the greenhouse um hopefully in and I don't think that's the best rendering but um you know like to look like a barn-like structure that could house no bigger space same size. We're not allowed um
under the administrative consent order that we're working through with D. We're not allowed to increase the size of the structure. So it would be the same size utilizing potentially the space of the greenhouse. >> So So there's no plan to build anything there. Now the plan is just to renovate
the octagonal structure and this is just a >> I would say that the application before you includes the utilization of the octagonal portion of building as the Dunkin Donuts. >> Sure. >> And we have a retail component included in the application for uh let's call it
this portion. I I understand that that's that that's the purpose of the special permit. But what I'm asking you is if we issue a special permit to you and you guys start doing renovations, is it just going to be >> the octagonal Dunkin Dunk donut structure and you >> the entirety of of the structure would be
>> you are something like this >> there like when you get your permit >> the Rena but yes yes it's the it's the same footprint same general volume but it's not the greenhouse that would be a picture of the greenhouse what we're seeing >> the greenhouse is coming down the glass is gone
>> yeah you're using the point using What are they building? >> It's not that. What are they building? >> No, it's it's it's that same structure. Um, you know, they might have a tenant that wants a door in a different spot, but generally speaking, it's the same footprint of that greenhouse that they
would erect. You can't put them in a glass box. >> Sure. I I guess my So, I I mean, I have a few things I want I I think are worth stating. One is that, you know, just as a full disclosure, I'm personally disincined to approve anything tonight
having just gotten the set of plans today. Like I understand that there there are minor revisions and they're not huge, but it's not sufficient time for us to, you know, adequately review what we're seeing and we haven't gotten, as far as I can see, a response back from Tai Bond. We have, >> right, from the responses you have just
submitted. Um, so and understanding that they're not major changes and I know that it puts you guys in in a weird position, but Mullen's ruling because of, you know, requiring a unanimous vote as opposed to majority or supermajority. Um, so I just wanted to put that out there just as like my, you know,
>> general statement. Um, that being said, um, with respect to the things that you you have kind of already presented on, I do have a few other comments that I'm willing to make. I don't know if you guys want to hear them or if it's if it's >> Oh, that' be great. Yeah, please. Um, so you know, one, you know, I understand I
I 100% understand that you guys made the pedestrian improvements that you could on your site because that's what you guys control. 100% understand that and I can appreciate you guys, you know, coming from that position. Um, you know, I guess my my one question is I know you
have probably had multiple conversations internally, you know, between your organizations with the owner, but at any point did anybody speak to any of the abuing property owners about any potential, you know, consensus on any of these pedestrian issues or planning
around the pedestrian or vehicular issues because we had discussed at our last meeting a whole slew of things that we were proposing and suggesting that and even if they were a no, you or even if the answer was no, they were just totally unwilling to work with us and had no interest. You know, I think it
would have meant a lot to know that that conversation was had. So I can't say that I've had a conversation directly related to pedestrian access >> or I know we were talking about the vehicular you know potentially you know mostly the vehicular you know as far as
the drive access because like I understand you have inherited the you know the traffic issue at this location but this will inevitably make them worse. I mean that's it's a it's a busy you know I I love that's the the reality. We all love
Duncan. Um, and you know, you know, with the way it's set up currently, I can certainly see there being issues with stacking and traffic backing up on Long Meadow Road. And I have concerns with the idea of having this retroactive condition respect to moving the location of the
kiosk. Um, because I'm I'm trying to, you know, think through what we're kind of approving in that in that instance. Are we approving a special permit with the ability for you to guys to modify that special permit in the future? Like in my mind, if you're making a change that substantial on site, that's something that would require a
modification of a special permit. >> Yeah. Typically with through the chair, typically through um the way it would work is it would be your condition. So if you identified a condition, >> so it's like zoning enforcement here notify >> let those guys know that we've been
seeing stacking. You would come back in that solution. Essentially, it would be keeping the pickup window the same location, most likely modifying the location of the um ordering kiosk around the corner so that people can't come in
off of East >> and then I'm assuming that we'd be okay. So, we be we'd be changing some of the, you know, the entrances and exits as far who can enter from where or is it going to be everybody can enter >> the same way? um
uh essentially it would work essentially this >> so this is so understood I understand what you're suggesting with respect to that permit and it's a it's a an interesting solution I think that that would potentially allow for additional stacking that being said if we're considering something like that as being
a potential solution in the future I kind of want I want to see it I want to see what that looks like I want to see what the >> I could that's what the look back it's a condition >> you condition that your special. >> Sure. >> That would allow
them to come back to you, show you without saying this is a major change, you know, you're aware of this major change. >> No. So, and that's kind of like I understand that we would potentially essentially be saying we can look at the proposed plan in the future. My my issue
or concern with that is that you know if that's a potential future solution I I'd like to kind of see what it looks like today just in terms of like if the kiosk is there what is the traffic flow you know what does that mean for the actual
>> so maybe I could clarify and I noticed your your comment and I I I get it um it would be all the same traffic flow all the arrows all the traffic flow directions would be the same the way showed us now typical location for
pickup window versus uh kiosk is a flexibility of six cars apart. That's ideal for the operation of the Duncan. That's why we have it the way we have it. That's why the ordering kiosk is here. not ideal to the internal operation of Duncan, but potentially
if there was a stacking issue, a potential adjustment that could be handled would be to bring this around the corner to here where these folks can't, you know, so that everybody has, you know, you essentially say, you know, drives through sign here. you come in
counterclockwise around the building like you, you know, it's just providing, you know, >> you know, call it 15 to 20 more stacking space should you need it. Now, most locations don't need this and we do exceed the the stacking requirements. So, we are
already compliant. This is really just a belts and suspenders approach to be say, look, we understand this is an intensive use. you know, we understand across the street, you know, there's been some work trying to resolve that over the years and that's always tricky, too, I guess,
right? So, it's really not that we're proposing a change now. We're letting you know that there's a fail safe just like we would when we design a stomware system. We want a fail safe, right? I I think that like in my mind and and part of my my the reasons I have such
reticence about that is and I understand that you're meeting the you know the stacking requirements you know that that are laid out. I don't think that those stacking requirements are maybe sufficient for this type of use. I think that we can all imagine that the
staffing will at least in the current design potentially expand and cause issues. I'm, you know, I'm also just thinking about, you know, all right, well, we're talking about at some point in the future potentially would have to move the kiosk, but then, you know, like, all right, so people are now stacking in front of the building. What happens to the parking space that's there? Are we now moving those parking
spaces to the other side of the drive aisle? Is or do we just leave the parking space and these people are just stuck there until people can >> Well, it's you know, there is there is the potential if somebody were to back out, there's potential for a temporary conflict. Um, you know, that's why we
have a dedicated backing. It looks like the spaces are 18 >> feet long and then there's another 18 feet from the end space to the 36. How do you >> theoretically should have enough room to back out if the people in the drive-thru are moved?
>> It has about 9 ft there. Thinking a car there. >> Yeah. And they're at an angle. The parking spots are at an angle. So when they come when they go to back out, they'll automatically be on that angle to get out. >> I did notice that. My concern here is that, and this is going to sound very
blunt, people are not good drivers and they're not paying attention. Um, and that's not any different here than it is anywhere else. That's not any knock on people from Hampton. I think it's mostly people from Kartica. Um, but, um, >> Wyoming, >> I wish I could say that they drive very
slowly there. It's going to be an adjustment from New England. Um, but I just foresee a lot of conflict. So, if you're coming in East Long Meadow Roadside, am I correct in understanding that you can go through
that back parking lot around the corner and join the drive-through line? >> That's exactly. So, yeah, >> a bypass lane here. >> Yep. >> That way you continue on to the to the um, you know, parking here should you want to. >> First concern, people are definitely going to try and cut in. Second concern.
>> No, they can't. I'm concerned. They can't. >> They can't. >> No, they can't because if they come in that way, they can't go left there because there if there's a stacking lane, you can't turn left to get into those spots. There's no room. >> Yep. My concern is when it's not stacked. So, if you go around and you go through that back parking lot, if the
cars are stacked around the front of the spots, right, and then down to the Summer's Road entrance, which is not inconceivable considering we stack at least 10 cars at the current location when it's busy. Yeah. at least um that drive-through lane is now completely
blocked to the road and the people coming in from East Long Meadow are now parked >> stacking through those parking spaces >> creating lane here. >> Yeah. And then it cuts into the middle of the parking lot. >> It go Yeah, it continues on
>> here. Let me I got >> This is This is the drive-thru lane which is independent, right? >> And then we have this bypass lane. So this >> So they're coming around this. >> Yes. So cars are stacked all the way. >> If you if you were if you were stacked, right? >> That's six cars right there. >> Want to Yeah. They could they would go
around, >> right? So my suggestion would be to because if like I said, if this is all stacked to here, which is not inconceivable, these people can't get in here and now they're blocking all of this. Um, I mean, I'm
sure there's plenty of room, but again, we're still creating this area of >> bottleneck. >> So, that we would be about three times the requirement, and if that happens, they have an operational issue. >> Um, I just think this effective, you
can't do drive-thru through that route. That's my two cents because this is where the stacking is going to get bad. You know, this is far enough from the intersection that if it's poking out a little bit, which doesn't seem likely to me, they're going quickly. But this is
going to back up and it's going to >> You're saying move the kiosk? >> This intersection to me is the biggest problem. >> Are you saying move the kiosk so they have to drive around? >> Nope. I'm saying I think that Meadow entrance is going to be a big problem for multiple reasons. And that's just based on living here for my whole life.
>> All right. Up to the kiosk. How many cars from the pickup window to the kiosk? How many cars? >> Six. >> Six. >> It's 107 because of their >> seven behind it >> and then the eighth
would be over there. >> Well, I fully expect people that come in from Summers Road that want to go to the drive-thru. I see what other >> so there will be and don't get me wrong you know there'll be do we want to pause >> she just
>> what's the relationship between the size of the Dunkin Donuts and the 2500 square ft of retail space is it 50/50 or what's the relationship between >> I think the Oh yeah it's right here so the coffee shop portion is about uh 1990
square ft so almost 2,000 ft so 500 square ft less I don't understand. >> All right. So you got now what we're focusing on is the Dunkin Donuts and you haven't identified the tenants of the other half of the building >> which is really secondary or tertiary to
Duncan. Duncan is the driving, you know, it's the it's the, you know, the buyer, the, you know, the proponent is the Dunkin Donuts franchisee. You know, if they can get a tenant that can, you know, you know, get across the street for a while. You've
had a couple different, you know, uses in there. You know, light, you know, retail uses for the ideal. So, is the town uh uh does the town have a history of granting special permits for over 50%
of the buildings unidentified use? >> It's not going to be used until then. >> Yeah. >> I mean, is >> if there's a permitted use that they want to put in there, that has nothing to do with this >> is the unfortunate part. If it's a permitted use in that district, they
don't have to come to us at all. >> Okay. So all right. So from but from a practical standpoint that 2500 square f feet of space could be a very popular tenant that moves there. >> You would hope to be reasonably popular
>> and so that popularity would then contribute to the additional traffic flow. >> Yeah. And that's incorporated into the you know based on the square footage in the in the IT. >> Yeah. for again for a a unknown retail use there is a land use code that we can
use for small um plaza like um retail uses and so because we don't know what it is it is hard for us to to nail it down but we do have some trips in the morning and again if it's it is somewhat of a specialty retail it's likely they won't even open till 9:00 like there are
a lot of times where those kinds of retail don't even open during the weekday morning peak hours when this when the Duncan would really be at its busiest Um but and we did you know include some weekday afternoon peak hour analysis that does include some trips associated with the
>> So if I could just pause here for a second we're going to uh adjourn as I mentioned at the start and then come back after we do our 10 minutes or so with the other >> oh I should say
>> if I could yeah um just clarify Joe's question you about your question whether the parking etc by law there are certain requirements for parking
um for certain types of businesses. Okay. So if they can't meet those requirements at that point that business cannot. Okay. Is that clear? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I just
>> All right. >> It's clear. Definitely clear, but it's presupposing that you're making a determination of whether or not the 2500 going to be used by a popular business. >> And you can't really make that. To me, it doesn't seem logical that over 50% of
the building is unexplained yet in the and there's a special permit. >> Zoning is indicated by zoning regulates use. >> Yeah. >> Zoning doesn't regulate ownership. It doesn't regulate corporations. Doesn't regulate
comes and goes. >> I'm not suggesting regulation. I'm just clarifying the use of retail. the use has to fit in and the requirements are met for retail. The traffic has been calculated based on retail. So I would expect, you know, a
very light >> retail use that you would >> here in the plaza next door. >> It's not going to be able to be anything big with the current parking, >> right? >> U because how much of that parking is designated specifically for the Dunkin Donuts? >> Uh I have the breakdown I could get for
you. >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'm not sure >> that's no table. >> No tables. >> What's ever going to >> based on the gross floor area of um the
retail, we have 17 spaces allocated to that. Based on a 36 seat restaurant, we have uh 12 spaces allocated to the restaurant for a total of 29 spaces required. She shows 30. >> Perfect. Okay, if we could just pause right
there. So, we'll adjourn this discussion and go to case 026B. >> Let me just read the introduction material. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, let's let's flip the page to the other materials and go to case 2026B. Let me just read this. >> You're not leaving, right? >> Okay. So, we're here. You're here joining us for this discussion. Coin the
chair Christina Boddour, Dave Demers, Dave Buren, and John Quack. Statement of authority. Let me just go through this. The planning board has established chapter 48 of the general laws of Massachusetts and acts in compliance with chapter 48 under the
zoning bylaws of Hamen. Chapter 41 governing the submission and approval of plots of proposed subdivisions and the rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land in Hampton, Massachusetts. Hampton Plane Board will hold the public hearing on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026 at
7 PM in the town hall, 85 Oberham Road, Hamen, on the application of Samantha Edge for special permit with site plan approval under section six, table of use regulations, code 4.2, to business or professional offices or banks. The
zoning bylaw for velour laser boutique within the business district located on parcel 12 09600 East Long Meadow Road, 13 Allen Street, owned by MJCL LLC. Information related to this application is on file in the
town's clerk's office and is available for review by the public during normal business hours. Next to the board, Pat, chairman of the HANA planning board, published in the Wolver Hampton Times, July 2nd and July 9th, 2026. These reports received from other towns,
departments, and agencies. Town clerk reported there were no outstanding taxes to date. The board of health reported they reviewed the existing septic system, determined that the condition of this business would not impact its compliance with Title 5. The business will need to require all required
licenses from the Massachusetts Board of Cosmetology for the services it offers. At this time, they are only aware of that they will be doing electrolysis and services which require aesthetician licenses. The building inspector reported the
applicant must obtain building and signing permitting. The applicant should ensure handicapped accessibility throughout new configuration addressing both egress and bathroom. Okay, that's the introduction to this evening's discussion and we have
Samantha is on. >> Yes. >> Okay, thanks Samantha. So, they've been in Samantha's been in twice before. We took away from that just make sure that there were conditions that needed to be met which I just read to you and
other than that felt that it was complete application and something that we could vote on post any discussion or questions that the board might have this evening.
Any plan? >> Yeah. Remind me we were waiting on what? There's enough permit, right? You just have to have to apply for the permit. >> She came in with the site plan already previously. All questions I think were answered. I don't believe it was
anything outstanding other than the comments from the board of the building inspector conditions department >> and nothing from highway I assume. Nothing from the highway department I assume. >> Nope. Nothing. I ask all departments. Those are the only comments I got that >> really anything for them to say.
>> No, >> sounds pretty. >> Yeah, >> the door there. >> Ask the applicant to Right. >> She could go over it again. Ash >> Samantha, can you >> Sure. >> Yep. Go over the floor plan.
>> No, just present to the board your application and what you're requesting. >> Yeah. So, we are planning to open up a laser boutique. Um, we're going to start with some laser services such as laser hair removal, vein removal, skin rejuvenation, and micro needling. Um,
we're physicianled and we'll be hiring an RN to do the treatments. Our operating hours will be Tuesday through Saturday, normal business hours, and Saturday will be a short day. So, we're thinking probably 10 to 1, 10 to 2.
>> I had one I had one question more matter of curiosity than anything else. I'm just cur So, when you say physicianled, is that like what does that mean? >> Well, so we have a a medical director. >> Gotcha. Is they like are they like the they're in charge of the office or what?
>> Yeah, they're just they're just overseeing all the treatments. They're looking through, you know, health history and uh checking everything off, making sure everything is running smoothly and Okay. >> And is it like a is it like a they come in once a week? Like how does that work? Is it just like an on call thing?
>> Electronic records. >> Yeah, electronic records. So he won't be um present in the building often, but we he will um be looking throughout our electronic records at all of our patients and he'll have to f you know sign and approve every patient that
comes in after they he sees all of their consent forms and intakes. >> You know, like when you go to the doctor and you see a PA, the doctor I think that's how I'm relating it. >> I don't have I don't have an issue. I was just curious what that actually
meant. How's it Any other questions or comments from the board? >> If not, do I have a motion on the application of Samantha Edge a special permit with site plan approval? Yes. I
move that we approve the application for special permit and site plan approval for Samantha Edge at 13 Allen Street, Hampton, Mass for Velour Laser Boutique. >> Second. Do I have a second? >> Um, do we have the conditions on there?
>> That she received her >> with conditions. What are those again? I think >> that she receives her public comment >> health certificate. Hold on. Let's >> pause. I just make a comment that in the past, pardon me, when I was on the planning board, when we had applications at the
mini mall, which included the shared parking, we also made a finding in our vote >> that it would have no greater impact on the shared parking. >> Oh, okay. >> I think that's important because I appreciate their hours of operation >> being consistent with what it's
replacing. >> Okay. because that that's critical because there is >> it's a parking height especially with >> good reflect that in your system >> and um >> I should have oh sorry I should have added in there at the end um it's going
to be two treatment rooms so it's going to be a very small boutique um we're thinking you know for the RN and and I'll be there four people in the building maximum really there's going to be very minimal overlap >> I can imagine so with appointment with
you know, only two rooms and, you know, appointments only. So, I'm sure you know, very limited. >> Yeah. It's not going to be a drop in. Okay. So, so all of that first part of my motion um with the understanding that the use is not going to impact the
existing parking of the mini mall and under the condition that they receive all board of health and required certifications. >> Very good. I'll second that. building and the building >> building and sign permits through the
building. >> All in favor say I. >> I resolution is approved. >> Official. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate you. >> Thank you, David. Motion to close the
public hearing. >> Second. >> Favor. I >> Okay, going. comments. >> One down. Yeah. >> No, we have to I'm going to stay in
front. >> Yeah. >> Huh? Do we have >> open the public? >> Yes. Oh, >> I think David saying we're just going to go back to the case. >> Okay. So, let's uh
>> make a motion to reopen the public hearing. >> Was in favor? >> I >> I Joe I. >> Yep. >> Okay. We are reopening case 2020 2026A
and I think where we left off. I think Joe, were you still satisfied with I think you you had some comments, son. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Trying to remember where we left off said. >> Um there's a question here from the
previous applicant that I just want to answer. She asked um >> Oh, we should probably tell her that we have 14 days to type up the decision. You're still on, right, >> Sam? >> Yes. Sorry, we're still here. >> I have 14 days to type up the decision.
and I'll mail you a copy. >> Yes. >> Then file with the town clerk. >> There's a 21-day appeal period. I'll put that in the letter and then you have the the permission to proceed. >> Okay. >> I'll send you a letter. >> Okay. Thank you so much.
>> Okay. Sorry, she texted me after the 15 minutes. >> All right. Now you're done. >> Thank you. So, let's get back to where we were earlier on Two Summers Road. Um, was
there anything Rob that you >> No, I just noticed that um I did notice that time bond is on. I didn't realize they were on. >> Okay. >> Oh, >> yeah. So, I didn't realize we had the benefit of them attending. So, I apologize. So, that's great. So, maybe >> they can address they let you know what
they stand on. All right. >> Do you have a preference of storm water or traffic first? probably traffic since we we haven't really broached storm water monitoring. >> Actually, I'm sorry. Can I ask one question about traffic before we do the
peer review on traffic? Um, when you I know you said you guys did like some additional testing on it. Did you guys include any additional intersections or still was it still the the same roadway? I may have missed that when you mentioned >> we did also do Main Street. >> Okay, cool. That's what I want. Thank you.
>> Introduce herself so we know who she is quickly. >> Is it Ashley? Uh yes, I'm Ashley Gilchrist with Ty and Bond. I'm the civil engineer who worked on the storm water review. And then we also have Allen here also from Ty Bond and he did the traffic review. So he can
cover that piece first. >> Okay, please jump in. >> Go ahead. So I I I think I'll try to be brief just because I think a lot of the information we have, you know, for we've had a few rounds of this already. Um, and a lot of the stuff has been
addressed, um, you know, as far as pass by trips and, you know, putting things in different figures. So, I think the three things that I I really kind of want to mention today, which we already kind of touched upon, is um, well, I guess the signage that I recommended on Summers and uh, East Long Meadow Road, I
think that'll be helpful just to uh, provide warning to drivers. Uh, hopefully decrease some of the crashes that are happening at at that intersection. Um I had asked for the signal warn analysis to be done at both that intersection of East Long Meadow and Summers. Um well I didn't ask but it
was done. I think the um highway um department asked for the one happening at at Main Street. And part of that is really to know or or really plan for in the future. Does the town want a signal there? Um if the if it's not
warranted you can't put one up. If it is warranted doesn't mean you have to. But it means you can't. So, um, knowing that it that it does meet the warrants, I think the town can maybe start trying to plan ahead. Um, starting to think, do we want it? Do we want a signal out there?
If so, do we, uh, want to start planning for the design for that? Do we want to, you know, try to do it ourselves? Do we want to try to, you know, get masked out funding or anything like that for traffic signal? So, by but having some of these answers ahead of time are
really helpful. Um, and then, you know, possibly mitigation or whatever from this development, but that's kind of up for you guys to decide. Um, and then I think the last outstanding issue that I really had was about the driveways. And I know they just updated the plans. Um, I still kind of have some concerns. What
happens is the driveways, they have a very tight radius. It's only a a 10-ft radius. And I just want to make sure that cars and um, say smaller trucks can turn into and out of the driveways without impacting too much. And it looks like the information that was just sent
over earlier today, um, looks like, you know, some of the trash trucks or some of the delivery trucks, um, smaller delivery trucks. I think they're using a WB, uh, 40, so not a big tractor trailer, but probably something more in line with what they expect on the site.
Really still has to swing out pretty far out on a Summers Road. Um, they actually didn't run it. Sorry, not Summers. swings out onto East Long Meadow, taking a right in or right out. Um, and I it would be great if they don't have to swing out quite as far. Similarly, they
didn't show it for Summers Road. Um, so if we can kind of show that just again to make sure that we're not swinging way out into the opposing lanes. It's one thing occasionally to happen if if it's a larger delivery vehicle, but, you know, we we don't want, say, you know,
these more of these box trucks, stuff like that. um Amazon, you know, stuff like that. Um we don't want them to have to swing out. And similarly coming in, there could be somebody that's waiting to get out of the driveway. We don't want, say, if
you're taking it right in from um East Long Meadow Road. We don't want them to have to stop and then wait and kind of wave somebody out of the driveway. We want them to be able to take a turn in. I don't think that this is something that can't be solved. I think maybe, you know, a bigger radius might make it a
lot more um might make it flow a lot better. Um, so I think those are kind of the three general um well, I guess really only the last one is really outstanding, but I think really the three items that I thought might be good for discussion tonight.
>> Are you saying widening the driveways? >> Not even just the width, but the radius >> radius. It's that curve. You know, right now it's a a pretty small one. Um, so >> you just adjust the radius instead of a, you know, 10 foot, you make it a 20 or
you know. >> Yeah. And then just show just see what it is. Again, you know, um, I try not to push things so that, you know, everybody has to go um, you know, you don't want it too wide where then, of course, we don't have a sidewalk here where it's
super wide for pedestrians and we don't necessarily want them to turn a high speed, but we want to make sure that they're not getting impacted too much. We give we get both comments. >> I guess I guess in a way I'm not worried about them being impacted.
>> I guess I could see on Summers Road you'd probably have more room. >> Yeah. >> Than you would on East Long Meadow Road because East Long Meadow Road is way tighter. >> Yeah. >> Because there's no like breakdown lane and on Summers Road you have a little bit of play. >> Yeah. I would probably ask that they do
all of their receiving on the big truck. Assuming that this Duncan receives from a tractor trailer truck like >> most Duncans do. Um I would ask that they probably just use the Summers Road entrance. >> I think that East Song Meadow Road entrance would be scary.
>> That's what we do. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, I know originally they said something about the trucks backing in from East Long Meadow Road to do the deliveries right there. remember that was like the first >> How in the >> How in the heck? >> Yeah. I mean, and I will tell you, I
mean, we've done we did the Duncan probably 15 or 15 years ago at Belmont. >> Belma go. >> I mean, it's that tight. I mean, they see how tight that site is. >> Yeah. Then a new way. >> Don't go to that Duncan because
>> Yeah. It's that crazy tricky. And they deliver there every day. Yeah. So they have adjustable wheel bases on >> much more traffic on that too. >> Operationally consent different. >> Yeah, they do. They >> more traffic. >> Now the pedestrians that are walking
on Summer's Road and the pedestrians that are making the turn, what do what do you have at the two openings to help the pedestrians safety? What what is it? Is it just
>> we have a we have a concrete sidewalk proposed east long metal road there I believe was I think it was through the comments I'm not sure who wrote a sketch of uh pedestrian potential pedestrian connection to the plaza adjacent
>> and so we basically >> showed that logically for what we what we control we don't control rightway and we don't control the other plaza but um we certainly wanted to accommodate that the rest of I'm asking from this and I walk this
every day. This is I, you know, so I walk and now I cross that driveway with my grandchildren >> on Summers >> on Summers Road and I walk over to East Long Meadow Road and I cross that road.
So are you saying that there does that mean that you're going to be putting sidewalks from Summers Road all the way to East Long Road? >> No. No. So that if people are at church and they want to walk across the street from church to go to the Dunkin Donuts,
there's no walkway for them either. >> Have to go to the other crosswalk in the main >> How about the bank? Is there going to be anything that goes savings? >> Not their property over there. >> I know. I'm just asking. There's no
provisions for anything. I think I think it's fair to say that if people come from other properties where there's no sidewalks, they would walk across the grass in the shortest route. >> Yeah. >> And Okay. So, but where you were saying the sidewalk >> or the con you're saying there would be
a connection from this plaza across the street to the other plaza like a crosswalk. >> Showing on our site. So you know should the sound identify that as they could certainly you know produce crosswalks
there you know sidewalks but >> so on main street not main street on summers road if you go further down it after before the bridge they did a pedestrian walk to go from the gas station the g the >> right
>> that business and then over to village with the flash and signs. >> A lot of the things I'm hearing are just critical infrastructure of this town that need to be changed that aren't necessarily pertinent to this project. They're an existing issue in my opinion to begin with. There should be a sidewalk on Summers Road and there
should be a sidewalk on East Long Meadow Road. Um but unfortunately it's much narrower and there's not much of a shoulder. So, and then again the light in the >> but we also recognizing that that's not >> Yeah, that's not Yeah. vineyard. So, um
there's sidewalks shown. Yeah, >> that would definitely interior. I definitely can take into consideration putting a crosswalk across there to the other plaza because they're going to come over and get coffee >> to say you just walked, you know, >> but that is a whole different
part of this plan because they can't paint a sidewalk across the road as part of so >> the sidewalks or anything like that that would happen off of this property would be a totally separate >> totally separate permit process. seems to me that you know streets or you know
whatever the programs are when when the signal is looked at would likely make sense for pedestrian improvements to be incorporated. I my guess is that would be step one of of the schematic process. >> Unfortunately, >> we wanted to make sure we are at least
getting people to where you anticipate they'll be coming from our site or to our site on our site. >> And green circles are foliage, right? or some form of Okay, so good to see that the ones on the corner were removed. >> Well, still have the one. >> Yeah, I just mean the curve from Eastong
Meadow to Summers that right turn there was a bunch of shrubbery along the edge. It's just no no visual blocking. >> Any other questions there? Are we ready to move on to storm water?
>> Yeah. >> No. >> Okay, I think we're ready for storm water. Okay. So, again, I'm Ashley Gilchrist. I'm a civil engineer with Tai Bond and I was involved with the storm water review. Um, similar to Alan. I have three key items I wanted to talk about.
I did have a chance to read the response letter, but I did not have a chance to review the plans or the report yet. Um, but it in general, it seemed as though the applicant was not um contesting our comments, but I we did not get to review
the materials. Um, so the first one I wanted to bring up was the same one that uh Rob brought up earlier about the project being in a zone one area. Um, they were proposing to line part of the basin with the clay liner and we had
concerns about the extent of the liner because it didn't cover the whole zone one area. Um, and we were worried about the clay particles migrating to other layers. Um, but they I heard Rob say and I think I saw in the letter that they're
going to do a 40 mil plastic liner instead. Um, which we support and that the liner is going to be throughout the whole zone one area which we also support. So that looked like we're on track for that comment. Um, the next one was related to the
modeling of the basin. So we had made a comment in our initial letter that the basin should be modeled as impervious. Um, and there was a response that it would be, but then we didn't see that incorporated in the second submission. Um, the applicant has
indicated that they have since updated that, but we just didn't get a chance to look at it yet. Um, but it does seem like their approach is in line with what we asked for. And then the final one was um our response to a comment from the
highway superintendent where they were worried about having flow discharged to the town storm water system. Um so we looked at that from sort of three different angles. We were concerned with the project overwhelming the municipal
system or creating downstream flooding issues or creating water quality issues. Um so the kind of easiest one there is water quality. The applicant is proposing to treat water quality uh for both total suspended solids and phosphorus to town and state standards.
So the water quality would be improved as part of the project. And then the next piece is looking at peak rates of runoff which is the maximum instantaneous volume of water running off of a surface during a specific rainfall event. Um
which is a flow from the site. And for that parameter, the flow rates from the site are decreased in every storm event that we need to consider. And then the last piece we looked at was the volume of runoff. So you have the
flow, but then you have the actual quantity. Um, that one's a little trickier. It's not required per the mass D standards to look at volumes right now in the way the standards are currently written. Um, but it is something that as
engineers we do sometimes look at as an extra piece with the peak rates to see if there could be downstream flooding issues. So we did review that and the project decreases volumes to three out of four of the design points. So the
flow going to East Long Meadow Road and then to the offsite properties south and west that volume is decreased. But for design point two, which is in Summers Road, there were pretty substantial increases to volume. So, we did ask the
applicant to address that. Um, and in their letter, they stated that they don't expect downstream flooding issues because of the peak rates decreasing. And we do tend to agree with that approach, especially in this case where the peak rates are decreased by such a
large amount. um and because of where the flow is going to. So the runoff is going to a piped system and pipes are sized based on flow, not volume. If the runoff was going directly to a town
basin, which is designed for volume, we would be more concerned that the basin would get overwhelmed if that volume wasn't going to be able to um be infiltrated or otherwise outleted within a certain time frame. But because the
pipes are sized based on flow and the peak rates are decreasing, we would tend to agree that there will likely not be downstream flooding issues as a result of the project. I'm happy to answer any questions about any of that or any of the other comments or other storm water
items. >> I have a question. Um, on the Summer's roadside, it says uh 24.9 and then it says 24.8 and then it says 24.6. Seven. So would the discharge of the excess rain water
go into Summer's Road and what would that impact be? It's on that corner. >> What are the numbers you're referencing? >> Um on this. Can you see this? >> I could sheet
>> right there. The inside. >> Oh, I'm sorry. So these are not uh these are not storm water calculations. They're spot grades associated with the uh entrance to the water quality soil. >> Right. Thank you.
>> Oh, can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. So the gentleman was referencing spot rates associated with the start the water qualities with. >> So it's not a volume. Rob, do you maybe want to give the board an overview of how the storm water will
function >> and where it will go? >> Yeah. >> So, >> yeah, that the one I'm looking at. >> Okay. So, um so this is an interesting site. Seasonal groundwater is really shallow, right?
probably throughout this whole section of town. Um, so we have a controlling elevation on the building. So, you know, we're trying to utilize the existing building. So, that's controlling our upper limit, right? And our lower limit is seasonal high groundwater. We have to provide a required separation from
groundwater. Um, it's a little bit less because of the extended dry detention basin, but basically our water is sheet flowing. It's not going through a normal conveyance system of catch basins that you would see in in a parking lot that had deeper ground water. So, we're sheep
blowing. Um, we have the basin in front. So, essentially there's two entrances where the water will get into um we'll call it the water quality swale and then run into the basin. There's four bays associated with that that will help with water quality. Um, and then we have the
outlet control structure here. that the control structure then ties into the existing drainage system and meters the water out or or you know I like to explain it in layman's terms because I'm a landscape architect so I would say um you know an hour like an hourglass we're
metering this out to the system like an hourglass meters out sand right so we can't increase postdevelopment runoff flows over peak I'm sorry over pre-development runoff flows the uh the discussion about volume is the amount of
Why? Because we're detaining it and because we have the the impervious surfaces, the volume is arguably increasing, but we're let we're metering it out slow enough that our rates are post-development rates are either
slightly less or match um predevelopment conditions. So, um, we're letting it go to the uh town system, but we're letting it go slowly so that we're not inundating it or increasing those flows. So, if right now water already going there, um, our water is going ideally at
these design points, it's going to be a little less. >> Okay. >> Kind of general terms. >> Okay. So, what when you say a little less, it is what happens if it if that hourglass fills up in the back and even though you're letting some out, where does that excess water go? So the the
basin itself that we're calling that the hourglass the basin itself detains that up to and including the 100year storm which I think on the new atlas uh you know um is it 11 and change inches in a 24-h hour period or something like that.
>> It's a large amount. I don't know off the top of my head but it is it's a large storm event that it has to detain. Yeah. >> In this area the the mapping used to have it at about six and a half inches of rain. So it's there's a substantial increase. Now granted, you're you're calculating pre-development and
post-development based on that number, but that's, you know, it's so it's a it's a robust drainage system. Sure. >> Okay. So you're going to have manholes in the parking lots to collect in low spots to to go towards the basin >> flow to the basin. >> What's a heat flow?
>> No slack. >> No slack. >> The parking the parking lot is graded such that the back >> no to the basin which is Yeah. >> And and then there's some there's a couple yard drains that also pick up the roof leaders that also have an outlet to
this. >> Okay. >> So like little little streams across the parking lot. Um Okay. So it sounds to me water quality to be treated for I'm sorry. It was TSS and phosphorus. Okay. So the water quality is going to be better than it is right now.
>> Correct. the runoff the water quality of the runoff water is going to be better presumably than existing conditions because it's untreated. >> Um I would say there will be a water quality system that's incorporated train that's incorporated that meets the TSS
and phosphorus uh guidelines. >> And Ashley, was it Tyen Bond's stance that the quality would will improve with this project? I thought that's what I heard you say. That's our expectation as long as everything functions as designed.
>> Okay. And and then flow rates are decreased with this project as well. So the flow rate is slowed down. The volume is higher, but because the flow rate is stopping everything from going too quickly, >> essentially the storm water runoff on the site is going to be in
should be in better condition than it is in the current state. >> It'll be improvement in that 40 mil liner will also protect the zone one. That was my other question. The liner is made of what? >> Polyethylene. >> Okay. And it doesn't, I assume, have POS
or any of the other >> concerning chemicals in it. That's just my other concern because obviously this sits over a massive aquafer and um that I assume would be a large concern for our >> people feeding off of that.
Just a question, Rob, on uh say on snowfall. I know you mentioned in your report, you know, there's a tremendous amount of snowfall that actually gets trucked off site, but but in the design, is there anything unique to this design relative to
snowfall and cleanup or is it just as >> um what we don't want them to do is to plow snow into the storm water base. we like to see happen is areas during normal storm events, they'll be plowed
to the side and it'll be snow on the side. Yeah. But if there is stockpiling of snow uh either temporarily or if it gets struck off site even it's just very temporary. Um you want that to be on the black top so that it melts it sheet
flows as the storm water normally would to water quality swailes treatment train etc. so that when it gets to the basin and then into the town system, it's already been treated just like Okay.
But I would argue that this is a pretty decent size thing compared to some of the Dunkin Donuts we do. And I would say that I think most storm events, snowtorm events could be handled just with normal plowing. Yeah, we get the two two foot snow events, we're probably going to be
stockpiling or they will be stockpiling, you know, with a loader loaded onto trucks and handle it that way. >> Okay. >> Hi, John. If I could ask a question on the the ESS that seems to be there is a
requirement state requirement now that you 90% but uh I should check the system too. >> Uh it's in the stormwater report. I don't >> is that
>> you happen to have that handy? I have been going to ask that question by um requirements of the state right now. >> I don't know if she can hear you. >> Oh, I think did is he asking if it meets the state requirements for TSS removal?
>> Yes. >> It meets the current uh requirements. Yes, there's an updated manual that will come out at some point date not released that will have increased TSS requirements. I think it might be that
90% number. Um, and it's not currently in place. The current number is 80% and the project meets that >> requirement at this time. >> Yes. >> So, so we're not completing anything for the future. >> Yeah. What is
>> the the other question I have? Um, is there an operations and maintenance for that system? Have you built that in? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, and I guess the flow into the town owned
um I'm going to say sewer system or drainage system through controlling the flow into that system. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. >> And how are you controlling the flow? >> Through an outlet control structure located in the basin that has an outlet
that ties into the pump system. >> Okay. So it might be a pop smaller pipe size. >> Uh yeah, there's an there's or yeah and then there's there's certainly an outlet pipe to the consist. Yeah. So um I bond you do agree that the
in the town of sewer is acceptable correct >> from a regulatory standpoint the water is going there now. um in terms of like physically doing work
on like that is with the town system that would be up to the town to make that determination if it's okay but um regulatory it is appropriate. >> How about engineering wise is it going to work?
>> I expect it to work. >> Okay. What what is the the actual amount of TSS removal currently as proposed? >> You know the answer to that, Ashley?
>> She's looking at 80. I I don't know what that specific >> removal um 85% is what is claimed. Any other storm water observations or comments from the board?
for the audience. >> Sounds like conditions may have. >> Okay. I put um from the bylaws the um it calls for a non-residential driveways.
Um and there's a list of and because I wasn't here previously, I don't know. Um, does the parking area for the Dunkin Donuts comply with the requirements of the B? >> Yes. >> Parking spaces?
>> No. No. There's the, >> you know, all the driveways got to be set back. There's a there's a bunch of, >> you know, questions. >> It was brought up that the radius might be too tight. Um so there is some requirements in here
but there not there is no requirement for a radius as you turn into parking every so I guess would tie in and bond put forth the recommendation
they didn't like the 10T radius would do they have the recommendation for a 12T radius I I think we would probably try to immediately jump up to maybe a 20 foot radius, but I I think the because it's related to also the road you're turning
on, I think they can kind of um Bowman can kind of put together a turning template and see what works. >> Yeah, I mean I can speak to it. So, we deal with this quite a bit. We get mass DOT trying to get us to tighten roadways,
>> tighten the radi. We get comments like this. We we certainly meet the turning templates. Um I don't want to I don't want to downplay the comment. I understand the comment. It's an accurate and fair comment, but from a design standpoint, changing a site or changing
a radius to a 20 foot radius takes about 30 seconds. So we would be happy to adjust the radi to 20 foot should provide ample as long as the town doesn't think the throat will be too wide at the right ofway uh or I'm sorry
or at the I should say the pavement um then we have no no problem changing that right to a 20 foot and I'm not aware of any conflicts that would result so we would be happy with that. Yeah. And some of that when you increase the radius, it
allows for people to come in off the street a higher speed. Okay. That's >> I'm actually not sure why we didn't change to a 20. Just change it to a 20. I'm kind of mad at my staff to be honest with you. But >> put X and put SL20.
>> They're gonna get commentator. >> Will that mean Will that mean the opening will be 20 feet wide? >> No. So >> 20 degrees. >> Uh no. No. It's actually the the radius of the circle. So that you have split let's call it. So you have the the throat and then the radi on either side.
If you measured back to the center of the circle, that would be a 20 foot radius. So um it's it's just a broader opening >> turning point. You don't have to make a turn at the edge of pavement in say >> the curves the curve cut would be wider.
wire at the end of it. >> Well, that someone crossing the street would then now have to cross 20 feet. >> That's why mass DOT often tries to >> That was going to be my question is >> it's a balancing act. >> Why does mass do I can tell you we're getting into the site no problem with
what we have now. You know, the comment is related to you have a little, you know, you know, >> big adjusting, you know, a little bit to the turn. We want to make sure we're not going in the other lane. So, if you wanted to keep it the same from a pedestrian standpoint, we're okay doing
that. If we want it at 20, we could do that. >> And you said, John, wider radius means faster entry. >> It's going to be a faster. >> I think that wider radius would be helpful more on East Long Meadow Roadside than Summer's roadside. >> I think it'd be more helpful on the
summers. I think East Long Meadow Roadside needs to be slowed down and I think it needs to be tighter to get into so that people are going slowly and so that there's going to be more pedestrian, >> but they're going to be stopping anyways because there's a stop sign right there. >> They're not going to fly in that >> worst case they bump the two curve.
>> Well, yeah. >> You know, my the bigger issue for that turning radius though is the is the delivery trucks. It's the bigger trucks. My inclination would be to condition this permit to have the delivery trucks entering from Summers Road and that curb
cut be 20 foot and then the East Long Meadow be 10 because we don't want people going in fast. That's a small section >> which is also right near the pedestrian >> and the other pedestrians. I imagine there would be more foot traffic from East Long Meadow Road
across the street to the mini mall than there will be from Summers across to what would amount to Mson Savings Bank. Um >> I'd actually agree to that, >> especially if they put something and I only say that because there's a parking lot on the other side of East Long
Meadow Road and there's really I mean a more public than Mson Savings Bank. I think people would feel more comfortable parking in the plaza and walking across the street. and then um parking at months and savings and walking across the street. >> We're happy to adhere to that condition.
>> That and that's just my two cents. 20 feet on the summers road and then I I also don't want to increase it and make it more dangerous for pedestrians like Joe said. Honestly, you know, and I and I just want to, you know, again, I I appreciate the position that you guys
are in as the applicants, but I also don't I don't like the feeling like I'm being rushed into making a decision because there is this feeling of urgency from you guys to make a decision tonight or, you know, like personally, you know, I I'd like to see the, you know, I'd like to know that Tai Bon has reviewed
those radius calculations as minor as they may be so that we maximize whatever makes the most sense for Summers Road and East you like I don't I I I just I I understand and I do appreciate the fact that you guys have done a nice job addressing a lot of these comments. Um
but again, I I just I I said it initially and I I just want to put it out there again because I know that you're you're also somewhat straw polling and canvasing us right now as we're doing this presentation tonight. And I I don't want to, you know, I don't want to steer you wrong. Um because
while I really do appreciate what you guys have done and there's, you know, you've answered a lot of of the concerns, you know, I still would, you know, personally don't feel comfortable approving this project without having, you know, feeling fully confident that, you know, kind of everything has been
addressed. And and quite frankly, I'll, you know, I'll be 100% honest, like again, like I said earlier, I do appreciate the fact that you can only control what's happening on your site. You know, I really would have appreciated knowing that you at least somebody spoke to the neighbor to discuss maybe having a this driveway not
so close to the intersection of East Long Meta Road, which was one of our first things we said, which which was, "Have you considered talking to the neighbor about a shared driveway?" And once again, I'm not saying that we force >> I would like to speak. >> I would appreciate it. >> So, I would just start by saying I understand your position. We appreciate
that. And we uh and personally my office and certainly my discussion with my client have no intention to rush the board. We've obviously spent a lot of time on this and we don't want to rush the board. U it does put us in a little bit of a precarious spot. Uh but but regardless um so as far as the
discussion with the neighbors, we met with Nick Turnberg to the south. Very nice guy running nice little business. Um and also the plumber, I don't follow his name. Nice nice guy. >> It's Keith. Um so we talked to them specifically um at length about well
stuff time um and we talked with the uh dump on franchisee on site specifically I've had extensive conversations about that access >> the potential for access through the plumbing as you can imagine
I personally wouldn't want a Dunkin Donuts running through my site um there's a liability issue potentially usually the neighboring property owner. It's a much lighter use. It's a it's a it's a servicebased um plumbing business that you would be
introducing traffic through just to achieve the ideal offset. So, I can tell you that that's a non-starter for the franchisee. >> But if if if that's you telling me that no, we didn't have the conversation and
the answer is no, we didn't have the conversation. had a conversation and my client is is absolutely 100% against it. >> So, your client is against it. Not not that we spoke with the neighbor about it. I spoke to my client about it. He has no interest in considering that. And that but but honestly, that's important
to me and I understand, you know, there are issues potentially with respect to liability and access, but I'm, you know, I'm also happen to be, you know, an attorney who handles some some land use stuff and and I know for a fact you can contract around most of those issues. you know there >> he is not interested in
>> and and that's you know that's it's a financer and I understand that position entirely. Um but you know it also kind of informs my decision a little bit because this was a big concern of ours was you know I just would like to have known that that it was >> believe that piece has been addressed through the report. I don't know that
that's necessarily still an outstanding issue. Sure. >> Related to that, but I'm just being direct and to be fair. >> I I appreciate I I do appreciate that the cander. I really do. >> John, >> I did have another question regarding
something. Um you spoke about the way public water supplies on the Duncan property from say D3 D has given that oversight. Now, where will the septics be for the
Dunkin Donuts? >> To the south of the of the building. Um, there is an existing septic that is not um up to speed. Uh, not not compliant with what we would need. So, it would be an upgrade to accommodate for the new
use. Um, we have that um pulled together. Um, again, we're working with Mass D with regard to the administrative consent order related to the existing well. Um, so we'll be doing that in concert in communicating specifically with the board of health also related
related to that item, but uh it is to the south um and it's located um away from that zone one there. And there's a there's we're riddled with zone ones all around. You're probably aware >> and it is an existing you said um septic system. there is an existing system. We
will not be utilizing that each field. We will be constructing a new beach field in a more ideal location away from the zone one's maximum feasible compliance type of approach >> and away from the possibility of you.
Um he has a well also. >> Yes. And he he he was he's been great to communicate with. Um he has two at least. He has one Doug well on the north side which I think he will no long I don't know if he'll be utilizing on the north side of the house >> and he also has one to the south of I
guess it's like a garage building or a barn to the south of that at the very least there's two that we know of >> so wonderful and I think he's going to continue to use the one near the not the dog well but the other one okay
thank you thank Anything else from uh the board or others on storm water related issues? Can I ask a quick procedural question? >> Uh so I want to pass for Wyoming.
>> Can I go? >> And so we're going there. Um, so we'll have four members left at a subsequent public hearing that all can vote and we need a unanimous vote. Is >> that correct? >> I think Pat has something to say about that. >> Yes.
>> Well, the subsequent Yeah. So starting tomorrow we're we are at 4 and uh so of course then we'll be operating at our next meeting
depending on the timing you know with a four member board. >> Well we've done some uh further research. I spoke with the I'm John Flyn foreign chair of the planning board. I spoke to the town administrator
recently. You've had including this one three four four public hearings, right? >> Uh yeah. How many requests? >> This is the fourth public hearing. >> The fourth public hearing or was the
first one just a simple discussion? >> 422 was the open public hearing, the initial hearing. >> So we had four public hearings of which uh >> John Quackamush was not at the very first hearing. >> Today the fourth, >> right? Today's the fourth. However,
including this one, he has been in attendance at the other three. So, this would allow him to exercise the Mullen's rule by reviewing the first public hearing that took place in April.
So, therefore, upon successful certified review of that, he would be allowed to join the special permit panel upon Christina's exit. That's what I did for the storage unit. >> As long as >> I'd watch more than I think they're
certified that Mullen's right >> work. >> Therefore, he's allowed to be one of the five members. So, >> and this is new from what we knew coming into this >> that it was great that John had come to all the meetings to this point
>> and yeah, >> that does allow the process to continue to your point there >> without a restart. >> Correct. >> Potentially continuence with a new member, >> right, >> as the fifth member. But
>> up to speed, like you said, these are things for you guys to >> Yeah, I understand. So respectfully through the chair, um obviously I haven't done any research on that, but it sounds logical to me and we would certainly be much more comfortable
making sure that the board uh has the time to review the documentation, certainly confer with time bond. Um we can certainly update the radi and and some of the other items. We would be happy to come back to a subsequent public hearing at a date certain um with
a five member or Yeah, that that would be ideal for us. That would be great. Thank you. >> Um and then just so I can say what while this public hearing is open. Um obviously it's out of my hands, but I'll make some suggestions on conditions I
would like to see if I was going to be staying here. Um but don't have to do it now. Wait till we're >> right now. Yeah. No, doing that will help people. >> Um, and this might already be in there, but John mentioned an on andm plant. Is there one for landscaping as well?
>> Might not be. We can. >> Okay. I'd love to see that just because it is um in a very I'm not It's kind of historic given the house that's right there, but um it's just a very big part of town, you know, and the impressions are very important. So, I would hate to see the landscaping
be rough. um >> they're a local operator, but absolutely. Um so, uh irrigate, you know, discussion related to irrigation, maintenance, those types of things. >> Yeah. Yeah. Just making sure trees are pruned and damaged trees or damaged
bushes or diseased bushes are replaced within a reasonable amount of time. So, I leave it up to you guys to determine, but it's just a thought I have. >> Draft to the board ahead. >> Um personally, I would suggest all lighting is off at close of business. um they may have to leave. I don't know if there's
>> security maybe >> security lighting, but um I'm talking like pink and orange signs. Um because there are a lot of residential homes in that area. Um I would suggest doing a look back
>> the look back and like to review in a year the car stacking. um O andM plan um should rem should include snow removal as well for like we were talking about for the bigger storms two three feet of snow I would want to see those
big piles of snow removed quickly um and to not impede upon the parking lot um once the retail business is in use because I think without that you've got adequate parking by a mile but if the
Duncan is in use and the retail business is in use and there's a 30ft pile of snow blocking 10 parking spots. That's going to be a problem. Um and then radius to be increased on Summers Road. That's my that's my spiel that you
>> the board if I go through the chair is the board general in general agreement with Summers makes logical sense. That's good. >> 20T >> everybody's good with that? Sounds like we are 20 ft. >> I'm not crazy about a 20 foot drive >> on Summer's roads. It's just for the
trucks to get interact the bigger vehicles. >> Removal I would say >> 48 hours. >> Yeah, I would probably say within 48 hours because you I think that's fair especially for a big storm. You know, a lot of people aren't going to be going out to Duncan in the middle. Well, it is
New England. >> That's a long way to go. >> It is New England. >> It's a heavy residential area. >> Snowplow guys will be there. Yeah, exactly. They'll be like, "Ah, we'll take care of >> it. It'll be the first slot they do." >> Yeah, >> we need to get in here. >> Yeah, that's very true. Um, yeah, I
would say 48 hours is enough time for a big storm or people start coming back in. >> Anything else from the board or others? So, I think where we where we're at is we're talking about a continuation.
Joanne, we spoke about this. We don't have the form typically that we >> can we can agree on a date. I can follow up for both parties to sign the continuence agreement. >> Email you. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> We have to give him time to go over the
meeting. >> And >> November 12th, we have um two public hearings. >> Um >> All right. >> November 12th September 9th. Oh, >> we have my head. >> I was like, "Oh, man."
>> I was I was having hard. I can only imagine how you guys felt. >> We have two public hearings on September 9th of the solar bylaw, which we went through most of it. >> So, that's mostly just going through the process. And then section 4.3.2 um non-conforming. That should be a
quick one. I don't know if you want to add it to that or go to September 23rd. Even if >> I'd go to September 23rd. I look at the agendas and I look at what
>> Oh, it's already full. >> I'm sorry. >> August 12th. >> Not enough time. >> August 12th. Yes. >> That's when is bringing the ANR forward. >> Yes. Okay.
>> Mhm. I think the concern is is making sure there's enough time for review, right? >> Well, yes. Yes. Yeah. All the documents get in for review. >> Can't bring documents to the next meeting. You got to No new documents.
>> So, September 23rd. How's that look, Joanne? September 23rd. >> What's the board? I don't know how the board wants to handle it. >> Well, that's my that's what's open right now. And uh we have other meetings. September 9th there's two public hearings.
>> But that those should be pretty quick though. No, >> I don't believe that. >> Well, >> solar bylaw could be >> but we already went through it pretty much. >> Well, I've looked at it. There's more. >> Yeah. >> So, I >> I don't know that we do we don't do
hesitate to do three public meetings at the same one night. >> I think it's a bad idea. >> Yeah. >> In an amendment to the bywa. That's a lot of talking, like a lot of discussion. Not like in a bad way, just a lot. >> Okay. So, >> is everyone in favor of September 23rd?
I got that sense set up with it works for you, Rob. >> Yes. >> And you, Aaron? Okay. All right. So, at this point, Joanne, we >> confirm the date and vote for that on
that. And there anything to do? >> I mean, both parties agree. If you want to make a motion, you can make a motion and then the applicant agrees. >> So, I'll make a motion that we continue this discussion. >> Case 2026. >> Case 2026A with a public hearing on
September 23rd. All those in favor our times to 6 p.m. >> Okay. Agreed. As long as everybody else is good, make six o'clock. >> 6. It was requested of the board. >> Six >> permanently. Six. That's was requested
by somebody. I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Like I'll ask forgiveness when I get home. >> They might be starting at 6:05 or 6:10. >> Sounds of it. >> Yeah. That's too late. >> How about 6:15 instead of 6? 6 o'clock.
>> We don't do that. 6:15. >> It's going to start because he's going to be late. Is it because you because of your job you can't get here at six o'clock? >> So, >> okay. It's horrible. >> Okay. So, then I guess I'm keeping it at 6:30.
>> All right. Let's do 6:30. Let's do 6:30. >> To change that later, >> okay, when you change it, let us know and we can adjust. >> All right. 6 would have also been very So, continue September 23rd to 6:30. Thank you. >> We used I second it.
>> We used to be six. All those all in favor I >> I >> I think I say I I want to make this year >> very much. >> This is a good one. >> Close the meeting. >> Have a good one today. >> Hold on. >> Hearing you can close
>> motion the public hearing >> continue the public hearing to >> I shouldn't be doing this motion. >> I'm not going to be here to the public hearing September 23rd at 6:30 p.m. That's >> second. >> Second is in favor? Hi. Hi. Thank you.
>> I I said >> Thank you. >> I know. I've got one already. >> I was going to say you're >> I've got one. I'm ready. >> I just I need to have a penis. >> The only one I'm not giving you is this one because I haven't fully read it and
I have stuff on the back. >> Um this is the one. Do you have another one of these? >> Appreciate it, John. Why are you giving him your stuff? >> Do I have another one of these by chance? >> Why are you giving him your stuff?