All right. Good evening, Lunenburgg, and welcome to this our uh planning board meeting for Monday, June 22nd, 2026. We are here at the upstairs Bilada
meeting room at our beautiful town hall. Um, this meeting is being recorded as always. If you wish to join us tonight, well, you've already joined us somehow, at least on television and thank you for that. And if you want to participate tonight, as always, you have a few
options. You can drive down to town hall and join us. You're always welcome. We have friends here tonight that way. You can also participate via Zoom and you can do that by going to the town website, getting our handydandy agenda off the town website on your computer.
You can use the link to open the Zoom app and join us that way or there's a phone number given that you can join in with your telephone as well. So feel free to join us as you wish. And I
believe that's all we need. I do want to let everyone know that uh Mr. Wilsmer, Tim Wils, Tim Wilsmer is joining us tonight remotely as our fifth planning board member. That means all votes will be taken by roll call. And what I will
just do is I will go down uh I'll go down the line for the three of y'all. And I'll actually go I'm going to go up the line. I normally go down, but I feel bad putting Mr. Nick Castro as the first roll call vote on everything. Um,
and then I will go to Tim. All right. So, Tim, you know when to unmute and be ready. Okay, >> sounds good. >> And with that, do we have any board comment to open up the night?
Seeing none. Okay. Um, director's report. >> Thank you. So board members, as as you know, we agreed to work on four major bylaw changes for next May's annual town
meeting. Senior housing, revising our inclusionary housing provision, revising our cluster provision, and then revising the zoning bylaw site
plan provision to add minor site plan review. By now, you all have been sent drafts of those bylaws to look over. Um, I'd like to schedule our first editing
session for um a date in July. I think it's going to take at least two editing sessions amongst us where we're sitting sitting down at the table around all together in person
um grinding out the sausage so to speak. So, um, if you could get out your calendars for July, um, I'd like the meeting to go no longer than an hour and a half. After that amount of time working on tedious
bylaws, it gets a little so um, that is a technical planning term. It it is. >> Uh so um how many people could make a 5:00 meeting? Show of hands.
>> I can do 5:00. >> Okay. Why don't we try to do a 5:00? Um I I want to give you at least past the 4th of July to look over the bylaws in good shape. Um,
Monday the 20th, Tuesday the 22nd, Wednesday the 22nd. If we schedule a 5:00 meeting, let's go through each of those days. How many people could make 5:00 on Monday the 20th? >> I can do all three.
>> Mhm. >> Yeah. Same. >> Same. >> Adam, do you have a preference as to date? >> I'm sorry. Is it the 20th or what? 20th, 21st, or 22nd. That's a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. >> Can't do the 21st.
I have a a meeting I have to do at work. Um, I could probably do Monday or Wednesday. >> Why don't we do Monday 5:00 the 20th?
>> I am about 90% sure that works. I should I have to drop my kid off at camp that day. But >> you you want to do the 22nd if >> I would much I would much rather do the 20th. I just need to confirm that. But I I am almost No, I pack him a lunch. I'm
going to be dropping him off earlier cuz I have to pack him a lunch. We'll be fine. >> Okay, great. Okay, so this will be posted as a public meeting and it will be filmed. Um, people can attend if they want to watch
one of the most boring sessions of zoning editing that's ever been held. But that's how we do this. I'm hopeful that after a couple editing sessions on these bylaws, we're going to come up with something that we're all
comfortable presenting to the voters so that by the end of the summer, we can start shopping these bylaws around to the other boards, commissions, committees, and departments. Have a public forum or two. And by that time, we're into early next
year getting ready to ship these bylaws off to town meeting. So, thank you for your willingness to participate and that's all I have for you. >> Great. All right. Thank you.
We are going to move on to our public hearings. Is uh I just want to we'll do the motions to make it official later, but I want to let people know that 9:34 Mass a if you're here for that, they did
request a continuance for tonight. So, if you're with us online or in the room for 9:34 Massav, um once we go through the other public hearings, we're going to just continue that probably to whenever they want, probably our next meeting.
But otherwise, let's go down the list. >> Y we'll start with 30 Summer Street. Uh this is for the this has been continued from our really oh yeah I guess so from our
November 24th 2025 meeting. Um this would be storm water permit PBSW26 site plan review PBSA 258 and special permit PBSP 259. And that's for the flood plane
district. And again, you can use the open gov platform uh to take these specific reference numbers and get all the publicly available documentation on uh through the open gov platform.
>> Good evening. Uh Ryan Proctor, Dillis Roy. I'm here tonight representing the applicant. Uh as you noted, it's been quite some time uh that we've been before you. Uh part of that was upon our request and uh the past couple meetings we've had quum issues relative to the special permit. Um but just as a
refresher to the board, the project itself involves the construction of a self- storage facility at 30 Summer Street. It's currently the location of an existing auto uh auto sales dealership. The latest correspondence that we had
received uh for this project um back in February se uh 25th it was received by the planning department from Graves Engineering was a peerreview letter that indicate indicated that they were satisfied with our proposed design. There's also a handful of items and questions that were raised by the
planning board at the last meeting that I'll just go through quickly. We did submit a cover letter relative to this um to the open gov portal. Uh this was back in January. Um if you could go through them slightly slower than quickly to help
>> gladly >> get our brains catching up that would be appreciated. >> Absolutely. Great. Happy to >> the a couple extra details sprinkled in here or they there may be helpful. >> Understood. >> Great. Uh so the uh first question was relative to uh TSS and phosphorus
removal total suspended solids. Um so capturing the sediment coming off the site. Uh so your storm water requirements require that we capture uh the equivalent of 80% of the TSS the total suspended solids and 50% of the total phosphorus load. We are achieving
this through the use of storage. I'm going to use my laser pointer which is extremely bright. Uh we have multiple storm water storage areas around the perimeter of the building on each side to intercept and capture runoff associated with the roof area and the pavement area. And we are
providing a storage equivalent uh to the required storage volume actually well in excess. Uh the required volume is 20 about 2400 cubic feet. We're providing a little over 10,000 square ft of storm water storage on the site. Uh the board asked a question relative
to why we did not have erosion control barrier at the rear of the site and the topography of the site slopes entirely from back to front. Um so we had erosion control along both perimeters as well as along the top of the site. uh adjacent to Summer Street
>> and the top. When we say top of the site, we mean on >> along Summer Street, North portion of the >> Got it. Okay. >> Yep. >> Uh there was a question about uh truck rentals for the facility. We are not proposing any rental of vehicles for this. >> Mhm. >> The board had asked for some turning
movement diagrams for the access ramp and for the uh trash truck. They are not on our site plans, but we did submit standalone exhibit plans to open gov for both the trash truck um and the um for the access ramp and the trash at the at the receptacle.
There was an a question about whether there would be an apartment uh for a site manager. We are not proposing any residential units or any apartments within the facility. There was a question about how many individual storage units there will be. There would be approximately 820 storage
units within the building. Uh again, it is a four-story. It's about 27,000 square feet of building. Uh there was a question about hours of operation. The there will be keypad access for the building itself. We're proposing hours of operation for the keypad access from
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There will be one uh employee on staff for office hours dur um 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., excuse me, for the office. There was a question uh whether we were proposing an MDC trap for interior parking access. I think there was some
confusion potentially on our end during our presentation about whether there would be vehicles allowed to enter the building. Um through this front entry uh let me pull this up here. Uh through this front entryway here. There is not vehicular access into the building. The intent of that is if you
have a larger vehicle with um some larger items or many small items, you can back up a truck to that bay, unload your um belongings and then leave from there. But there is not vehicular access into the building. Uh there was a question about the maximum number of employees uh on site.
There will only be one employee per shift during the office hours I mentioned earlier. Uh there was a recommendation from the board that the applicant review the security system with the police department and we have no objection to that. We're happy to accept that as a condition and once we develop that um we'd be happy to review
that with the fire department. Uh there was a question uh that once the ZBA decision had been issued um that it be uploaded and we have uploaded that to open gov. We were before them uh a long time ago earlier this year I believe and
that was it. So again Graves had issued their letter. They were satisfied with the design um relative to storm water. And then the last thing I'll mention is uh we did receive an order of conditions from the conservation commission and that was issued about a month ago.
>> Great. Um so to clarify a few things just purely logistically role-wise. Um there are four of us here tonight who were here when this began. Mr. Niccastro was not
on the board yet, so he will not be able to vote on this, but he is still welcome to ask questions and join deliberation and everything else. Great. >> Um, okay. And um, also just while we're
on that topic, storm water permit is by simple majority. >> Site plan review is by simple majority. The special permit is for the flood plane district. >> You are correct. >> And that is a twothirds majority.
>> You need four out of five. >> Four out of five. >> Super majority. So >> super. Yeah. >> You'll need all four minus Mr. Dcastro. >> Great. Okay. Um All right. What are our
requirements to look at for the flood plan special permit in the broad sense? Um I just this is the first one we've we will have looked at. So I want to make
sure that our ducks are in a row. Um, I mean, heck, I I helped write that bylaw, but it still isn't because it's I say write I helped take the mandatory language from the state and put it into our bylaws.
Um, what should is there anything we should be looking at in addition here other than storm water and everything looks good and probably won't impact flood plane? I think this is mostly dealing
with the the storm water management conditions that we impose are largely sufficient to comply with your flood plane bylaw. >> And I think compensatory storage would be the thing if they're filling flood plane. And I think that in their storm
water design, they've provided that compensatory storage for the minor filling that they're doing. That's essentially the flood plane is to ensure that we don't continually allow people to fill the flood plane so then everything floods. >> All right. That that matches my very
basic and rough understanding. So wonderful. >> Yeah. If if I could add one thing to that too. When we filed with conservation commission there is no wetland buffer zone or riverfront area on the site. The reason we had to file with them is because flood plane is jurisdictional to the conservation commission. So the conservation
commission and mass D both had the opportunity and did review this project as well. >> Great. Now that that's wonderful and that's relevant. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> But I we're the ones who by the bylaw and by the state expectations
>> have to >> stamp it or I mean stamp what have to approve it or not. >> Yeah. So, okay, I would look to the board for additional comments or questions. Hearing none. Seeing none. And Tim, just
interrupt whenever. You know how it works. Um, this is a public hearing. I will ask, do we have public comment on 30 Summer Street? Seeing none, is Tim the only person online right now?
Okay. Okay. Great. Just because I only see one in the back. That helps me know. Super. Great. Just let me know if there's hands. Okay. Move we move we close the hearings for 30 Summer Street, PBSW25-6,
PBSA 25-8, and PBSP25-9. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? We'll do uh Oh, not all in favor. There's going to be a roll call vote. Miss Reed, >> I.
>> Miss Adam, I'm blanking on your last name because I'm a jerk in this. >> That's all right. I >> Mr. Niccastro. >> I Mr. Willsmar. >> I. >> And an I from myself. Okay.
>> So now I would take a an individual vote on each permit. >> Yep. Uh well, we're going so we can move for each permit and but they're going some are going to have some additional um will likely have I'm expecting we'll
have some additional um >> conditions. Thank you. Okay, let's go for the uh we can do whatever people move first, but I'd recommend we start with the storm water and go in order. I move we uh approve the storm water
permit for 30 Summer Street, PBSW25-6 with all standard conditions. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. We'll do a V roll call vote. Amanda >> I. >> Mr. Bernie >> I. >> Tony >> I.
>> Tim >> I. >> And an I from myself. Okay. Uh, how about maybe site plan review? >> I move that we approve the site plan review for 30 Summer Street, PBSA25-8
with the standard conditions and additional conditions of no rental trucks will or no truck rental will be performed on the property. I'm going to pause and let Steve catch up. Thank you.
>> Got it. If the operator wishes to add truck rental to the operation, a modification to site plan approval is required. Got it. The applicant will work with the Lunberg Police Department
as part of the installation of any security system to ensure um communication and cooperation. Got it. And the hours of operation for the facility will be 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Monday through Sunday. Okay, got it. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call vote. Miss Reed >> I. >> Mr. Bernie. >> I. >> Mr. Niccastro. >> I. >> Mr. Wils. >> I.
>> And an I from myself. >> Okay. Great. Now, how about the special permit for building in the floodplane district? I move that the planning board approve the flood plane special permit 430 Summer Street PBSP 25-9 with all
standard conditions. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call vote. Miss Reed >> I. >> Mr. Bernie. >> I. >> Mr. Niccastro. >> Oh, >> I'm having him vote on these and I realize >> taking it to >> Thank you. Okay. >> I'm just doing it by habit and
processing that he can't actually >> the vote does. Excellence. Everyone else is on top of things. I'll take it. Mr. Wilsar >> I. >> And an I from myself. >> Um I'm realizing now that we didn't discuss construction hours and standard
construction hours tend to be flexible. We appoint them for each motion. >> That is true. So, I would like to amend my motion for the site plan to include construction hours uh from 7:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays. >> Are we sure we don't include construction hours in the >> We do include construction hours, but I I don't think we have a standard
hours. No, you do have a provision for hours, but they do vary. >> They vary like >> Oh, no. I meant I I think we used to at least also have one in the storm water, I thought, because you could have storm water without sight plan. >> True. >> So, >> so I guess I'll amend I'll start with the amendment to the uh
>> Can we amend all three at the same time and include >> I think you this this would be a provision that would apply to your site plan decision. >> Okay, great. Fine. I will second if that if that >> moved and seconded. All right. Um, Miss
Reed >> I, >> Mr. Bernie, >> I, >> Mr. Wilsmer, Tim, we can't hear you. >> Sorry. I I thought I'd stayed uh off of mute. >> Yep. Nope. No worries. And an I from myself.
Okay. 40 on all of them. >> Yep. Bangarang. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> So, board members, I'll write up the decision probably tomorrow and get it out to you.
>> You know the drill by now. If we don't hear from you by next Monday morning, >> Lee will be uh sending this out, I guess, for electronic signature now. >> All right. >> Okay. Yep. That's it. Okay.
And um next up, we would have continued from our May 11th meeting 10 Parmentor Road including uh storm water permits PBSW2612 and PBSW2613
and special permits PBSP 263 and PBSP 26. So, just to set the stage, board, um, Graves did review the project and post their comments. The applicant sent their response to comments and
revised plans today. >> Uh, it was a week ago, I believe, uh, last Monday. >> Okay. Um, Graves, Gra, what happened today was Graves came back with their secondary review, I believe.
>> That is news to me. I was checking this morning. I did not see anything relative to that. >> Okay, I'll I'll let me double check on that. >> Okay, >> go ahead with your >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh Ryan Proctor again, uh Doulison Roy representing the applicant. Um as uh the
plan of director just mentioned, we did provide some responses to the peerreview comments uh received from Graves along with some revised materials which included site plan and drainage report materials. We also addressed a handful of comments that were received at the opening public hearing by the board. Um
again, I'd like to just go through the letter. Um we have essentially two portions of this project in front of you. We have lots 2 through 4 um on Ruth Street which are shown on the upper plan here and then we have stormwater permit and a common driveway for lots 5 through
13 which are on the lower plan. I will pull that up when we get to that, but I will start with um the common driveway only which serves lots 2 through 4. There are quite a few duplicate comments, so the second one should move a little bit quicker. Uh, so for the plan that you have in front of you tonight on the easel right
now, the uh first comment uh was a simple one. It was that the plans need to include the telephone numbers of the owner and applicant. Uh we have added that to the title sheet of the revised plans. The second comment was relative to soil testing in that we needed to
provide uh storm water soil testing in all of the proposed storm water device locations. uh we have done that we have the test put data shown either on the detail sheet or in the case of the uh lots 5 through 13 on the on the site plan itself the grading sheet
uh comment number three was relative to the storm water operation and maintenance manual uh in that they need to identify the who will be the operating uh the operators and the maintainers of the storm water system uh so we have updated the on andm manual to
reflect that uh We again staying in the stormwater ON&M for the next couple comments. Uh it needs to include and state inspection and maintenance logs uh that will be provided to the planning board on a yearly basis. So we've added that to the operation and maintenance manual. Uh the
on andm uh needs to include a signature of the owners. We have added that to the onm. And lastly uh the operational maintenance manual needs to define a major storm event. Um, in other words, the amount of rain that triggers a mandatory inspection or operation ma and
maintenance of the storm water system. And and we have identified that as the two-year storm event. And that is identified in the operation and maintenance manual. And feel free to jump in if you have any specific questions. I'll just continue to go through though. uh there was a uh typographical error
just a consistency error between the hy uh hydra hydraologic model and the site plans uh relative to the Ella control structure for L control structure number one uh we've we've revised that uh there was a question about the slope
for infiltration basin number one which is the larger of the two basins at the top of the plan uh so we have revised the slopes to provide a 3:1 slope Uh there was a question about our total suspended solids removal calculations. We were essentially double counting the
sediment for bay for the pre-treatment device of storm water prior to discharging the infiltration basin to the infiltration basin. So we have removed that so that we are not double taking double credit essentially for the sediment for bay. The 10th comment was uh to show the
location of a stabilized construction entrance. So we do have one shown at the entrance of Ruth Street and there is a detail shown for that on the uh details page. Uh and uh lastly uh from the peerreview letter there was a construction detail
comment relative to the drip line recharge trench and that we set it back from the foundation 1 ft and that has been revised on the construction details page of the site plans as well. Uh those are all the peerreview comments. I do have some from the uh from the board. Um, are there any
questions before I get into the board comments uh on the peerreview responses? At this point, I I imagine you'll want to wait to hear from Graves, of course, but All right, I will proceed. There were uh just three comments from from the board at the initial meeting. Uh the first of
which was uh there was a turning movement diagram missing from the common driveway for lots 2 through 4. It's not depicted on this sheet, but it there was one added to the detail sheet of the plan set. Uh there was a question about the overflow for the uh lower detention
basing discharging directly into Ruth Street. So it has been revised to provide it um perpendicular to Ruth Street so that it would discharge to the wetland area instead. Um all of these have been designed for the 100-year storm event with no discharge over the
spillway. Um we expect that Graves has reviewed that. Um we know that they have relative for compliance with the storm water standards. And lastly, there was a question about whether there will be an HOA um prepared for the common driveway. And we anticipate that there will be
some sort of mechanism and either an HOA or other um but any language relative to that would be sub um submitted to the board prior to construction for their review. So that was the peerreview response and the comments for for this portion of the
project. Before I get into the um the larger portion of this project, if you will, I'm happy to take any questions on the common driveway serving lots two and four. >> Do you have an update on when the mechanism for storm water maintenance
for the lots will be determined and submitted because I think we'll want to see that as part of the approval of the project. the the operation and maintenance is defined in the O and M >> HOA or whatever it is that they end up
proposing that that will need to be part of the approval >> prior to an approval. >> You've got lots sharing a a storm water device. >> Yep. Um we we do Yeah, they discharge the same device. >> We would want to see the homeowner association language and run it by town council.
>> Okay. I will consult with the applicant on that um as well. And if you want example language, we've got that from other projects. >> Okay, that would be helpful. Thank you. Shall I move on? >> Um, yep. go ahead and move on and then
we'll get board comments and questions on the whole thing and then we'll open for public comment as well. >> Sounds great. >> Okay, so similar to lot four, again, we received peerreview comments for both applications. Um, so this one's a little bit more involved. We have four lots
that are sharing a common driveway. Again, forgive the laser pointer. I know it's very bright. uh four lots on a common driveway and then we have five single lots that are part of the same storm water management permit um but they are all on private driveways. So again I will go through the uh
peerreview letter that we received from Graves. Um there are several duplicate comments. I will go quickly through the duplicates. Um so the first is relative to the phone number. Uh we've included that on the site plans. Uh we perform soil testing in the locations of all
storm water control devices. uh the operation and maintenance manual. We needed to include the emergency contacts and the operators and maintainers of the system. Uh we had the logs within the operation and maintenance manual. Again, those will be provided to the board on a yearly basis.
Uh the O andM has been signed by the owner and we have identified the major storm event that would trigger the typical operation and maintenance requirements for the storm water management system. uh the construction entrance. Again, we've shown them on uh I believe every
uh each of the proposed accesses to either Parmentor or Ruth Street. So, we have uh at the beginning of each driveway and then the common driveway itself. The drip line recharge trench again for the uh foundations has been offset from the foundation slightly and uh tapered
away from the house so that we're not filling or encouraging storm water to settle against the foundation. Uh we actually worked that out directly with with the peerreview consultant and um we did there was a request to provide a rain garden uh detail. Um so
we have updated that to show the sediment for bay specifically within the rain gardens to be consistent with what's shown on the design plans. And lastly there was some confusion. The uh drip line recharge trench against the foundation looks very similar to the uh
stone diaphragm along the proposed driveways. So we've created two very separate details clearly identified those on the uh construction details plan so that there are two distinct uh standalone details. Uh there was a and then going into the planning board comments again I believe
there was just three um uh two of which I've already we've talked about the HOA already and then the uh overflows for the systems adjacent to the roadway. Uh the last was uh a request to explore grass pavers at the emergency turnaround exit for the common driveway which is
shown right here. Um just from a maintenance standpoint, it's much easier for homeowners to maintain plow pavement as opposed to graph pave. We did grass pave. We did look at that. Um but just from a longevity standpoint, um we decided to pave the turnaround entirely
instead of the grass pave option. Um just for again longevity, operation, and maintenance. and we did factor in that increase impervious into our stormwater design calcs. Uh so that was the last comment. I think the only outstanding item was relative
to limit of clearing and phasing of that. So we we have taken a pretty conservative approach and I'll start off by saying we are not proposing to clearcut the entire the entire parcel or the entire hill. We have been conservative with what we've shown for limited clearings which are shown uh in
the green outlines. So really what is required for the septic systems, the houses and the driveways um relative to phasing in to avoid having to bring tree clearing equipment in, bring it out, come back again and and several um the
applicant does not would prefer not to be restricted um to phasing it on a lot by lot basis um just from a construction standpoint and a and a practicality standpoint. So I know that was raised at the last meeting um that that's where they stand on that. I I believe Ally from Benjamin Builders is on. Um she
might be able to talk to that as well. But >> so I I I'm going to jump in because I have thoughts on that. I I don't have an issue with trees being removed in bulk at the limit of work. >> I think from a phasing perspective when
we start talking about storm water, we're talking about earth disturbance. We're talking about building construction. And if we're going to issue an omnibus storm water permit for this entire 8 unit portion of the
development, I don't see a way that we can do it without phasing it. Um because I don't think it's reasonable to open up all of those lots and be building all of those houses at the same time. From a site management perspective, I don't think it's going to benefit the
neighborhood, the builder, or the planning board. in maintaining the storm water controls, the erosion controls and storm events. So, I think we can agree that clearing and I I'll speak for myself. I can agree that clearing the
limits of work to stump is a reasonable step like in for all eight lots. But I think when we get into construction, we we need a phasing plan and we need it to be detailed as to what happens in each phase so that we can then move through
uh issuing occupancy permits. If the applicant isn't willing to do that, then we just won't issue occupancy until all eight, my opinion is we shouldn't isn't issue occupancy until all eight houses are completed and every stitch of of
required greenery is back in place. I think it's a massive project. I think that it it requires a surgical hand, not a brute force. We're just going to mobilize and go to town.
>> To build on that, please alert your client that tree removal is considered a construction activity and don't do that until they have their preconstruction meeting. >> That's right. That'll be myself. That'll
be Jeff from Graves Engineering. That'll be the building commissioner. That's where we'll talk about what you what they're going to want to see for erosion controls. Um, we ran into uh a project just recently where
um a landowner clearcut four lots prior to their preconstruction meeting and created a problem not only for town staff but uh we got 16 complaints from neighbors. So
don't do that. >> Understood and noted. So, Adam, to summarize what you said um at a very high level because I I I was trying to wrap my mind around the same concept and I think you put it eloquently
was um there's at least some of us up here may would be of the opinion that yeah, you don't want to unduly burden the developer in terms of having to move
the tree equipment in and out several times, but the phasing is still important for the amount of soil totally disturbed as well as for get I mean at a time as well as being able to get these
to market in a way that is timely and useful for the applicant so they can actually get money in a timely fashion. Am I summarizing that correctly? >> Correct. All right. I just want to make sure that
we're that we're all speaking the same language there. Super. Other comments or questions from the board? Okay. I am Do you want to respond to that or do you or can I move on to public comment? >> Yeah. No, I I I understand the
sentiment. I just I do agree with your point about the um the owner being doesn't want to be handcuffed and have to pause development and wait for you know two growing seasons for grass to fully establish and before moving on to projects. So it's
>> and I think for the other phase of this project the three lots on the single common driveway a phasing plan would also be helpful because if we issue one storm water permit and they've said you know lot
five is the first, lot six is the second, lot seven is the third when they're starting to wrap up with lot five, and I don't know if that's the right lot numbers, but right, we can we can look at it and we can say, okay, they've done everything and the grass is germinating. We can sign off on that
phase. So, we're trying to hear what people have said is is an issue for them and we're trying to address it. And we're looking for the same back to us because, you know, again, this is a a significant project in a area that's
been fairly quiet development wise for decades. And so, the the developer has to recognize that they're going to be under the microscope, not necessarily from us. Um, and it's going to go easier for them if they play nice.
>> Yep. No, I understand. >> And I know you understand and I I understand your client >> Yeah. >> is your client and you have a job to do. So, it's not uh I'm not upset. I just want it to be clear, >> right? >> And I I am online here. Um I don't know,
but I So, I I guess I'm confused as to where we're landing on the tree clearing. Um I know we're not going to, you know, hammer out 20 houses all at once. I I don't think anybody wants that as far as cost and whatnot, but I I do know they're interested in clearing the
lots according to the plan um in that one time so that everything is kind of like I said, they're not moving giant machinery in and off the lot, paying a, you know, they pay hundreds of dollars to move it every time they do it.
>> So, what Mr. Bernie was suggesting and correct me. >> I can't. >> She needs to identify herself. >> Oh, that's right. Thank you. Could you identify? We do need you to identify yourself for >> Sorry. Yep. Um, so Ally Dugan for
Benjamin Builders. >> Thank you. Thank you, Adam. And again, correct correct me if I misspe here. What Mr. Bernie was suggesting and what sounds like what sounds reasonable to me. I can't we're not going to speak for the whole board and we haven't had a
vote yet. Um was the notion that bringing in the equipment once in doing the requisite clearing down to stump would be appropriate so long as it's timed correctly as um our planner has
pointed out as well as Mr. Wallace pointed out after the pre-onstruction meeting. So it could be what we're discussing is the possibility it could be cleared to stump in one swoop, but it would not be beneficial for you to not
have a phasing plan for all of the other work to be done. Otherwise, we can only approve it once everything is fully complete. >> Okay, that's understandable. So if we need to create a phasing plan for the construction itself so it can be signed
off in phases. >> Yeah. With the understanding that do that removing the trees you are correct. I want to being technical. Removing the trees counts as construction which is why you have to have the preconstruction meeting first.
But for the common word of construction yes the construction would then be in phases. >> Okay great. Yeah, I just want to make sure we can have multiple, you know, we don't plan on building 20 houses at once, but I know we typically, you know,
pour a foundation, have the framing crew start on that while they pour an additional foundation and, you know, kind of have a few running that they can stagger and be in one place for a few weeks. >> Just to work with your engineer to develop a phasing plan that we can
review and provide comment back to. All right, we'll do that. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. What I'd like to do now is this is a public hearing. I do want to invite public comment. Is there public
comment this evening? Go ahead. I'll have you come on up to the microphone and just share your name and your address and then speak away. >> Okay. Um,
and uh, as a broad reminder, and I'm I'm just going to I find it's helpful. We're discussing we're looking at the storm water permits and the special permits for the um,
common driveways specifically. That's this board's perview, >> right? >> Great. Go ahead. >> My name is Judy Viviano. I live at 13 Ruth Street and um I thank you for your comments and
for your concern about clear cutting. Um where I live is downward of this hill and I'm the last access to the lake. So I really sit down. So I would really
have you keep in mind the clear cutting would really create a lot of water for me because it's we're coming downward and you're talking about a very large
area and um that's my biggest concern is that you clearcut everything and then it creates a flooding problem. So I appreciate your concern and doing
it in phases which is would would really help a lot I think so we could recover in the interim. So if you could just keep that in mind as we proceed forward I'd appreciate it. Well, that's why we
want to have our consulting engineer out there for the pre-construction meeting before they start cutting trees so that they can specify where the control erosion control devices need to be and how to set them up so that the the land
does not flood other properties. >> Thank you. Thank you for that. Really appreciate it. >> Very welcome. Thank you. Do we have other public comment tonight? All right.
Seeing none, did have one other question. >> Yeah. >> Based on that, um, do you have uh temporary storm water controls proposed or are you confident that the erosion control will handle it?
>> The soils are exceptionally well drained out there and we did soil tests. So, um, I'm I'm pretty confident. Typically they'll rough in the basins and those will more often than not function as temporary basins also. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So other questions or
comments from the board? Okay. And we are waiting on Graves to do their review their secondary review of their revised plans. So, um I believe though Graves is in possession of those
revised plans and your comment letter so they can have that ready in time for our next meeting on Monday, July 13th. >> All right. And does that work for you for a date to continue to? >> That does.
>> All right. Great. Um if there's nothing else from the board, I would look for a motion. I move we continue the 10 Parameter Road project PBSW26-12, PBSW26-13 and PBSP26-3
and PBSP26-4 to 13 July at 605. >> I'll second >> moved and seconded. And we'll roll call vote. Miss Reed >> I, >> Mr. Bernie, I >> Mr. Nick Castro. I >> Mr. Wilsmer.
>> Hi. >> And an I from myself. >> Thank you. >> In a couple weeks. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Or is it? My goodness. It's three weeks, isn't it? Wow.
Fancy. Okay. Next up would be 860 New West Townson Road. Okay. So, this is the project where Graves has conducted their secondary review and got us comments last Friday.
Um, so now it's up uh and they had some substantial comments. So, now it's up to the applicant to address those comments, but why don't you go through how your plan has changed since the last time the board has seen it? >> Absolutely. Uh, so once again, Ryan
Proctor, Dillis and Roy representing the owners and applicants, Dan and Rachel Brackett. So from a a layout perspective, and just as a reminder for the board, it's been a little while since we've been here for this one. Um, the application before you is for the construction of a common driveway to service four residential lots on each
lot. We're proposing a town home, excuse me. Um, each of which would consist of five units. Uh we did permit this with the zoning board of appeals earlier this year and we are currently uh permitting the project with the conservation commission at their meeting last week.
There are no outstanding comments from them. Uh they did just continue the meeting. They want to see if there are any substantial changes as part of this process. >> Why is this before ZBA again? >> For the town home use on the residential lots. >> Okay. Y got it.
Uh so uh as the planning director just mentioned, we received uh comments from uh Graves of follow-up peer reviews on Friday. Um there were I think 38 comments in their initial letter. We are down to four with action items. Um two of them were typographical
inconsistencies between the calculations and the and our site plans. Uh we have not addressed these yet um as we just got the comments on Friday. uh one of which was relative to a stormwater basin uh at the top of the site where the very bottom of that intercepts the estimated seasonal high
groundwater. So they did ask us to take another look at that and revise that. Um it is at the top of the hill and it's in series with other basins. Um so we will we will provide a response to that and a minor redesign. Um other than that they were satisfied with the remaining remainder of our um hydraologic
calculations and stormwater report materials as well as the site plan as well. Um I can go quickly through the letter. I said there's a lot of comments um if that would be helpful. Um >> um >> the highlight. >> Yeah, I say the high Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Uh so again, they they were
mostly were uh relative to storm water. Similar to the previous applications, they required that we soil tested in the areas of the stormwater basins. And just given the time of year that we filed with your board, it was not possible to get under the site because it was the middle of winter. Um, hence all of the continuations. Uh, so I apologize for
that. But um, so we did we did take care of that. Um, we resolved a lot of the uh, inconsistencies uh, the typographical errors between the model and the site plans. Uh and by and large the site plan itself did not change uh much with respect to layout or
configuration. There were some swailes uh near the lower portion of the site adjacent to new west towns and road and uh the grading of the road changed. We had a 1% cross slope shown. We changed that to a 2% just to make sure that storm water was getting ultimately to where that we were modeling it in our in
our model. Uh those are the highlights. Again, it really did not change much uh from a layout or configuration. The only question that was raised by the board at the first meeting that I just wanted to address tonight, there was a question about adding a potentially a looped configuration for the driveway instead
of having the common driveway with the individual ones provided off of that. >> You show that on the map with your little light. >> Yeah. So, there was a question uh basically to look at the common driveway terminates here. There was a question to loop it sort of up and around and then have the indivi and then loop back on
itself with the individual driveways becoming a little bit shorter. The first iter iteration of our plans actually did have a configuration like that and we were running into challenges with the grades. The site is sloped very consistently and steeply from new west towns and road all the way to the back
of the site. So to meet minimum grades, the common driveway can only be a maximum of 10%. Then the individual driveways are 12%. So, we were finding ourselves if we maintain that 10% for the loop as we get up higher onto the site, we were cutting more than we were comfortable with, especially when we get
up to the eventual foundations or the um the garages for the proposed units. So, we did take a look at that. Um and then the only other challenge was um was a little it may have required a waiver uh for the length of the driveway depending on where exactly that the top of the
loop came in. Um we we have about 940 feet for the common portion of the driveway currently. Um so that just it started to get a little bit uh longer than that. Um I think that was the last outstanding item that I wanted to speak
to. Um happy to take any questions. >> Um I saw the fire department was okay with the layout. I don't love it, but I understand it. Um fire protection is my other question. You're in a nonwatered area. You have a series of wells for
each of the units. >> Y >> are I mean they're all going to require a full NFPA system in them. >> Yep. >> Is there a provision for uh sistns or some other sort of bulk water source?
>> There is. So we actually, it's very hard to see on the plan, but right adjacent to the turnaround in the breakout fill, we do show a um it's a footprint right now. We'd of course work out on it with the fire department, but we show a 30,000 gallon >> 30,000 >> um footprint. Yeah. >> Um Oh, there it is. Yeah.
>> And I I would like to thank uh Miss Reed, we did uh your comment about the fire department um not just checking the box on open gov. I did follow up with them this time, so we did get a written response. Thank you. >> So, how many wells are on this site? Because there's a lot of other people in
this area that draw out these wells. >> Yep. You're going to be tapping into the aquifer and filling a 30,000galon system. So, how many wells do you plan on? >> We just have four just four wells. One for each one for each lot.
>> That >> and each lot has five units, correct? >> That's correct. >> It's a heck of a Well, >> I mean, bigger ones exist, too. Don't get me wrong. I don't >> and maybe you can't answer this question, but what's the capacity?
What's the longevity of these wells? >> I'm not sure. I >> That's what >> So, we're going to fill a 30,000galon sistn, right? >> And then we're going to draw water off it and then >> Well, the Yeah, sister is just for emergency, >> right? I understand fire protection,
>> right? >> But then we're going to draw water off it and then there's a surrounding area that probably tap into this local aquifer. Um, yeah, when I was on, this came before when I was on the zoning board and I had some problems with the way this whole fire protection thing was
happening. >> So, I'm just voicing my concerns. >> Okay. No, I appreciate it. Um, so I think it it my apologies if we had this discussion
last time and I don't fully remember the details. >> It's been a while. >> Yeah. Um, but I am I get how we landed here. I had never imagined that our common driveway would
service that we kind of designed thinking four units. And I I even I understand it. I should have understood mentally it could have been eight just due to our usual uh duplex, the ability to have a duplex.
I never really considered when we made the bylaw that a common driveway could service 20 units. What steps are being taken for that common driveway to be able to I mean
what are you doing differently from the bare minimum requirements or from the typical requirements so that this common driveway is going to be appropriate for 20 units. >> Yeah, this came up at uh ZBA also. So your common driveway requires a width of
18 ft. The ZBA did request that we go up to 20 ft. So, it's a little bit wider, provides better access for the residents. When you get up to the split driveways, we do have additional parking across from the units for each units at the end of each private driveway. We of course
have the turnaround for the emergency vehicles. Um, and then from a site distance perspective, there is, for those who are familiar with the road, it's uh there's very poor sight distance. Currently, we are proposing to remove a lot of the earth adjacent to the road to provide the opening for the
driveway and expand on that site distance not just for the users of this but also for the the standard and typical uh vehicular users of New West Townson Road. So, we are providing a benefit for the project but also for the public as well. >> For for the driveway, are there
shoulders on either side? >> We do. We do have the uh two foot. I don't believe we have gravel uh because we widened, but uh there are grass shoulders at least 2 feet and then uh then the grass swails for the storm water system. >> So there should be room for two cars going in different directions to pass
each other. >> Oh, yeah. Certainly. Yep. >> Um is there any diff and you can easily also just explain to me why this concern is not necessary. I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it.
Seems like a lot of traffic for a typical driveway construction. I don't mean widthwise in this case. I mean in terms of that's a lot of people driving up and down it. Is this being constructed differently with the
underllayment or anything else? I I say as if I really know what I'm talking about and I don't. Um, but is this being built differently somehow to account for the level of traffic that will be coming through here or is that not really a worry? And why would that be the case?
>> I wouldn't think it would be a standard worry. It's built with the 3 in of asphalt uh which is required per your bylaw. All all the standards of the common driveway that would that would normally apply with the turnout areas. Um the width which I mentioned is larger um is we are not requesting any waiverss for this. So, um I I would not expect
any. >> And is three I I guess my question is is 3 in of asphalt. It we wrote the common driveway bylaw to be a common driveway not a >> mini road.
>> Uhhuh. >> Yeah. Not not to be a workaround for a um subdevelop or for a subdivision. >> There's always a workaround. >> I mean there's always a workound. I I think what I would say is the 3 in is an older road spec 2 and
1/2 or I'm sorry one and a half or two base course 1 in top course. Most communities have gone to 2 and 1/2 and 1/2 um for wearing purposes for settling purposes. Um, we do require a 35,000
pound gross vehicle weight standard to support firet trucks. So, it should be robust enough. I mean, if it's something that you're really concerned about, u it is a special permit. we could find that
the 2 and 1/2 one and a half is more appropriate based on the number of units even though it's serving the four the maximum four lots that we permit. Um so I mean I think the board has some some
say in that way. Uh no that that is where I'm going with this but I'm not sure that I'm not implying that I think that's necessarily the right answer. And maybe that's a good question to pass on to Graves as part of their additional review just to
>> get uh our engineers perspective on it. Um >> I would like that. Yeah, I I would like Graves opinion on if the 3 in of asphalt as we require would be appropriate for this number of units. My specific worry
is I'm always I'm always thinking about the future citizens and residents of Lunenburgg who now we've got 20 maybe 20 individuals m up through small families
um who are I I hate to put them in a position where they're on the hook at a cadence they're not expecting and that uh their agent like as that might not even be initially thought of in terms of reserves and everything for an HOA to
maintain that driveway to then be putting a lot more money into maintenance sooner and more frequently than they'd expect. >> Is that something we can require in their HOA documentation like we do with
storm water? Well, and >> at least the longevity of care if that's if that's the issue you're concerned with because I see the same thing if you have 20 to 40 cars driving back and forth over a I mean my driveway is horrible and we have two cars so I can only imagine
>> and you know my experience would say that something like this is going to wear quicker than anybody who lives there thinks that it should. it it you know I think a road they say a a full depth reconstruction should last you 20
years but if you re if you uh do a millin overlay at 10 or 15 years you extend the life of the base course cuz you prevent water intrusion and all that that's not going to happen here. It's just not unless you have a paving guy who lives there or somebody who is just
into it. So, what's going to happen is in 15 years it's going to start to crack. They're all going to grumble. Nobody's going to do anything. And in 25 years, they're going to complain because it's pothole city and it's spalling and it's a mess. And they're going to call the town and say, "Oh, will you accept
our road?" And they're going to get, "Oh, well, it's not really a road." And then it's a whole rigomearroll. So, >> may not be spelled out in the homeowner associate. >> Correct. And I think I think that's I and but I think pavement maintenance spelled out in there just flies right
over most folks head who don't have some exposure or experience to it. >> So you would you would like Graves opinion whether 3 in of asphalt is appropriate for a development serving so many units. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> I will ask that directly. >> Um so and I think you know whether it's
three or 4 in I think the same thing happens. It might be a fiveyear or 10 year longer timeline. It may not. It depends how they treat it, how they take care of it in the winter, if they're doing the things that go along with it.
Um, so I I appreciate the sentiment. I also think that the future citizens who live here are probably going to have the those problems regardless of how much they're protected or not. I think it's a valid exercise to ask that question.
Okay. >> Um, and I think hopefully you heard that, but the illusion to this will also need those HOA documents prior to approval. Um, just so you're I mean, you have four condominiums, so they're going
to have their own HOA and then there's going to be the HOA of the HOAs to maintain the common driveway. Uh, so I, however your client wants to get their lawyer to do that, whether they all just
elude to their 25% in the common driveway or if there's four HOAs and then another HOA on top of it, that's that's lawyer stuff that I don't want I don't want to tell your client how to do. Um, you know, the question came up about
the wells. Is it 10 units or greater that becomes a semi-public well that you need D approval for? >> Don't know off the top of my head that does sound right. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I just wanted to flag that in case it was five. And >> I don't I don't >> a really long process.
>> No, it's not five. >> It's not five. Okay. I cuz I >> I feel like the number was smaller than 10, but I >> that's just based off of when we were doing the water supply protection district work. Mhm. >> I was much more fluent in well legality.
>> I would just hate to get through this and have your client find out it's going to be 3 years before they get to build anything because they're in the D pipeline. >> We will we'll check on that. >> All right. Um I'm going to take this pause to turn and say, do we have any
public comment on this tonight? Seeing none. All right. Do we have And so we're now we're waiting on a response from Graves. Correct. Or >> no. Graves given their response.
It's now up to them to revise their plans based on Graves's secondary review and then we're going to want Graves to to look at their secondary response and give them a clean bill of health before you vote >> as well as the additional feedback from
tonight. Do you have any questions for us by the way? >> No, I don't think so. You've been quite clear. >> Okay, great. >> I do have one last please >> information request. the length of the individual driveways from the terminus of the common driveway.
>> I will get you those. Um I do have some >> Why I ask is fire protection. >> Um because you do have a lovely little auto turn showing it turning around in the common driveway, >> right? >> But if the last building on the right there is on fire, they're going to drive the
engine down there because it makes sense. And it doesn't look to me like they're going to be able to turn around. And that's a really long way to back up. And if they try to stage at the end of the common driveway, that's a lot of hose to drag
all the way down to those homes. >> Okay. >> So, I don't know if it's adding an extra leg for them to be able to just get the engine off that out of that like to turn around and come out or something. It
might be worth a call to the fire protection officer and just see what his thoughts are. He might say, "No, we got plenty of hose. It's fine." But I just want to have that conversation before they're responding in January to a, you
know, an incident and get stuck. >> Okay, understood. >> So, we're going to go I'm going back to fire protection, >> right? Assistant, how many hydrants? We you have the hoses off the system itself. We don't have any hydrant shown
for the development itself. >> So what's the difference between the what's the length between the sister and the furthest conduct? >> I can get you that exact number. It's uh about 400 ft to the highest one to the
furthest one. So, they got to drag out 400 ft of hose to their truck to get it to put the fire out at the furthest one. I mean, my sticking point is the whole fire protection point thing you're going on here. Uh, I'm not
satisfied with what you're proposing and how you're getting water. >> Okay. We will review that with the fire department. >> All right. Other comments or questions from the board?
Hearing none. Um, when would you like to continue to >> uh to your next meeting, please? Grace's comments were only a couple. So, we'll we'll address those um and and talk to the fire department. >> Can do. I move we continue 860 New West
Towns and Road, PBSA 26-1, PBSW26-1, and PBSP 26-1 to3 July at 605. >> I'll second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call. Miss Reed >> I.
>> Mr. Bernie, >> I. >> Mr. Niccastro, >> I. >> Mr. Wilsmer, >> I. >> And an I from myself. >> See you in three weeks. school. >> And next up would be
13. Uh again, um after we're done, we're uh 934 Massav has requested a continuance. So we're going to I'm going to >> 13 >> what? >> To 13th July. >> Yes. I move we continue 934 Massv
PBSW26-14 to 13 July at 6:05 p.m. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Miss Reed >> I >> Mr. Bernie >> I >> Mr. Nick Castro >> I >> Mr. Wilsmer >> I >> and an I from myself.
Great. Finally 1325 Massav site plan review PBSA uh 265. Uh, the Lunberg Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 22nd, 2026 at 6 PM Town Hall 17 Main Street,
Lunberg, Mass, to hear and review applications for site plan approval and a storm water permit for a commercial office building at 1325 Mass Avenue, pursuant to sections 250-8.4, four site plan and section chapter 204
storm water and storm sewers of the code of the town of Lunenburgg. Uh subject property information the location is 1325 Mass Avenue in Lunenburgg, Mass. Assessor's map 62, parcel number three.
Owners are GLT Realy Trust LLC 105 Chestnut Street in Lunberg, Mass 01462. You can view materials online at lunbergmma.portal.openggov.com with record ID PBSA26-5
via an email request to the planning office planning ma.gov or in person at the planning office at 960 Mass Avenue in Lunberg. >> Good evening. Uh lastly uh tonight uh Ryan Proctor Dillis and Rory. I'm here
tonight representing the applicant and just one correction for the record uh nothing major but the applicant is GCJT uh not LT uh realy trust >> GCJT. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So this is a this is a pretty exciting project for me. I'm happy to be here
tonight presenting this. I know the applicant wish he could be here uh however he had a commitment in towns and planning board that he is at tonight. Uh so the project that we are here for tonight is for the construction of a new office building for as you'll see on the architectural plans for Dillis and Roy.
So uh before I get into that uh just as a brief history of the project I'm sure the board will have recognized the site address 1325 Massav. We have been before you several times over the past few years uh for the development of this site. Um, initially, I believe it was
back in 2019, we had filed for a storm water management permit for some earth removal activities at the property uh in preparation for the eventual development. At that time, we had permitted a a very large storm water basin uh which is since been
constructed. And then uh in 2022 and 2023, we permitted uh phase two of the project uh which I'll call it, which is I what I have shown here on the board. So we had permitted uh the site development which included the construction of three commercial
buildings. Uh the largest of which was a permit as a contractor's yard. We had a personal improvement building and then we had a generic professional office building. As part of that project, we had carved off an individual lot of just
over 40,000 ft which included the office building only. So I want to be clear, this is not a new project on this site. This is a essentially a minor amendment to a previously issued portion of this overall project. Um so there were some
minor amendments and when the applicant uh is going to eventually be submitting for a building to permit building permit, he did not want to have any issues in being tied essentially to the current site plan approval uh packet. So, um, I met with the planning director and the building commissioner and we
thought the best path forward was to start fresh with a standalone site plan approval for this site and then amend the existing storm water permit simply to add this new owner to that stormwater permit since they do share a system. Uh, and there's an operation and maintenance plan. There are easements already in
place for that. Um, but that was the avenue that we chose. So, I'm just going to switch over plans to show just the standalone lot at this time. So the uh the project as I mentioned is the construction of an office building again as as previously permitted as part of that collective u development of the
site. There are three minor modifications uh which I'd like to talk to you. The first of which the building was previously permitted as a 5400 ft building. We've increased that slightly to a 6,000 ft building. We had already exceeded the what we had previously
permitted. We had more than adequate parking for the 5400. We also had more than enough for a 6,000t building. So, we were required to do 20 spaces. We're providing 24 uh with two handicap accessible spaces at the front of the building. The other minor modification,
the pavement width between the parking spaces in front of the building was previously permitted as 24 ft wide. We've increased that to 26 feet just to provide a little bit more maneuverability within the building. And lastly, we did add um some access to the
westerly side of the building and a patio in the rear of the building. Um again, those are those were not shown on the design plans. The building is essentially in the same exact space as previously permitted. The parking lot configuration is the same. We are not proposing any modifications to any of
the utility connections or connection to the state road that we had previously permitted. Uh in preparation for this meeting and in preparation for one of your comments, we did uh send a copy of these plans to Graves Engineering for a peer review prior to coming before you. They did
issue a letter, I believe, on Friday afternoon indicating that they had no no concerns with the hydra uh hydraologic calculations which we updated per the increase in impervious area. uh they had no issues or concerns with the site development with the one note um that
the previously permitted project had light poles within the parking lot. We are not proposing those anymore. We want to um provide less lighting on the general site um and consolidate it to the building. So we are proposing security lighting over the man doors and downward-f facing and shielded wall
packs along the building itself which we think is more than adequate enough to service for security. Um, so we are not proposing the light poles within the parking lot anymore. And that was the only outstanding comment uh from from Graves that came in on Friday. So I think I will leave it there. If there
are any questions, I'd be happy to take them. >> I think my question is probably to Steve. Um, we have a site plan filing. We don't have a modification filing for the storm water permit. I they are pitching the
storm water change as a dimminimous change seeing that it's it's simply just um swapping out ownership. >> Correct. >> We >> well it's it's increasing the impervious area by a a number.
>> Um >> but they and I I I don't have a problem with it. I'm not, this isn't like, ooh, it's a bad thing. I just, you added 600 ft² to the building. You added the sidewalk. I imagine the patio is some sort of paver,
but it still has a a factor to it. And you added 2 ft of width to the uh paved parking area. So, I I just want to be able to quantify that number as part of
whatever approval we move forward with. >> You gave Graves some calculations, correct? On >> we did. >> All right. >> And that's all good. I just want to make sure we incorporate it in a decision in a way that carries forward.
I'm happy to provide exact numbers tonight for the pavement width, the building, and the patio if that would be helpful. >> Yeah. I mean, do you have a total square footage? >> Uh 600 ft for the building. The patio is, I believe, 945 square ft. And then I would have to do some napkin
math for the parking lot itself. Um, which I could do on the fly if you'd like me to. >> Um, >> I mean, if even if you can give me like a an educated ballpark. I mean, it's 2 feet by the width of the parking lot. >> Exactly. Correct. Oh, >> forgive me. I'm going to use my phone
here. >> You'll never have a calculator. >> Use the $200 calculator. >> I've had that since high school. It's uh pretty blurry. >> Uh 216 square feet for the parking lot roughly. And uh we
>> so you made the case that you the the system that you designed three initially the storm water system >> correct >> is large enough to accommodate the increase that you're proposing as part of this plan. >> That's correct. Graves confirmed that. I just want to like I think 2,000 square
ft of additional impervious on a site that has an overdesigned system is is probably qualifies as a dimminimous change especially since a factor of it is clean runoff. Most of it is clean runoff actually because it's the patio and the sidewalk. Just I want to be able
to when we make it a if we vote that we include that information >> certainly in the decision. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> And we'll also need to approve the dimminimus. >> We'll need to find that it's
dimminimous. >> Find us. Yes. which isn't >> for the storm water and that isn't listed tonight. So, will that have to be a separate? >> It was in the advertisement. >> Oh, it was okay. >> I mean, it mentioned storm water in the
in if you listen to Miss Reed. >> I I will I will be completely frank. >> Goodness. >> No, I did not. >> Um, >> wow. So, when this was originally approved, there
was some back and forth with Mass Dot about the access permit and the cross parking lot connection. >> Yep. >> Has that been resolved? Are you obtaining your own Mass Highway access permit? >> We So, we are going to be getting an
updated one. We are not proposing any changes to what has it was previously permitted. Okay. >> We had permits. >> So, you're just going to reapply. Same thing. Reapply for the permit. New name, >> identical plan, different. >> Should be a relatively >> simple process. As simple as mass dot gets.
>> Yes. Okay. Exactly. Yep. >> All right. Other questions from the board? >> So, the zoning board special permit has been granted to Daniel and Jean Proctor. >> Yes. It doesn't say anything about JC GJCT
realy. >> Yeah, the the I'm sorry. >> Wednesday. >> Wednesday. >> Yes. >> All right. >> All right. This is >> I'm sorry. I just like to clarify. We we >> we well for we are going before ZBA for
a signed permit. The zoning board approvals that were previously issued were for the contractor yard use which is isolated to the building in the back. So that will not need to be modified at all um because we are standalone use here. And then the land disturbance I believe within the zone three um aquifer
protection district was relative to site disturbance which has already occurred. We are not proposing anything outside of that >> because I I asked that question because you uploaded it >> with all your documents. >> Yeah, there was a check box that says has uh previous zoning board approvals
been issued. So I just put them all in there. All right. Uh, this is a public hearing. Do we have any public comment? >> Good evening. Uh, Dan Proctor, 1529 Massav. I also own a couple of the units
in that contractor yard as well as the vacant lot that has not been developed yet. And I just want to say obviously we're very excited for Dillis and Roy. It's a beautiful building. It would be a nice addition to the neighborhood as well as the town of Lunenburgg. So, we're in favor of it. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you. Any other public comment? Seeing none questions or I mean, do we have further questions or thoughts from the board? Um, >> ready to close? >> I can say I I think we have everything
we need. >> I move we close the hearing on 1325 Massav PBSA 26-5. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call. Miss Reed. >> I. >> Mr. Bernie. I >> Mr. Niccastro. I
>> Mr. Wilsmer. I. >> And an I from myself. Okay. Um, I move >> No, I was going to say it's only funny because I sw I I would have sworn in my memory this is this was supposed to be
retail, but clearly not. That's clearly my own faulty memory, but I had that moment. I'm like, is this changing? I guess not. >> Go ahead. Uh, I move that we find the uh
change to the storm water permit of 1,800 square feet to be dimminimous uh based on the nature of the new impervious and the confirmation by Graves that the proposed system will handle the additional runoff.
>> I have a second. >> Moved and seconded. Will roll call. Miss Reed >> I. >> Mr. Bernie. >> I. >> Mr. Niccastro. >> I. >> Mr. Wilsmer. >> I. >> And I from myself. >> I move that we approve the dimminimous
change to the storm water permit at 1325 Mass. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Miss Reed. >> I. >> Mr. Bernie. >> I. >> Mr. Niccastro. >> Hi. >> Mr. Wilsmer. >> I. >> And an I from myself.
Any special conditions other than the usual site plan conditions? >> No, that was storm water. That Yeah, that was that was the we have found the storm water change dimminimus and approve the dimminimous change. >> Okay. I'm sorry. No, no worries.
I move that we approve the site plan approval for 1325 Massav PBSA26-5 with construction hours to be 7 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No
Sundays or holidays. >> 8:00 a.m. till noon. >> That was second. >> Moved and seconded. Miss Reed >> I >> Mr. Bernie >> I >> Mr. Niccastro >> I >> Mr. Wilsmer
>> I >> I from myself. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Mr. Proctor has earned his salary tonight. >> Yes. Thank you. Happy holidays. Enjoy the fourth. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. You too. >> All right.
Is that a record number of special per of public hearings in front of us in one night? >> In front of you. Yes. Conservation. I think I stopped. I got over five. >> Oh, wow. >> All right, everybody. Um, so now we are up to um, that's all of our public
hearings for tonight. Now we're up for decisions in business. The performance guarantee bond for 189 Electric A. So folks, this is very much this the same situation that you dealt with with
189 Electric Avenue. Um they've done a lot of site work out there. Graves has inspected it. Uh Graves has looked at their asbuilt plan and their bond amount. And I will read directly from uh Jeff's
from Graves email. I reviewed the bond estimate dated June 10th, 2026 prepared by Haley Ward. The estimate total was $3,500 for work associated with the rain garden. I understand that the planning board may
wish to include a 30% contingency in the bond estimate. If the bond if the 3500 were to include a 30% contingency, then the shity would be $4,550.
Whereas the storm water related work remaining consists of adjustments to the rain garden. In my opinion, a shy in the amount of $4,550 is sufficient to cover the work.
>> Great. >> Uh so in driving by the site, there's a lot of or there has been a lot of things stored off to the right of the building. Looking at it from the street, it's hard to tell if they're on this lot or not. And there is the
driveway that was constructed from the former residence there up into the site which remains and is maybe graded base, maybe some sort of wrap. Um, it doesn't >> I believe you've stopped using so
>> correct, but it doesn't seem to have any storm water controls and it remains in place. Uh, so I'm sort of hesitant to move forward with this bond until there's some resolution to that driveway that
was never part of any storm water permit and on a lot that wasn't ever permitted. >> Okay. I believe that the ownership of the neighboring lot is under dispute between a brother and sister.
So getting them to agree to do anything on their lot. >> So the last time Yeah. >> You want to address that? >> So the last time we received the notice, so we put some rip wrap stone and uh
erosion control swells like straw waddles >> on the driveway. >> Yes, we did. And then maybe you don't see it now because I told everyone to stop using it. if somebody has used it maybe something occasionally that nobody
was aware of it but we did put in front of their >> so I believe their engineer is on Zoom >> if you want to uh hear from him directly as to what's been done out there >> yeah I I mean ultimately I think it
needs to be taken out and I think if if there's no way to do that then I think we need to pursue enforcement on the owners of that lot for remediation of storm water work that or or land disturbance that was done without a storm water permit.
>> If I may, Dan Shan here with Haley Ward. >> Um so since my involvement with the project, um I have not known that they did any additional work without a storm water permit. So I I do apologize for that. Um that's just my lack of knowledge on that site as well. Um but
as for like the Babon shorty here for Mupra 189 I think it's fair where his um I guess obligation for the project he is trying to fulfill to be able to close out his section itself. Um while I'm never in favor of an enforcement over uh
rather be able to work things out with the applicant itself. It does seem like like the uh plan director had mentioned that this is undergoing some litigation and unfortunately that might be the the only proper course uh for the board. Um, but that is all I mean I again I I do apologize. It's just a lack of
knowledge. I got put onto this project after that site has already been previously disturbed as you guys have known uh being at the massive ledge site. Um, and since then I believe that driveway has been there since I've been there. Um, again, you know, this is coming in a few few years later. So, I I
do apologize, but that's all the information I can provide you tonight, unfortunately. So, Adam, could you explain in like >> Yeah, in English. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm just I'm trying to wrap my mind around what the issue is.
>> There are, I believe, four lots there >> and the two lots at >> five lots. >> It's five lots. Okay. At 189 and 191 or something. >> 181 is the one you uh >> the last one we did. Okay. So, they're
going down. So 181 and 189 are the northernmost lots. There are three lots to the south of that. There's an old residence on the last lot which is like half buried. >> The thing that looks like a buried house is built.
>> Correct. >> Yeah. And there's a driveway that comes in just north of that, cuts across the three lots to 189 and 181, >> which was put in by the gentleman in front of us as part of preparing those
lots to build. It remains there. It's graded out. It has some sort of treatment on it. Um, I didn't enter the lot, so I don't know if it's wrap or if it's a graded base or if they just smashed up the rocks that have have lived there or if it just has kind of
created a smooth surface from being driven over. So, that's disturbance outside of the approved storm water permit. It's created a potential conveyance of water off of the site. Not that the site was particularly
>> pvious or lovely to look out before. My concern is we do this bond, these units get sold, Bob's your uncle, and the party responsible for some or all of that is gone. And we're now stuck with
this potential disturbed property that's under litigation between two waring siblings over a pitilence of an inheritance of these lots. And it just becomes another
perpetual problem that that lot has been for decades, which isn't this gentleman's issue, isn't maybe it is those folks issue, but um where a bunch of work was done in anticipation of getting a permit that never showed. And
so we sat with the shale graveyard for decades. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So that driveway is a more recent addition. >> Correct. >> Got it. Okay. I M >> I hadn't processed that. Okay. Thank you. >> It lives around the life of these these
two duplexes. >> Yes. >> All right. Okay. So, I agree that it's good to have a bond in place and allow this gentleman to recoup the funds he's spent on
building those homes and doing his job. Um, but also in doing that, we've been saddled with an additional potential issue that I'm looking for some resolution to. >> I think what you're describing is an
enforcement question. Um, I can try to write up the gist of what you're trying to get at and run it by our building commissioner. Um, that's about all I can think of doing
right about now. >> Mhm. >> That's fair. And just just to make sure I'm crystal clear on uh Mr. Bernie, your concern here, first of all, I wanted to uh thank you for that clarification. I now know exactly what uh area you're speaking of. Um is the concern more so
of just runoff coming down that driveway and then going out to the street? I think of just things of like, you know, potential like diversion BMS or something like that. Or is it the fact that uh this let's say gravel area or wrap area as just providing more runoff
than a a standard gravel driveway may have or ledge for that matter, what was there previously with whatever vegetation may have been occurring on site. I think it's it's it's a it's a runoff issue. It's it's now become a potential conveyance. It's it's a situation that
wasn't there previously and it's on a lot that the that your client doesn't own or lots that your client doesn't own. So, I'm also not looking to assign him to go do work on property that isn't his because that would be its own issue.
Um, >> y >> I'm just bringing it forward because I I think it needs to be resolved at at this point. >> Understandable. It's not stabilized and it's just making things matters worse there. So, I get it. So would bring this to the building
commissioner as a z as the enforcement officer >> be satisfactory in this case or is that just kind of okay now what >> I mean that that's the process that's what we have to do there's no
>> you know there's nothing else I I'm going to abstain from from the bond I'm not going to ask the rest of the board to do anything on my behalf. I just I I'm not willing to put my name to it at this point. U but you know, there's four
of you. You only need three of you to agree to it. And that's I I'm processing. If other people have things to say, please say it. I'm just thinking myself. I'm thinking through everything.
How You know, I think I'm still confused. >> So, let's say that the building commissioner says, "Well, now you got to go get permission from the waring brother and sister to do
some remediation work on there." And they don't give him permission to do it. Then what? I guess then we wait for stabilization. I mean, at that point, he's closed out his permit. Um, I mean, the way the way I see the bond
is we're allowing someone to close out their permit >> prematurely with a with a backup for ensuring that the work was completed correctly or will be completed correctly. and without the
bond, then they're holding the property until stabilization is completed and they can get a sign off and we're out of we're out of it at that point. So this is our this the bond the the acceptance of the bond is not required
and it's our it it's a way for us to move the process along but it's also a way for us to ensure that if there's outstanding work or something that is a a grander issue
we can we can use to resolve. So, at what point, if you don't if you don't approve the bond tonight, at what point would he be able to get an occupancy? >> Once he has 75% stabilization on his his vegetation
would be my interpretation. So once all the vegetation has started to sprout and is viably stabilized per you and the building inspector >> and that be like when after uh over the
winter and >> probably after a growing season. >> Mhm. >> I mean if he's if he's seated in theory we we're not really having summer yet. So by October he should have decent stabilization.
Okay. All right. >> For the record, if I may, >> um again, Dan Chard, uh the site is very well stabilized. The the the main purpose of this bond estimate here would be to uh rectify some things that are currently still outstanding with the um asbuilt rain gardening. Uh it still does
require some more um volumetrics as it was stated in the cover letter. I believe it was 83 cubic feet. So, it's again not much. Um, it's just to ensure that that rain garden does uh work as originally designed, but it seemed like at this point it was more important to
have that stabilization uh here before you tonight rather than going into that rain garden disturbing a lot more just to get a couple more um cubic feet out of storage. And for this one, it was really going to be more building up the the burm itself um along one of the side slopes there to gain that extra storage.
We'd have to go into the deeper dive just to make sure all those numbers still check out themselves, but that was kind of the intent behind it. If you would drive by the site today, it is very well stabilized and it would reach my opinion of the EPA 75% vegetative cover.
>> Well, then he till he resolves the volutric issue for for the rain gardens. If that's what the the concern is, >> that is Graves concern the rain garden. Then it would it would be resolving that and ensuring that the the stabilization
remains above that 75% number. >> So what my opinion >> what would the board like to do here? >> I would rush to close this house. Honestly, I have a closing on July. >> Mhm.
>> It's already under contract. I'm I'm still trying to wrap my mind and maybe it's not as important as I think it is, but um
you built the access driveway that we're discussing, correct? >> It was already there. The day I came to the site and they showed me the lot one and lot two that I was going to buy. It was already there. We drove through this. We we didn't do anything with it.
So it was a only access to the property that me the home. >> It was a dirt driveway. >> Yes. This was a dirt driveway over there. So because that was the old building and that driveway belonged to that building. That was the only way we could have seen
the property. And >> And did you ever get permission from the brother and sister to cross onto that driveway to get up to your property? >> So the owner who sold it to me, so we had access through them and then yeah, they said no issues for that until we
heard something and then we stopped using it. And >> so I I'm trying I trying to remember you were not the original applicant or were you the original applicant for >> for the storm brain? >> Yes. >> I was not I bought it after
>> Okay, that matches. Okay, that that's what I was trying to remember. Okay, >> just for the record, that applicant was Red Bird Construction. >> Red Bird Construction. Yes, I bought it from them. And I have the ownership only for 181 and 189.
>> I hate I don't know what I'm thinking myself. I hate to hold your feet to the fire where none of this originated with you, but this is our opportunity.
I mean, as it when looking out for the town, this is our one opportunity to make sure things are lined up correctly. Do I understand that correctly or am I misspeaking? I mean, I I'm happy
to be corre corrected on these things. My question would be, what can they do on the edge of the property they own to keep storm water off of that driveway
that they don't own? Just speaking out loud here for everybody. Things that just come to my mind, you could put some sort of like straw waddle along the edge just to try to kind of create a diversion burn to kind of keep it on the vegetated area. Um, unfortunately, the way that site is
kind of laid out, it will kind of still go to the vegetative side kind of towards that utility pole near the end of this property. It's kind of the lowlying spot. Um, but the plus side that would be is that you're not getting a an influx of runoff down a unstabilized area and you're kind of
keeping it on a stabilized area. Um, my opinion it it would just be an extra precaution that he could do. Um, I wouldn't anticipate that to be any issue. I mean, when that site is very well stabilized, it would have uh reduced runoff as like a post construction number. And for that site,
if I'm not mistaken, I mean, it's it's in a good good condition. I mean, I'm not trying again, I'm trying to help out both both sides of the table here because I do understand. Um, but I do think that would be >> how what is the building commissioner going to be able to do here? Go to the
waring brother and sister and say, "Hey, uh, you need to get a storm water permit for, um, letting Mr. miss out. Uh, use your driveway and we want to make sure that um there's no
erosion there. >> They need to they need to reclimate the issue or they they need to >> they need to they need to fix the issue. They need to to remove the driveway and return it to the state pre >> pre-d driveway. >> There was a dirt driveway to begin with
before this. >> Well, I mean, if we go back to 2019, there is a little bit of a dirt driveway. If we look at the 2025, it comes all the way in, goes up the side of 189, and tucks in the back. There's
at least 100% if not more additional driveway disturbance. So, they need to >> Is that all on their land? >> It's all on their land. >> Okay, then. >> So, they either need to reclaim that
back to >> Yep. I see. an undisturbed area or they need to get a storm water permit or they can be fined >> and we can talk about it as if well are are they being punished for letting him use the driveway but they're
>> they're the property owners. >> Yeah, they're the property owners. That's the >> and they are the original owners of the other lots. Correct. Yeah. So of course they it behoo it was a benefit for them
to allow that access because it made the property inherently more developable. So I don't feel a concern with coming down on them and saying you got what you wanted but now you have to make things
right too. And whatever issues are there between them with agreement, that's between them with agreement. We have the ability to hold their feet to the fire. >> So you would like Mr. Massode to reclaim
that portion of the driveway. >> Well, they would need his he would need their permission because it's on it's on the the it's not on his land. How's how's he going to get permission
from a waring brother and sister? >> So, still the Red Bird Construction owns the land. I mean, whatever. >> Then I guess we asked M the building inspector to start enforcement against Redbird. >> Against who?
>> Redbird Construction, the owner of the property. the owner of that parcel that has the >> Yes. The owner of of 213 >> I'm not >> and 195 is Redbird Construction.
>> I'm not uncomfortable with that. If again it's >> and I understand the concern. If I may, I just want to make sure I I'm understanding this. It the work without the the stormwater permit himself. I mean, because there is still a storm water permit held for this whole site.
So, that would include those additional lots. Um, now don't get me wrong, when this was done and all of that stuff, I mean, I'm I'm absolutely in agreement there. It seems like it's happened within the last couple of years, which would have been before the stormwater permit was issued. So, I I'm not arguing that point. U, but the board would still
have a stormwater permit for the other three lots. Is that concern just that it wouldn't get built out in a timely fashion? Obviously with them being a waring um siblings there, I would I reckon nothing's going to really happen and just trying to stabilize that uh for the benefit of Lunenburgg. Is that kind of what I'm gathering?
>> There's a storm water permit on on all five lots. >> Correct. It's an overarching for all five lots. But again, this would came before you, I think uh last year actually 2025 >> and that is still uh open for all three,
which I think has been kind of to your point that you've been getting to, Adam, with a lot of these other projects coming before you is getting this phasing plan together to make closing these things out a lot easier. I think that's why Mass is kind of in this weird position here where we have a storm water permit for the entire site because
the entire site does trigger that land. >> You know what the number on it is? Uh, I don't off the top of my head, but I can find that for you. >> Bear with me. >> What's that? >> It's on 213. >> 213 Electric A. >> Correct.
>> So 213 and 195 are owned by Redbird Construction. >> Correct. And those two lots along with 181 Electric A and 189 Electric A are part of a larger storm water permit
>> that the board granted when >> uh back in 2025. >> So last year in >> correct >> PBS24-9 >> that Yep. So that I was under the impression it was a
storm water permit for these two lots alone. >> No, this is coming back to me now. >> Yeah, >> I apologize. I may have been a little misleading there. Apologize, Adam. >> So, do we know if Redberg Construction has any plans to start work on 195 and
213? Well, I guess my my position changes a little bit and I'm willing to accept this bond and ask that the either you, Steve, or you and the building inspector in combination
uh issue a stop work until proper erosion controls are in place for the remainder of the storm water permit. stop work for >> for the rest of the storm water permit for for the other other three lots.
>> Yep. >> Which I think is kind of it seems silly and and and unnecessary since they're fighting over it and no one's going to do anything that gets anybody any money as they fight over it. But I think having it in place is an important
bookmark. Um, and then it puts them on notice that they need to do the storm water controls. And if they >> So, it's not a surprise to them when they come to us asking for occupancy permits for 195 and 213. Correct.
>> Hey, you've got some erosion control you need to take care of on this old dirt driveway. >> Yes, >> I think we can do that. >> All right, then. I >> I'm comfy with that. Mhm. >> I just want to make I want to make sure everyone's held accountable to do what
they're supposed to do. >> I think we can do that for four out of five of these lots. >> Mhm. >> The brother and sister. Uh >> good luck with that. Uh, so I move that we accept a bond in
the amount of $4,550 for the work remaining at 189 Electric Out. >> I'll second. >> All right, moved and seconded. Roll call. Miss Reed, >> I. >> Mr. Bernie, >> I.
>> Mr. Niccastro, >> I. >> Mr. Wilsmer, >> I. >> And an I from myself. Thank you. Thank you for going on that wind. I think that's a fair resolution. Yep. >> No, I'm happy.
>> I didn't want to hold the applicant's feet overly hard to the fire. >> Thank you. >> We got to make sure things are done correctly. >> Correct. All right. I see we also have a decommission bond for 85.
>> Thank you. Lemonster Shirley Road. This is a solar battery storage project that you folks approved um last year. >> Yep. >> Town council and there the applicants
legal council has gone back and forth on the bond language and you have a copy of the document that they both agreed on. So Steve's going to really hate me soon
because I have more questions. Um, so this is our agreement with them to place the bond. Correct. It's not the actual bond. >> No. >> And are they using a bonding company or are they giving us a big fat check? They
are using an insurance company and we get as the planning board to approve the method and secure of the bond. Is that correct?
you are approving the language here that gets that um their insurance company executes and provides back to us. So, do we know who the company is? I guess
is my question. >> Yes, we do. Silo Lunenburgg B SSL LLC. >> No, no, the the the insurance company, the bonding company. >> I don't know that off the top of my head.
It may be in one of the emails that went back and forth, but I don't. >> So, I guess my question is by approving this language, which I don't have a problem with. I I read through it. It reads just fine. Are we giving a de
facto approval that they use Joe's bonding company out of Shbboan and we don't know you know >> what their rating is what their So I guess my concern is
>> I would hope that town council in going back and forth with their bonding company >> so they've been going back and forth with the bonding company. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That that makes me much more comfortable. I thought they were going back with Silos's
individual corporate attorney or whomever. >> Well, they've been going through him, too. >> But it it's there is >> it's in a party party line, not just >> Got it. >> Okay. >> I move we accept the language of the decommissioning bond uh as approved by
town council. >> I will second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call. Miss Reed >> I >> Mr. Bernie >> I >> Mr. Niccastro >> I >> Mr. Wilsmer >> I >> I for myself all sorts of interesting steps on that
whole project just because that's the project that spurred us to writing write the bylaw. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I have to forward the master plan to us. I'll do that before we leave tonight and then I'm going to move us on
to committee reports. Oh, abuing community notices. Anything >> um >> interesting? >> Not unless you uh want a dimensional variant for having a porch a little too close to the uh side setback. >> Well, in in which town?
>> Well, now I don't care. No, that's fine. >> I wouldn't think that there's any if there was anything I would have brought it to you. >> No, I know. I again I I use that just as much for our opportunity to hear about anything interest like
>> I wish I had an interesting ab budding community project to tell you about. I think the important things you would bring to us, but sometimes again it was it was the town center has approved a Starbucks, which we still haven't seen, so I'll believe it when I see it. But
hey, Starbucks nearby, that's cool. If you like Starbucks, if you hate Starbucks, then look, we have so many dunks already. You're okay. Um, all right. Committee reports. Open Space Committee.
Um, unfortunately I uh missed uh the most recent meeting. >> All right. Municipal Building Design Committee. Um, we have received most of the feedback from town departments. Still waiting on answers
from a couple in terms of their needs. Um there was a lot of I mean some of the same discussions we've been hearing and will continue to hear does this need to be there are people we have
stopped saying it will definitely be this building here at town hall and Ritter in use and more open to interpretation. Um but people still assume those will be the default and the best choices at least some do. Um there are those who
feel that uh the there are those who feel that we should be doing nothing until Turkey Hill is addressed. There are those who feel that the recent town election um was a litmus against any
additional spending. There are those who argue that due to the low number of voter participation, a single vote on anything at town meeting or at the ballot is not a broad communication just because you don't get we never get the
whole town. We always get a subset. And there's the argument that we have one shot at like we're going to get one shot to build new things for the next for the next 20 plus years. We should make sure we do it right. So there you
go. >> Can you enlighten me as to Turkey Hill? What's that about? >> Oh, um, Turkey Hill School. I'm I'm going to editorialize a little. Um, Turkey Hill School is an old building in sad shape.
Um, it just the issue is to do any major work at Turkey Hill triggers ADA compliance. And it doesn't have to be that major to trigger AD mandatory ADA compliance. Um the engineering and construction
needed to bring that particular building to ADA compliance is astronomical just even for things for turn radiuses of wheelchairs and bathrooms. >> Okay. Um, so it's the again I'm going to
editorialize to give a little bit of scope and others I encourage people to give differing views if you have if you hold them. Um, there is because money's tight people will always
feel this certain things need to take priority. There is a group who feels we should and I understand it. We should always prioritize schools over anything else because children are our future. There's the ar uh and that it would be
the turkey hill first. And I don't think I am doing justice to their arguments. I want to be clear as well for those watching at home. Yes, the arguments are more complex. I'm trying to summarize it very quickly. Okay. So, let's talk about ADA
compliance. I've been trying since I got here to find the town's ADA self- evaluation and transition plan. >> Good luck with that. >> And I found it >> from 2021. Now, my next order of business is
finding out was this ever sent to the state for state approval. So, that question still lingers. Let's say for the sake of argument that it was and the state approved it. There is money out there to
make ADA improvements to some of our municipal buildings. So if if we do have a legit ADA plan, my next order of business would be talking with the town manager and our buildings person as to
what's their priority. which building should we seek out grant money for first? >> And I think Turkey Hill is not going to be on that list only because it's a mid60s school that the town has decided is
slated. It's it's been a spectre for about a decade of >> so built 32 years before the ad act >> and it's been a spectre of we're going to need to do something with Turkey Hill. They did the primary school in 2005. They did the middle high school in
2015 and Turkey Hill is now the old >> stepchild. >> Yes. And it and there was a point where the fascia was pulling away from the roof and there was light intrusion. They have this giant bank of single pane windows across the front of the building
in front of the office. You know, very like brutalist like look how awesome schools can be kind of thing. And so this municipal building design committee has existed in one form or another for
two decades plus. And so at about their their around their bar mitzvah, um they had a a what they thought was a fairly solid plan to take the Pacio school and either renovate it or tear it down. And
the cries were, well, in eight years we're going to have to do something with Turkey Hill. And now we're a year away from eight years. And so the looming spectre of Turkey Hill is now come and rattling its chains at everybody because nothing was ever done
on the other side all those years ago. Um, and Turkey Hill's a hot mess. I mean, it's there's no air conditioning. Some rooms are hot, some rooms are cold. uh there, you know, it's 10 pounds in a five pound sack of kids and it's not
going to get any better. The middle high school was built on faulty projections, so it's already at its gills and so there's a lot of like failures along the way and not necessarily any individual person's
fault. there's a lot of systemic failures in the way MSBA works um in the way that the town grew exponentially over a short period. And so with the failed override and with, you
know, schools now being such a hot topic, I think there's a very real contingent that are going to focus all their energy on that singular building project in in a vacuum from any other town needs
that that may be. >> Thank you for the history lesson. I regret asking That's usually what people say when they talk to me. I I would also only throw in the MB MSBA um has been an issue even very recently
when we talk about the the challenges that organization can present to the funds for building a school where there was some look by the school committee and again I'm going to paraphrase only so well at what can be done about Turkey Hill and part of it was well if you use
MSBA funds to improve anything then the building has It used to be the building had to remain a school for like a decade or something. >> MSBA >> um >> Massachusetts School Building Authority. >> So if you get grant from them to fix a school, that building has to remain a
school. And for a while it was for x number of years, 10 or something. And then it became has to become for like either the lifetime of the building or the lifetime of your upgrade. But you realize there are windows at Turkey Hill that are now over 50 years old. So if
we're replacing them with MSBA funds, did that mean Turkey Hill would have to be a school for another 50 years or but and the thing is that may or may not have been an appropriate reading. We
couldn't get good info from MSBA on that standard. My understanding is it's changed again. I have I'm sure I'll learn about whatever's happened at the next round of cap for the next capital planning season. Um, but no, my point being that the in
some ways the it was good. It was nothing but good to get the feedback from the town employees on what they needed. >> Um, I we still need to do some work refining their requests to understand them better. That is all great.
Um, I think we're while that's progress, the rest of the meeting in some ways felt like a great synopsis of the past 5 years and the past 25 years in this town all condensed into one meeting for convenience.
Um, I I am not I'm I'm hoping as a committee we can move forward and still do good work there, but um there will be challenges. Capital Planning Committee has not met. Economic Development Committee has not
met. Um, stormwater task force. >> Uh, we are meeting on Wednesday. >> Excellent. Montichus Regional Planning Commission. >> Uh, we met a couple weeks ago. I didn't have any notes particular to Lunenburgg
and we don't have a meeting next month. It will be in August. >> Okay. Montichus Joint Transportation Committee. Uh, I was unable to make that meeting. Our next one will be next month. >> Fair enough. Um, oh, we did decide at the last meeting, too.
>> I saw. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, I saw the email. It's me. >> That's what you get for not showing up. >> I know. Sorry. >> You're also still clerk. Haha. >> It's all right. I'll take it. I have like 10 months left, guys.
>> What? Oh, I guess that makes >> till I'm done with planning board. Well, no. You mean till you are up for reelection? >> Sorry. Till I'm up for reelection. Oh, man. >> You You in fact can and will be running again because you got in by right in
last time and we can make it happen. >> Did two whole votes. >> I think we can get you at least five this time. >> Oh boy. >> Doesn't matter how many. >> It's exactly right. One more than the last person.
All right. Um, and we do the minutes approval listed, but they're not ready yet. Correct. >> Okay. Great. Meeting schedule, friends. We meet twice a month on the second and fourth Monday. Um, now upcoming meetings
do in for our standard meetings. Our upcoming meetings do include July 13th, July 27th, August 10th, and August 24th here at the Bilada meeting room for our standard business. It also is worth noting that we did at this meeting uh
agree that we are going to have a working session and again that that's publicly viewable. You're welcome to come sit in the room with us and watch the sausage get made. Um, >> are we doing that here or are we going to do that at uh your office?
>> I would say if we want it filmed, we should do it here. Sit down at that table. >> Yeah. >> Has the owl. >> What's that? >> The writer has the owl. >> What's the owl? >> That's the little that sits in the middle of the table and follows everyone.
>> Down a downstairs conference room. >> The downstairs conference room. >> The down. Yeah. Well, they there's really not any room for people to other audience members to set. >> You've made it sound so attractive. I bet we have a lot. >> You never know.
I I think let us plan on having the meeting here. >> That's fine. I really just wanted to ask. >> Yeah. And um but there's always a chance. We are not the only group that meets on Mondays >> and so if we're going to overlap then we can reserve other space.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, and you two are wonderful because I immediately started back into the old mode of, okay, I'm going to have to make sure check with the town clerk and then I realized you have staff. I I you you all are amazing.
Comment from the board. >> None from me. >> Nope. >> Hearing none, I would seek a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call. Miss Reed. >> I. >> Mr. Bernie. Hi. >> Mr. Niccastro. >> Hi, >> Mr. Tim.
>> I >> and an I from myself. Friends, thank you for joining us. It is 8:10 cuz people say the time out loud when meetings end for some reason. I hope you have a great few weeks. We'll see you in July. Have a