Okay. Good evening, Lunenburgg, and welcome to this the Monday, April 13th, 2026 meeting of the Lunberg Planning Board. We are here as always at the Bulada
meeting room at beautiful town hall. If um you are watching us online and you wish to join us or watching us on the TV and wish to join us, you can either well one you can drive on down to town hall
or two you can log on to Zoom and you'll do that by going to the town website getting the agenda for this meeting from the agenda center and using the link there. that will give you the Zoom link as well as the call-in phone number you
could use as well to use the telephone to access the meeting. Um, welcome. This meeting is being recorded and that's all we need to say about that, I believe. So, with our call to order out of the way, I'll look to the
board and see if we have any board comment to open the meeting. None. Very good. As a reminder to the public, um if you have a topic that you wish to speak about, we generally do
solicit public comment. Of course, we do for public hearings where it's legally required. Um now, we do also if like if it's something quick, we'll try to take it even when it's not required. If you at home have something you want to talk
about to the planning board and it's not on one of our agendas, let us know. Drop me an email. Drop call the office. Let them know. We will I'll do my best to get it on the agenda. I'll reach out to you first. I'll find a little bit about
what you're looking to talk about to make sure we're wellversed in it, but we're not looking to stifle public comment. We're looking to keep it on topic. Um, great. And I will turn to our wonderful
director, Stephen. How are we tonight? We're good. We're good. Uh, in terms of a report for the board, I'm continuing to gather example bylaws for the ones that we agreed we're going to work on over the summer.
Um, I'm trying to get them from communities that are approximately our size or a little larger. Uh, it's not like I'm pulling bylaws from Cambridge or or uh Springfield or anything like
that. I hope to have some example a set of examples to send you um by miday. I'm going to ask you what you like in them and what you don't like. And then from there, uh, draft some bylaws for
you to react to. And we'll keep at it until we're happy with the drafts hopefully by the end of the summer so we can start shopping them around to the other boards, commissions, and committees, get their input, and be ready to roll at next May's annual town
meeting. There you have it. >> Great. Thank you. Before we dive into our business, um I know just before the meeting we were mentioning that you had a lot you sent a lot of emails about some changes. Um do we have has anything
been um has anyone requested a continuence that isn't noted on the agenda as such? >> 860 New West Towns and Road. >> Okay. So they are not here tonight and we're not look and we're not looking to
address that tonight then. Okay. So, if you are here tonight for 860 New West Townsen Road, uh they've requested a continuence and we won't be reviewing um that tonight. Just making
sure everyone's on the same page. Wonderful. Um >> Justin doesn't want to do the ANR. >> Oh, for Zero Reservoir Road. Okay. >> Oh, we're not looking to do the ANR tonight. Uh no, he has a revised plan
for his um for the driveways for that project and the storm water permit. So um we can take him for zero reservoir road and he can explain how the plan has changed since the last iteration, >> but we're not looking to do the ANR.
>> No. >> Um okay. Do we have um do we need to do anything with that in terms of requesting I mean because we have that ticking clock. >> Justin, are you going to be coming in
with an ANR at some point for Zero Reservoir Road? >> Yes, at at some point. It is in the process with Hanigan to update the ANR. We just haven't gotten it yet. So >> So how about you grant the board a time extension to deal with it? Yeah. Yep.
More than happy to grant that to the board. I should have it for the Is it May 13th is the next meeting? >> Next meeting is in two weeks, the 27th. >> 27th. I'll follow up with H again tomorrow and see if we can get for that one. Okay.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. Um ANR is approval not required. Always a weird name, but those have a very tight timeline in which the board can react. So that's why whenever those come up, we're very thoughtful about dates. Um,
okay. Public hearings. I'm going to take them in the order listed. So we will open with um, it looks like this is our first time seeing it. 222 West Townsend Road for uh, storm water permits.
>> Okay. >> Read the public hearing notice. >> Yep. >> Yeah, I have it over here. I'll read it. Uh, the Lunberg Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 13th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Town Hall 17 Main Street, Lunberg, Mass, to hear and review storm
water permit applications for four new house lots at 222 West Towns and Road, pursuant to chapter 204, storm water and storm sewers of the code of the town of Lunenburgg. Subject property information
is 222 West Towns and Road in Lunberg, Mass. Assessor's map 20, parcel number 19. Applicant is Kenneth Chaplain, Sixball Road, Towns and Mass 01469. Owner is Fast Cash Homeros LLC, 13
Lawrence Street, Peralmass 01463. You can view materials online at lunenbergmma.al.openggov.com. opengv.com/arch with record IDs PBSW-26-2 PBSW26
sorry PBSW-26-3 PBSW-26-4 and PBSW-26-5 via an email request to the planning office planning lunenbergmma.gov of or in person at the planning office at 960 Mass Avenue in Lunberg.
>> Great. Thank you, Miss Reed. Take it away. >> Oh, yeah. So, this is uh Chris Stoddard uh Stoddard Engineering on behalf of the applicant. Um basically what we have here is do you folks have them electronically on your computers? Okay.
Do you want to go and order lot one, lot two, lot three, or four? I don't Was this put together as one submission? >> Could I ask you to speak into the microphone or just be a little louder either? Yeah, sorry. I only have one ear that works. >> Sorry about that. Um, so basically I can go through this lot each lot individually. I think they were put in
as four separate permits. Um, if that's what the board so chooses, >> uh, we can look at them. We can look at them comprehensively. Correct? Yes, you can. >> Yeah. So, we can discuss them comprehensively. >> Okay. So, um, basically these are four
four bedroomedroom single family house lots. Um, they were subdivided into individual parcels. Um, we did go we did look at it holistically, but we did all of the individual storm waters for each lot. So that way as they finish them,
they can we can close out that lot and move on to the next. Um, basically it's a series of it's a uh some rain gardens on each lot with infiltration trenches next to the driveways. Um, Colt system to handle the roof runoff. Um, we did
submit um all of the storm water reports to your peer reviewer. He did kick us back some comments. Um, I was able to address those comments. It was might it was late. It was Sunday. So, I'm not sure if the board has had a opportunity to review the revised plans or the
comment letter. I know I did email it to um the peer reviewer, but obviously I wasn't expecting a response in a day. Um like I said, all of the every lot has been designed so that way the postr
runoff is less than the um pre-runoff rates. Um like I said, we do have to do a few soil tests out there. So I mean I guess at this point obviously we can't request the board vote to approve this. Um so at this point we can answer
questions or you know we would request a continuence so we could adjust or wait for the peer reviewer's response. >> Okay great. >> So today I did see your response to the Graves review. >> Uh Graves hasn't had time of course to
to look to review uh your comments. Um, I'm sure they'll have time before the next meeting. Um, so I would suggest the board ask their questions of the applicant and then have the public >> Mhm. >> and then we'll continue them to the next
hearing. >> Great. That makes sense. I am calling up the plans on my machine right now. So, I think we'll take a moment to look through. You don't have a large copy to
>> I do have hard copies. Yeah, >> if you have a large copy you could put us put up and put up for us and just kind of walk us through that would be very helpful. >> So we'll start with lot one. >> Sure. I'm going to fold it in half. It'll be easier.
So, for reference, all of the plans um north is straight up on the plan set. This might Oh, and there is a binder clip on the B. I I should get back to traveling with a roll of masking tape.
>> So, can everybody hear me? >> The microphone does come out. >> Yeah. >> Like Bob Barker. It always reminds me Barker. >> Thank you, Justin. >> Thank you, Mardi engineer. Um, so for reference, north is straight up on all
the plan sets. So, um, this is the most northern lot. It's lot one. Um, so we did do some soil testing out here. We do have approved septic plants from the, uh, Nshoba Board of Health currently. Um, we're proposing, like I said, it's a just a four bedroomedroom single family
house. Uh, the well is located up in here. Uh, regular paved driveway to the twocar garage. Um on the southern part of the property is where we're proposing the rain garden with an infiltration trench to catch the runoff, treat it, and then eventually ultimately flow into
the rain garden, treat it further uh with a controlled release. Um all of the roof area will be connected with gutters to a cult system located on this part of the property. Um minor tree clearing here. This is
actually an existing um farm field. So there's some minor clearing up by the road and in the back to accommodate the septic system. Um proposing erosion controls around the property. I think fairly simple. The wells going up in this area here. Stockpile location
with infiltrate uh sil fencing around it to prevent erosion runoff. Um I can answer any questions on this one if you want. So, for the public, uh, what I'm going to do is I'm going to allow the
applicant, um, to walk us through all the plans in general. So, the board has that knowledge and then I'll call for and we'll ask some questions. Then I'll call for public comment. You'll be welcome to talk about any of the lots or
the project overall at that time. >> Great. questions from the board. Um I I don't want to say lot one. I don't know the full I don't have that in front of me. But the first >> no question so far. Uh my question kind
of spans all of them. Is you're showing sparse plantings in the rain gardens. Is that the the actual plant count proposed? Looks like there's four maybe six in the really big one. >> Yes. Um we are also proposing um small
grasses like uh pocket grasses within >> at the base of the rain garden. Correct. I think that the detail should reflect all the plants, list the species and that way we can ensure that they're actually planted because if you hand this to a contractor, they're going to put those four plants in and we're going
to end up with a big dirt hole with four little plants in it. >> Yep, that's fair. move on to the next one. >> Yep. So, this is lot two. Um, just to the south of the lot one. Uh, same real
similar setup. driveway on the southern side to a single family house lot. Septics out in the back. Rain gardens at the lowest point um of discharge from the site. Same thing. Cultex system here to handle the roof runoff infiltration
um trench and then ultimately the rain garden and we'll obviously revise the the uh count plant counts. Same thing, erosion controls on the downhill side of all of um actually up into here.
Thank you. And we can go through the other two as well. Board, please stop and speak up if you have a question rather than me soliciting for each one individually. Okay. So, um lot three It's similar, but we have actually have
um two rain gardens on this one just due to the um proximity of of the septic system positioned here. We couldn't get the the storm water flows to wrap around and catch the basin back here. So, we do have a smaller rain garden up front here that'll handle this section of the
property and then a larger one back here that'll handle um the rear of the disturbed area. Same thing here. Cultex system here. um the well, septic system, limits of clearing and then the um
erosion controls. Um all of the properties we do have we're do are calling out construction entrances u with a detail on the plan. >> So permit number two and permit number three have the same plans attached to them on the portal.
I was about to bring that up that they have No, no, thank you cuz I want I'm glad to see that. I was looking through to make sure. Yeah, >> I was like, why did these two look exactly the same? >> It was a late night. I'll revise Oh, we'll have to revise them anyways and um
resubmit. So, this is lot four. This is the farthest south um one we have. Driveway on the north side here. Um, only need one basin here cuz the whole site flows nicely to the south. Um, it's
a larger basin. Uh, we have veget vegetated filter strip here. Colt system. Uh, erosion controls around it. Um, septic system will be located in the front yard on this one as opposed to the back. Wells in the back. Um,
fairly similar. >> Yep. >> Okay, great. Uh on this lot, the right of way is really funky there. So you have a much longer stretch of the driveway within the right of way and you're including storm water systems
within the right of way, the BMP, the trench drain. I don't necessarily think that's a problem, but I think you need to verify with the DPW that there isn't an issue or that there's some sort of note that this is the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain and not the
town even though it's located on the town's land. >> Fair enough. Yep, that's reasonable. So, you've gotten a couple points of feedback from the board already. Um, other questions or comments from the board at this time?
>> Are you working for the party intending on constructing these or are you working for the land owner who is selling them? >> Uh, no. We are working for the contractor who's >> And do they intend to open all four lots and just go to town? >> No, the plan is to do the first lot one
and two first. >> Okay. >> And then move to lot three and four. >> All right. I will look for public comment as well. Um if you're in the room, I'll ask you just to signal to me. Thank you. And I'll be there in one second as well. And
um if you're at home and want to uh have public comment on this, go ahead and use that hand raise feature on Zoom. Do we have people on Zoom? Well, that's easy then. Um okay, great. So, I'll invite you to come up to the front and you'll
come to the podium. You'll share your name, your street address, and let us know what you're thinking. All right. >> Um, my name is Laurianne Winchester and I live at 172 West Townsen Road. Um, our
concern is that our well is south of where their um, rain gardens are going to be. And so, how is that going to affect our wellwater? And where is where is all the water going to go? Cuz we're we're south.
We're on a hill >> and we're at the bottom of that hill. >> So, how's that going to affect our land? Um, where's the water going to go? >> I I um you know, all this extra water.
>> So, >> and our well is is there. It's right on the property line. So, how's that going to affect our well? >> What concerns do you have for your well? I just want I want to understand >> I don't know how is it going to affect our well I mean there I don't know is is
it going to affect our well >> fair so uh I want to explain a little bit about storm water permits just for your edification because we've always lived with woods we've never had development on >> on our roads so we don't know we've
lived there >> 40 plus years >> no fair >> so we don't know >> so one thank you for coming out tonight and letting us know. Two, the reason the storm water per the Lunberg actually is more aggressive than most towns in the
Commonwealth about storm water permits. >> Um, and both in terms of what can be dissolved in any water that might escape the property as well as simply we require it for projects that other municipalities
do not. And that's because as a town we've really decided we want to protect our water supply and we want to protect the environment overall and storm water is as we've seen um an ever increasing
issue with climate change and with more development and everything else. Overall, the reason the storm water permit process exists is to try to ensure to the best that anyone can ensure anything in this world um that the
development that storm water from the development will be maintained on the property and won't go influencing other things. Now, there's the the EPA has rules and regulations about that. So there it's a more complex than what I
just described, but in a nutshell, this process is to protect your property. I'm going to invite the applicant to respond. They may or may not wish to at this time, but thank you for letting us know. >> Awesome. >> So yeah, and we all the talking has to
be through the microphone because it gets recorded for TV. Um, okay. Uh so the first answer about the well typically your well is a cdriven well means a piece of steel goes all the way down into the bedrock. You're dragging water up when you drink it from an
aquifer below the bedrock. These are designed to infiltrate water. That water will stop when it hits the bedrock. So theoretically that water will never go through the bedrock into the aquifer to affect your well. That's step one. That's the first
answer. Um the second answer as far as the water coming off the property. So what we have to do and it it gets peer reviewed from another engineer. We look at the property, we run some calculations and we say it says how fast does the water leave that property. And so then what we're supposed to do, we
have to design a system, a series of rain gardens, infiltration things that can slow the water down and infiltrate a percentage of that water to say that the water then coming off the property after this is built is actually at a slower rate than what goes there now. So
that's, you know, I can design it, but that's the reason the board uses a peer reviewer, just to confirm that I'm one, I know what I'm talking about, and two, I didn't >> make something up just to appease the contractor. >> So, you do have a peer review from Graves Engineering
>> and that is available online, >> correct? >> And you prepared a response to the Graves review that Graves needs to take another look at. >> Yes, sir. and that'll happen in time for our next meeting. >> Great. Please come on up and again just
share your name and your street address with us before you begin speaking. >> Hi, my name is Karen Roberts. I represent um I'm with my mother and my sister for 172 West Townsen Road. So, I'm not sure I understood the answer to where does the rainwater like where does the water go when it's running downhill?
I understand the the the rain gardens. Um but the the rain garden wouldn't absorb all of the water. Where does it go? Where does the excess water go? >> Where does >> is this about this project in particular
or overall with rain gardens and the storm? >> No, because we are the abutters to this property. This 222 um is it 222 West Townsen Road? We are 172. And like my sister said, the the well abuts this property that he's
speaking of. >> Mhm. >> So where does the rainwater go? I just don't understand like where does it >> So >> So the Oh, sorry. Go say in in this case, I'm going to have us divide up. We're going to talk about water for a moment. I'm I'm going to restate what was said already. Um I was an educator
previously, so I love restating things to educate people. >> That's me, too. >> Oh, excellent. I taught Lemonster uh Le I taught science at Lemonster High for a number of years. Um best job I ever had. Um so when we talk about water here,
we're going to separate the notion of wellwater and runoff. And and the reason is that the wellwater is coming from deep like you said under bedrock. That is I mean that's going to be 100 200
however however far down however many feet down. Um, and that aquafer should not be getting water from the surface here. It is getting surface water because it needs to recharge. That has to get more water in the ground. That's
happening somewhere else in town and it's filtering through millions of cubic yards of sand and other substrate to get cleaned out before it gets to any of us. That's a wonderfully natural process.
Um, now the so unless there's a problem with the well casement or something, the wellwater generally speaking should be fine. For the love of God, if I'm misspeaking, you correct me. Um, now for surface water is going to be our
concern for storm water. Um, and the purpose of reviewing the storm water plan, the purpose of the rain gardens and other infiltration mechanisms are to get that water, that surface
water for standard storms, and I'm going to use standard pretty broadly there. I mean, there's always a flooding event, that's a different beast, right? But for any reasonable normal storm, the standards are designed to keep that water on the property while it
infiltrates. Now, that can be done a variety of ways. It can be done through a rain garden. It can be done through what's called country drainage, which is basically constructing and sloping the land in such a way that it just soaks in before it runs off the land without
needing additional methods. There's other techniques as well, but in theory, unless it's a really big storm event, the rain garden design should be able to maintain it. And we as a town contract
with Graves Engineering to peer review. And that means that we at the applicant's expense, not at the taxpayer expense, at the applicant's expense, an engineer that we contract with for this reviews their engineers work to make
sure that they agree with the applicant and they'll make recommendations for how things should be changed to best protect the town. Overall, I think it's a requirement of our bylaw that whatever project they put in, it cannot increase
the amount of storm water that's leaving the property right now, >> leaving the property being proposed or the property that's already there at 172. >> The property that's being proposed. So, to put a fine point on it,
>> the property is currently a mixture of fields and forest. Mhm. >> And uh the gentleman from Stoddard explained how they design and they use an algorithmic program and they say forest
takes storm water at this level and when you alter the property there's two I mean the main thing that you want to worry about is impervious surface. So your roof and your driveway for a house. So they have an underground system that
captures the gutter water from the roof and puts it into basically a big jug underground that then it makes its way back to the aquafer after going through all the substrat. And then the driveway they've proposed a trench that if I
remember correctly is about 2 ft deep filled with crushed stone. Excuse me. So the driveway runoff will catch that and it will c it gives space for that to settle and it captures some of the dirt and other things that might be on the driveway. And then the rest of
the property is lawn and rain garden and it's graded in a way that directs the heavier flow to the rain garden which is depressed and meant to hold the water and let it infiltrate. And I'm sure you have a lawn at your home and when it rains you don't get a ton of runoff. the
water hits the lawn and infiltrates back down. So, they're trying to take the condition of the forest and how the rain reacts there and they model it into the system they design to ensure that they're capturing
water at the same quantity and that the runoff rate doesn't increase. So, the rate is how quickly water leaves the property. And if it leaves at, and this isn't real numbers cuz I'm not an engineer, but a gallon an hour during a
rainstorm, they can't let it now say, "Well, we're going to discharge the same amount of water, but we're going to do it two gallons an hour." It has to remain a roughly the same. That doesn't mean that you won't see changes to the
way water happens because a forested area drains a little bit differently. They don't have to keep the exact same flow of water. They just have to keep the rate and the volume the same. >> Okay, we'll we'll m that over.
>> Yeah. Now, I'll tell you the good news is um I do not given the peer review just came back um and uh the applicants responded, but our peer reviewer hasn't had a chance to
look at the applicant's response. I um I'm not intending as chair to call for a vote and maybe the board if they really want to, but I don't think they will. I don't expect we're closing this public hearing tonight. Okay? So you have time to mul it over. Come back in presumably
two weeks whenever we continue to. So you'll have another opportunity to ask questions and get informed ahead of time. And if you have any questions that you think of between now and the next meeting on the 27th, >> send them to us at the planning
department. I'll get them to the applicant so that they can show up with answers. >> Okay. Our job as a board is to safeguard the process to make sure that everyone
basically our job as a board as a board is to make sure that everyone's following the rules and the laws that have been put forward. And in Lunenburgg, we made our law our bylaws stricter than the state requires to
further protect you. And we're also here to facilitate these discussions to make sure you can get the info you need and everything else. >> Okay. >> Thank you for your time. >> Do we have any other public comment on
222 West Townson Road? Seeing none in the room, I'm going to Still no one in Zoom. Oh, that's easy. If we get someone in Zoom uh public, just let me know because otherwise I'm not going to keep referring to it.
All right, I'm gonna turn to the board. Do we have any other questions for tonight? >> Okay, great. Um like I said, we'd like to get Graves >> Yeah. >> response. >> So, um >> we'd request a continuence.
>> Yep. you're next. Would you like to go to uh our next meeting on the 27th? >> Yeah, we're prepared for the 27th, assuming we get a response. Uh >> okay, great. >> from the peer reviewer. >> So, I move we continue the public
hearings for 222 West Townsen Road, PBSW262 through 5 to 27 April at 6:35. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor?
>> I. >> There we go. We'll see you in two weeks. >> Thank you. >> And thank you again for coming in tonight. >> All right. Zero Reservoir Road. >> Zero Reservoir Road. and
they are continued from different dates but we can look at all we can look at all the applications together correct >> yes you can >> so this is going to be um the we're continuing to look at zero reservoir
road specifically the storm water permit which is PB on open gov it's PBS255 as well as the special permit for a common driveway PBSP 2510.
>> I'm back. >> Rock and roll. >> So, for the record, Justin McCarti Engineering here tonight on behalf of the applicant. Also in the audience with me is Wes Fliss of Mccardi Engineering. So, last time I was in front of the board, I know it was a little while ago, we had the proposed development on
Goodrich Reservoir Road for the four single family homes. Three of them being on Common Drive and one being down on Reservoir Road. So, just to refresh the board, this is the plan with the common driveway as well as the single family
lot down here. Since then, with questions, comments, concerns raised by the board, I did go back to Mr. Powell, the owner, express those concerns from the board and we looked at various ways that we could address the concerns
raised by the board with that. You see the plan in front of you now. So, this plan eliminated the common driveway and now we're proposing three single family driveways in the same vicinity as the three single family lots with the common driveway previously. One
thing to note here, and as you can see, I didn't color it. The lot four on the bottom between the previous plan and the one you see now did not change. All that was modified between the revisions was the three houses up on Goodrich in the
removal of the common driveway. So now going from the top down, we have the first driveway there that weaves up the hill to the single family home. We have the second driveway in the middle that goes up to the house in the back. And then we have the third driveway which goes almost in parallel with the second
one there. you're going to be coming in with a storm water permit for that fourth lot that >> this is included in the stormwater permit that we've already submitted. So, the original storm water permit was for the four for the four. The common driveway permit was specifically for the
three. That's where we started doing permits and >> t you no longer need the special permit for the driveways. >> That's the intent. Correct. >> Okay. So with this again drywalls for the single family homes pone diaphrames
for the driveways those have been sized for the 1 in one thing to add here this over with me. So all these driveways come down through the piece diaphragm. They get to Goodrich and we're proposing stone depressions shown
here, here, and here with RCP pipe proposed between them and then RCP pipe here with a flared end similar to what we had before. Flip this around just so you guys can see. Similar here. So, we're still
discharging the water to the same spot to the corner behind the easement here, which eventually gets down to the wetland. So, we didn't change the discharge point. We still maintain the water quality volume. We just change the driveways and how it's conveyed to that.
>> So, have you prepared a revised drainage report? >> Yes. So, that was provided. Lee had asked me for that. I did provide that in an email. That's what went to Graves Engineering. You received on that email, I believe Thursday. >> Y
>> Graves Engineering did review it. They did send out a letter this afternoon. I think around 1 2:00 is when we got it. They were satisfied with everything that was provided in the revised submission. They did have two comments regarding the
change of the plan. Nothing regarding the drainage. They were satisfied with the updated drainage analysis. The only two comments that they had were additional comments from April 13th regarding the stone depressions as shown. One of them being they just want to see
detail to make sure the size is type of stone things of that nature. The other one and Mr. Bernie just pointed out in the previous hearing that these are partially located within the right of way. So on the plan you can see in red
is the updated property lines as well but they are h halflo located maybe 3/4 located within right away. The comment from the comment from Graves Engineering was
to push those back onto the property. We can easily address those comments. I see no issue with those. So with that, if the board has any questions, happy to answer based on the revised submission.
>> So just looking in our open gov files for a minute. >> I had a >> I couldn't find out. >> See, I had a little bit of trouble finding it in our files. It looks like it's under revi the plans as shown there
look like they're under revised compiled plan set. Latest version looks to be the new uh calculations. >> Yes, >> version one is the site plan or the storm water plan. >> They're also in our folder. >> Oh, sure.
>> Oh, okay. I never think to look there cuz I always look in open gov by default. >> Fair. Okay. Just wanted to help us all make sure we have our copies too. So, you designed those stone depressions
at that location for a reason. I'm >> Yep. >> inferring. >> Yep. >> Um, what's the impact of moving them within the property line? >> The grading on site's going to get tighter than what we already show to
bring those back. So we did again house location, driveway location, provide the offsets to grade and then grain down from the proposed elevations to the road. You can see this back over. You can see where we end
at the road. We're 320 319 and change 319 here, 318 and we're about 321 in here. So as we're stepping down with the road to meet the grades to tie off on site, that's where the grading ended. So the other reason is having them here.
We're trying to catch as much of the water that would sheet off here without taking what's coming on off of Goodrich. >> So trying to keep the water on Goodrich >> on the road and trying to keep as much of ours on within our storm conveyance
as well. The other thing is with them down here within the rightway, we can also capture the aprons of our driveways if we push them back up on the property. Yes, they're out of the rightway. We don't have to worry. DPW doesn't have to worry about things like that, but then we're allowing a little bit more of the
driveways out into the road. >> And are these a crush or are they like a 6 minus? So the idea would probably be probably 6 miles something a little bit larger because it during normal rain events it doesn't see
large amount but at the same time if there is a flood issue we don't want those being washed out and >> something like crush stone you have that potential. >> Yep. >> Um and without the detail how deep are they? >> They're approximately 2 ft deep. Couple
feet. And the reason being is we had to get deep enough so that we had the minimum cover for an RCP pipe >> underneath the driveway and make the inverts work. And is there a
rush to build these houses? Is it better for these to be in the right of way and seek an easement from town meeting? like that like what's the is there is it going to damage the project to move them on or is there a path where
you can seek an alternative? >> So obviously it's an expansive project regarding the earth work that's going to be need to be done the tree gun things like that >> you know the owner and the client so in
regards to the rush >> you know the answer to that. So again, we can move them back. We can address Graves's comment. It's not an issue for us. It's a revision of the plan, but I just wanted to make the board aware of
>> No, I understand that you can move them back. >> My question is, is it a better project with them not moved back? And is this something that is worth like is the juice worth the squeeze to ask the question about an
easement or is it no we just want to build the houses we'll get them on our site and it'll be effectively the same >> I think more more so the >> and I don't know that you have an answer >> no no I don't have a direct answer from him >> he needs to go house
>> yes and that's the biggest thing the the one the one at the bottom And again with the Somar permit tied tall floor, that's where the rush is coming. >> So it's more so we want to get it approved so he can start on the bottom. >> Mhm. >> And then we obviously we can go back and
revisit the three up top. But again, if the board is comfortable with a little bit of that, the driveway being let go to the street, we can pull them on the property. If the board would prefer to see us capture
the entire driveway, then we would push to have the stone depressions where they're shown on the plan. And I do from the one that you just had before you, I do think if something from DPW that said, "Nope, we don't have an
issue." Yes, it's the responsibility of the homeowner for those. I think they're a little bit different because the other one is driveway adjacent and one could sort of make the claim that it's part of the driveway. This is a bit more expansive and it's it's essentially a
BMP in and of itself and I would think you would need an easement at a minimum. Um, my question or I guess the reason I asked is if you're connecting them by RCP, Yep. >> you're worried about driveway wash out or connectivity between these different
stone pits and if you pull them back, is there now a wash out issue for your aprons down the gutter of the road? I wouldn't say so because just the amount of apron that from bring them from where they are onto
the property. >> It's not a huge It's not like half >> you're also at the bottom of a >> of a hill >> a road that just kind of continually slopes down. >> Yeah. So again, the intent of those was to capture everything that's coming from our property. So if again if they're on
our side of the property line, it's still going to capture the majority of everything from our site. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't have a lot of concern about the small amount of apron in the roadway. It's no different than in any other project where it's a rain garden or something else within the
property. >> Um, and not being a professional in this, I just want to make sure I understand correctly. All three storm water systems are tied together. Correct. >> You're regarding the depressions.
>> Uh, yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, going from the top down, you have the small depression there. You have a 12-in RCP between >> y >> one and two. Two is a depression, and then there's an additional one between two and three. And then from the third
depression, there's a pipe that comes out. And you can see the little gray triangle down there on the page. >> Mhm. >> A little bit right around where the easement is for the I think it's utility there. That's where that water from the depressions will discharge. And again,
same spot as the rain garden as previously shown. And then that all flows down to the wetland. >> Yep. And um I I didn't it may well be there. I didn't look for in particular cuz I didn't process this until a few
moments ago. Um do is do we have the proper paperwork and everything explaining the uh com what's the term the when you set up the pseudo condo agree the the pseudo HOA agreement >> the association
>> yeah yeah so you have the association to deal with the combined maintenance and everything is that paperwork in as well in the file >> so there's no HOA again the intent is excuse Excuse me. The intent is for these to be single family homes, each
one their own driveway. So, if anything, there would be an easement for this between the Storm R&PS for maintenance. That's that's what it would end up being because
again the way that they're shown is driveway one maintains the majority of the first all the first stone depression majority of the pipe including the outlet and then there's an overlap between where the property would extend into the road between two and three and
then again three to >> the end would be the responsibility of three. So the way we would ideally do this is that once ANR is approved the lot to create there would be a collective easement between the three deed documents for
>> that easement would be fully described in each property owner's deed. >> Yes. >> I I feel like in the past and um board members please correct me on this because I may I may be off base. I feel
like when we've had the connected systems before, we've required um an association of sometime some kind to deal with the communal maintenance um because if there isn't then if the
dude dudet or gender neut neutral doodelino um and who's downhill the most stops maintaining their section, it creates a ripple effect uphill. >> So, this board has typically done that
when there's been common driveways, small cluster developments similar to that. Previously on Northfield, we had one where we did have a pipe cross over someone else's driveway and it was tied in together. We showed an easement for that to the maintenance as well as
around the outlet for maintenance for said lot. I know I believe it was crossing Malpus was another one where we had pipes crossing discharging onto other properties and we showed deed easements specifically around those BMPPS giving
5 ft on each side of the pipe or something something for maintenance access as well as for them to maintain the outlets. So, I've seen this board do grant easements and then again in this case where it is all at the end of the driveway and it's in call it straight
line for the sake of the conversation. One simple easement to blanket this would in my sense it'd be easier to show and describe rather than trying to set up a specific HOA. My concern there, and
I'm I'm open to having this, I'm open to being convinced that this doesn't have to be a concern, is again, if someone downhill doesn't can doesn't maintain their system and their piping correctly,
it to my and correct me if I'm wrong, that's going to screw up the uphill sections. And then we have multiple properties that are no long that are potentially no longer draining correctly because one person isn't maintaining
theirs. >> So it go ahead. Okay. So again with this easement it a blanket easement. So every deed so there's going to be three deeds. Y >> each deed is going to have a deed right to maintain the stone depressions
across. So if Mrs. Smith at the bottom doesn't clean out the flared end. The intent would be that Mr. Smith number two in the middle can't go down and maintain it and clean it. It wouldn't be segmented to one.
>> Well, if I own that one, I'm not going to do a thing. >> I was going to say that's >> Well, and I I think that the other concern I think the the situations you described were a pipe that was there for discharge. This is the actual BMP
jointly crossing three lots and there being a need for a mechanism to fund and monitor the operation maintenance and just normal upkeep of it.
Um, and I know that this board in the past had ANR lots where originally the storm water system was designed with a basin of some nature that crossed multiple lots and they at that time also requested a homeowners or other
maintenance association and the design was changed to capture that. If if this were it's to me this isn't just a simple we're just conveying a little bit of
water. This is a significant piece of a three- tiered storm water system between the trenches along the driveways and the cults for the roofs. If this is removed or not maintained and everybody throws
their hands up in the air and says, "Well, we're just not going to do it." Then the town's stuck with a already difficult intersection being inundated with additional water. For the record, Wesley Fliss of Mccardi
Engineering. And so one of the things that Justin and I had worked on when we were doing the drainage for the updated plans here is our concern uh necessary reason for the smaller storms. And so Justin had touched on it, right? We looked we had designed this for everything for up to the 100-year storm event. And so anything up to the 50-year storm event is being basically recharged
for the driveways. It was the larger events that we were concerned about coming all the water coming out to the to the street, right? And so those stone depressions out there aren't going to see a lot of water during the smaller storm events. For your normal storm event, it's not going to see a lot of water. So we're not going to see a lot of impact to those. One of the reasons
we chose to armor it was for that long-term maintenance so that these people don't have to go out there and worry about erosion. Um, if you see a lot of the country drainage that you see that's been there for years, you have erosion issues. With the larger stone on these and armoring the the depressions
here, we don't see an issue uh further down the road typically on something like this for maintenance purposes. So, twofold, right? We're not designing it with a grass swale. We're looking at these as stone swailes. I know we call them depressions because that's how they set up because the driveways are creating that depression. Um and then
secondly, we're not seeing a lot of water getting to them on your normal rain event. They're really there for the larger rain events such that the water is not going out to the street is being channelized and brought back to the wetlands. And so we shouldn't see a lot of need for maintenance. But as Justin said, there's going to be an easement
spread across all those lot those three lots that no matter who it is, lot one, two, or three can maintain it as needed. But we don't see this as being a large maintenance issue here. Now, if um if you want to see the wording of the deed, we can cert you know, we can show you that as these get moved along. But
the the intent here is we were trying to make it as easy as possible for any of these homeowners so there's not issues down the road. Um and that was the thought there is to uh make this as easy as we could for not only the the design, but also for future maintenance purposes. So,
>> yeah. And that description actually concerns me a little bit more. Not because I think it's a bad idea, but when a homeowner buys a property and they don't see this as a critical function to their property, it's, oh, well, it's the edge. We don't need to
clear the leaves off of that. We really like the rustic look. We're on Goodrich Street. And, you know, it's essentially trap rock, so it's meant to hold and capture stuff that gets into it. So the clogging effect becomes real if people aren't
clearing leaves or you know m looking at what the snow plow pushed up when it came around that corner. >> Um so that's why I I have a little bit of trepidation. So just to remind the board again with the stormar special
permit typically one of the conditions this board requires is the attachment of the operation maintenance plan >> as part of the revised drainage analysis submit to graves there was an update operation maintenance plan which includes the maintenance of in this case
I labeled them as at grade basins but stone depressions so that is tied to the approval it's tied to the deed we still are maintaining that same step. So when Mr. Smith or Mr. Joe or whoever buys the property that on& and M is tied to the
property as standard practice for this board and then again you go with the easement it go through all that. So we're not changing anything that the board typically asks of us. >> Would that operations manual would that
be attached to the purchase and sale agreement for each lot? >> It can. That's again typically this board has asked in the past that even though we show the O andM in our compiled report >> the board doesn't want to see a 300page
document attached to an approval. So the board asks us to pull out the O andM and submit directly so that way it can get attached to the permit and and so get attached to the deed. So we're more than happy to pro provide that and then that can be attached to the property. So
anytime that the D gets searched, that document would be attached. >> I hear all of the logic in this setup and I love that the shared component is designed for as infrequent use as
feasible because that that does limit the maintenance. I remain concerned that we're setting up three neighbors for litigation in the future when someone doesn't do their part.
Um, I would again I I would rather see an association here uh just for the maintenance of I don't mean a whole HOA hallelu but an association set up for the shared
maintenance of the shared components. That way we're not setting up someone for failure and it probably wouldn't be the current purchasers. I'm thinking see people stay in their houses on average 7
years. So, seven yearsish, someone else moves in plus or minus, you have another change over or two and people don't know that they're b they're not going to know they're buying into something where the
um the downhill neighbor may not be doing their part. And yeah, no, they know what the maintenance is in that that documentation's there, but no homeowner reads all that initially. They're going, "Oo, I got," even though they should, they're going, "Oo, I got a
new home." Um, am I off base in this concern, Stephen? I'm open to being told. Um, >> no, I don't think so. >> Okay, Mr. Chair, can I just make a recommendation? >> Yeah. >> Instead of doing that, because uh >> it's such a small
um I guess lift with regards to what the maintenance is going to be there >> and even I know that you have the best intention of trying to make sure this is done. Can we tie uh each depression to each lot in your conditions instead that lot one is depression one and lot two has
depression two and lot three has depression three in the sub subsequent uh culvert so that it's spelled out who has ownership of each depression instead of trying to put it all into one association or one HOA um which for this
seems like a heavy lift for what we're looking at I think it'd be better just to tie each depression to each homeowner so that it's easier that if I buy lot one, I know I have to take care of depression one and my culvert under my driveway that's under my job because really what happens is if lot one only
gets built the depression two and depression three aren't going to get built and neither are those culverts, >> right? And so now lot one is really tied to their own depression in their culvert under that road. And then if lot two gets built, depression two has to be built and that second culbert has to be built. And then vice, you know, then
down the road with regards to lot three, depression three will be built, the culbert under the road, and then discharge out toward the wetlands. And so we'd I'd rather tie it to each homeowner with their depression required to build their lot than have to do an
association for something like this because it really it muddies the water when you when you sell these lots. And I know yes it's going to be an association for a very small piece but it's still convolutes paperwork. I mean you you know when you buy a property now you have an HOA and all this and it just
becomes more uh you know cumbersome. >> I'd rather tie the depressions per lot and leave it at that. >> Now which is the downhill most lot again? >> Lot three. >> Lot which sorry >> three >> three. Okay great. >> So I guess I guess my concern remains
that >> we could tie the maintenance to each lot. >> Yeah. And >> but then if lot three isn't doing their jobs >> it doesn't just impact lot three. >> Yep. >> If they're derelict in their duty. >> Yes.
>> To my understanding. It will also potentially impact lots two and one as things get backed up. >> And you could say you could say for all of them. Yes. If they don't >> Yeah. >> For one if it they don't take care of theirs it could add some water out to
the street. Correct. Yeah. I mean, it happens for any any country type drainage. Um, back to what Justin had talked about, but there is a maintenance program in place for this project. I'm not sure uh in the past if you've made it a requirement that the board sees that maintenance report every year. I
can't remember if that's the condition, right? And so, you're going to see that report every year too, right? So, not that you guys want to be policing that, but you're going to see that the fact that these guys are taking care of their >> their drainage out there. >> So, you actually hit you hit on my concern right there. very effectively.
We're not policing it, >> right? >> Like that's not as a board, we have taken steps over the past several years to increase the town's ability to know what's going on and what should be happening with these
and give us some teeth. But I'm just >> I'm not I'm not ready to vote on this based on the moving of the depressions and the need for a detail. So, I guess I'd like to see what they're proposing
as far as the language of this easement that would tie it because conceptually I'm kind of on the fence and without knowing and understanding what the language is, I I don't know that I could agree to it.
>> I I would need the easement language regardless. Yeah. >> Well, yeah. at min. Um, >> so if we have them put together the easement language, do you want me to run it by town council or >> uh that would be great. >> Yeah. I mean,
I I'm I mean, putting keeping my cards on the table because there's no reason not to. I am going to be an uphill cell um without shared maintenance. I'm not saying I can't be convinced. I'm very
open, but I'm very concerned about we we put all this effort into storm water and it's so easy for the people who purchase the properties to then screw it up uh
innocently >> um just because life gets in the way >> that I I want to make it as foolproof as possible on that end. Uh I I it may be that >> so I'm going to play devil's advocate for you a second. Okay. So if I look at
this the main point of the driveways treatment is the stone trench along the driveway right that's creating most of the treatment and infiltration for these driveways. So, you know, I don't not I am not asking you to do this, but by your rationale,
you're saying now if everything's tied together, if lot two doesn't maintain their driveway diaphragm, you know, it's going to impact lot 3's, you know, ability to to have proper drainage along the street. I mean, >> to be frank, it may
>> that So, this is where >> frankly, I would prefer that actually. I I I know that's these systems are so wonderfully complex. It's a testament to modern engineering that we can do this. It's a testament to your training and the
amount that you've learned and the effort you've put in to be able to make these systems that can do what they're supposed to do with water. The other side of that is it's so easy for people who aren't educated, which is
going to be 99.7% of homeowners, to then mess it up. I prefer structures in place to remove that whenever possible. So what you say is, well, this would be the kind of logical
conclusion. I agree. And if I had my way, like if I could just set I'd say that's what we should be doing. I at least want to see that for the shared component because that's at least one step >> preserved. Again, I can be convinced
otherwise. >> Yeah. >> But I have some real reservations. >> Okay. And and the reason I asked the question, so the applicant and wish he was here tonight cuz I'm sure he'd be voicing his frustration with you right the second is we were in front of you for a common driveway for a couple
months and getting a lot of push back with a common driveway and a common driveway would have the HOA and the right and all these common components put into place with one driveway and one drainage system and because of all that push back and because of what he's looking to do out here now now we're in front of you for three driveways instead
of the the common driveway to >> I to get away from the common driveway. The push back was against the location of the common driveway and the volume of traffic. >> I love common driveways. I think overall common driveways are
in isolation. A common driveway in exactly the same spot as three driveways entering a common driveway would generally be safer. So, the problem isn't with the common driveway. Like Mr. Bernie said, "Our
concern was the location of where it came out and how that was going to interplay with traffic and everything else." Um, the objection isn't to a common driveway overall. And frankly, we didn't even say that we wouldn't approve it there. We asked for an alternatives analysis as to why it
couldn't be that we could tangibly review, not just, oh, we looked at it and it didn't work and instead we got three or four driveways. And if that's the way you want to go, that's fine. But that's a choice. And so that choice
results in this and there are fallout to that. I mean, you also said if you tie each house to one of the swailes, two of the swailes are on lot two. So you're either going to need a construction
easement post sale for two if three isn't built yet or you're going to need to build it and say eventually someone else is going to be responsible for the maintenance of that but until that happens maybe you're responsible for it. So there are additional compon in maintenance easements over lot one
for lot two for that depression number two. Yes. And the same thing for you know uh depression number three would have that cross easements for construction and maintenance. Yes. Yeah. And we understand that part of it that you know the land plan will show those easements. Um but the driveways are all
separate now and all the drainage regards to the driveways and the houses are all separate now. Right. So um they're better for the better that they don't interface with the swailes at the end because now all the drainage is tied together through those swailes.
And again, like I said, the reason for the swailes has we could eliminate the swailes alto together, but then the larger storm events would run out to the edge of the road and out along the out to the shoulder of the road >> and the calculations would then be
>> and we would show that and it would just not be as controlled as it is right now. We think this is a better option. Um, and so that's why we showed it this way because we were trying to be a little, you know, we were trying to, uh, better engineer this, right, from a standpoint
of, uh, long-term of these driveways in in the roadway in this location. >> So, let's try to give these folks some clear guidance on how to proceed. >> Mhm. Um, you've been here sitting here hearing
our concerns. I I would actually I would look for I would ask for, if you don't mind, a summary of our concerns as you've heard them. If that doesn't work, that doesn't work. But I'd like to make sure we're
all kind of on the same page with what we've been saying. And I think any one of us might miss a component there. >> So the vast majority of the storm water is going to be handled on the property. >> It's just those large storm events that you've designed the the the front of the
property with the interconnecting >> correct >> swell. >> Yes. Um, >> I I do understand that uh maybe three property owners down the road after purchasing one of these lots isn't going to know jack about the operation and
maintenance responsibilities. Um, I'm not going to make this call for you. I I I think there's a valid argument either way here. Mhm. I >> I think my clear direction from me is I want to see if you're going to move the
trenches on on site. I want to see what that looks like. I want to see the details and grading and make sure that that works. I want to see your proposed language for the easement. Uh I'm probably not as hard as hell as Matt on the association, but or as the chair,
but I do want to understand what the proposal is. It's not something I'm willing to say we condition. I want to have the the language in hand and have council say yes, this works for this purpose.
>> Okay. So, if you can get me draft uh the draft deed language, I'll run it by town council. I'd also like to um we have a set of standard conditions that go with every storm water permit. I
want to send those over to Graves and ask if they have any sightsp specific conditions that they think would be appropriate for that site. I think all of this is going to take isn't going to be able to get completed in two weeks time unless
well that was going to be my question for you. It's from our standpoint we're going to move quickly on this. It's going to be how quickly can town council get back to us. And the reason I asked the question is we are we are now in the construction season. our our client wants to get going out here and building and and >> I I'm going to imagine town council is
going to want two weeks >> to put together a response. >> Well, we'd like to be on the next agenda at least. >> Yeah. Can we if it comes in fine? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If it comes in prior to the meeting, if not
is what it is. And again, I don't want you to get hung up that I've used the word association a lot because I'm not a professional here. I only have so many tools in my tool box. I am sure more exist.
Um, it may be that the wording of the easement does make me go, okay, that's fine. It may be that there's another way for there to be I I don't know this. Okay, this is where I turn to the professionals. There may be another way to have a common fund everyone has to
feed into to pay for the maintenance of um of the shared component. I don't know the right solution there. I have my concern. I can be convinced it isn't a big enough concern to wor to worry and it I can also be convinced here's the
way to handle it that's a lot easier um than association and I'm fine with that. Don't get hung up on that word in particular that's come out of my mouth. >> Yeah. Just something that legally ties the maintenance and the ownership to
between the three laws. However, >> Yeah. So that one person can't screw up everyone or leave only one of them with the bill. >> Yes. >> Yes. Now how whatever that looks like I I'm not an expert. I'm happy. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Understood. >> Great. All right. Um I am going to look for public comment because this is a public hearing. I assume we still have no one in the Zoom because it's as been a while. >> Someone joined but not
>> okay. Uh do we have any public comment here in the bill in the room? No. Okay. Great. All right. In that case, >> um >> Mr. Chair, before we close, can I just ask a odd question for you then? >> Yeah. So in kind of what you just talked
about instead of um having association or whatever the a group of all three if the applicant is willing to tie one lot to responsible to handle all the drainage maintenance for everything in the street and obviously he's selling the lots
would that be something that >> I give us a proposal I I >> I just asked the question I'm going to take my >> if it was the uh downslope most lot think >> write up something. >> I'm I'm open. I I want to make sure my
concern again is that >> somebody Yeah. is I wanted to be really clear how this responsibility lies. I'm really open on how that works. I feel bad for the person who gets stuck with all of it. >> But then again, if you've agreed to it,
you've agreed to it, right? And if the maintenance is as low as you anticipate it would be, which I believe you are. Okay. I say if in the general sense, then >> I mean, would that stop me from buying one of the properties? >> No, it wouldn't. >> Right. >> So, no, I'm I just want to make sure
it's taken care of. I am not really picky how. >> Okay. I just I again asked the question cuz just trying to think outside the box here on trying to make this thing work. >> Great. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Wonderful. So, you would like uh you'd like to get it sounds like you'd like to
be continued to our meeting on the 27th in the hopes we can get this >> Yep. And TBD from legal counsel on a response. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> All right. I move we continue Zero Reservoir Road PBS255
to 27 April at 6:35. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. uh while we're still here and while the hearing is still open on the special permit, is that moving forward? Are you withdrawing it? Are you keeping
it in your pocket? >> For right now, I'd like to keep it in the pocket. So, keep it continued to the next meeting and then I'll talk to Mr. Pow at that time and if he decides to withdraw it, I'll send you a letter formally requesting. I move we continue
Zero Reservoir Road PBSP 2510 to 27 April at 6:35 p.m. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? I >> I >> Great. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. And I move we continue 860 New West Towns and Road, PBSA 261, PBSW261, and PBSP 261 to
>> I didn't read the letter. >> April 27th >> until 27 April at 6:05 p.m. >> I'll second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Great. Um, okay. That clears out our
public hearings for tonight. Uh, we are on to decisions and business at 181 Electric A. That's PBSW249. Uh, we have the bond for a storm water work extension. So, if I could just give
a brief recap of where things stand. Um, the applicant is seeking an occupancy permit for 181 Electric Avenue. There's still some storm water work to be done out there. Uh Graves has been
out there twice. The first inspection identified some work to be done and um Mr. Misau took care of it uh fairly quickly. Uh Graves went out there again, I think last week. You've got the
inspection reports as part of your package. um and uh has taken care of the immediate things. There's still some work to be done and he thinks that the bond amount
of uh roughly $21,000 would be enough to cover uh the remaining work. At our last meeting, it was asked that we have require a cash bond with a 30% escalator.
Um, subsequently, our building commissioner went out there uh last week, identified a few more problems. I believe he went out there today. I sent you an email indicating that um those problems have been substantially
corrected. Um so, Mr. M is here tonight to ask for a bond that he can post uh which will enable him to get a certificate of occupancy for 181
Electric Avenue. Do you have anything to add sir? >> Hi everyone. So Masud Brazin from Alpha Design. I think you explained everything so far. So we had some corrections today as well. I'm glad Brian sent you the
images and mentioned in the email. So, yep. >> I'm looking for to put the bond and get the certified occupancy if you guys have no comments. So, you've seen the Graves review and I sent you uh the building commissioner's comments this morning in
an email. Uh so, it's if you've got any questions or concerns, now would be the time to bring them up. Yes. >> And eventually you're going to be coming back before us for a similar bond for
189 Electric Avenue. >> So is that yours as well? >> Yes. On 17th I scheduled Grave Engineering to come for another inspection. >> So I will schedule another one maybe end of the April. So if we try to do this
one the second lot so 189 electric a different way and having graves engineering come in there often. So if we need to do proposal bound, yes, I will. >> Okay, great. >> I try to finish it, but if you need >> to get all the work done and
>> yes, that's my effort. >> And they corrected the issues identified in the 319 Graves site visit. Uh, and Graves was okay in in agreement with the bond estimate as as a valid amount of
quantities. And if I may, Chair, uh, Dan Shen with Haley Ward. Um, I just wanted to point out as well, I'll put my camera on. Um, as part of Graves Engineering's, um, review of that bond, they did also mention that the
21,000 did also include that 30% escalator. Um, just just for the record, that's all. >> Yep. >> That's one I wanted to mention, too. Yes. So, we do have a bond form. If we get the uh the the check for the bond, I
would fill out that bond form and bring it over to our business office and set it up as as a cash bond. >> Okay. >> All right. Questions or thoughts from the board?
Uh I would say that it would be end of calendar year before I was willing to release the bond since it's for lman and seed and we need to get through two growing seasons to ensure that it's stabilized and doesn't need
additional work just for the applicant's information. >> Okay. >> When they come to the town for bond release we would have graves review. Yes. >> Yeah. >> I just don't want to see a a request in
August because I'll be less likely to look favorably upon that. >> Yeah. Understood. >> All right. I move that we accept the bond for 181 Electric A in the amount of $21,260
to be paid by cashier's check. >> I'll second. moved and seconded. All in fa Ze. >> Yep. That >> covers. Okay. All in favor? >> I I >> Thank you so much. >> I'll fill out the paperwork tomorrow. I
I can't remember if it requires your signature or not. If it does, I will have you sign when you bring in the check. >> Okay. >> And we'll bring it right over to town hall and get it deposited and then you can seek your occupancy. >> Okay. Awesome. Thank you so much. I appreciate you guys. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay, we are on to board discussions and we'll I think just take these in order. Fee schedule. Let me get there. So, yeah, I tried to simplify your fee
schedule. I don't know why you called out um a set of fees for every type of plan you have under the sun when a plan review is a plan review is a plan review. So I
tried to simplify it and I think I did questions comments. No, I think it looks good. Uh I'm inferring you also did a very cursory comparison to similar or abuing
communities. >> Yes, >> that was going to be my question. >> Um >> certainly looks that way by the numbers >> in terms of fee schedule with uh the town I worked for previously and I looked at a bunch of towns surrounding so I'm familiar what other towns are
charging for this and you'll see that I did bump up our fees here. That's That was I didn't think it was arbitrary. That doesn't feel very like you. >> Mhm. Um
I'm I'm guessing the answers now, but I do want to ask is is there anything in the schedule you kept or because it's just the way we look to be doing things and overall you think that we should really be steering differently or are you happy with the schedule you put forward to us?
>> I am I am happy with it. I think it makes it a lot easier for applicants to understand. Um, one minor zoning amendment that I want to go to the fall special town meeting for is
um the storm water management permit which is set by the bylaw. I'd like to change that bylaw to have us set the application fee so that we can update it periodically
>> just like we're updating these other fees. So, >> I think that makes sense. >> Yeah. That's it. >> Great. Do you need a vote? The fee schedule is proposed. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I.
>> Okay, we'll get that up online. >> And next we have the right of first refusal for 35 Lemonster Road. >> Um, so we did not come to an official decision on this. Um
it's so the property is directly across from the little gazebo patch. Um there's some pros, there's some cons. It doesn't it it looks like we are going to refuse the
property. Um it doesn't meet >> When you say we, are you talking the open space >> open space committee? Yep. Sorry. um it doesn't meet enough of our criteria
um to be picked up. Um which I'm a little bit bummed about personally because like I feel like we could set up a crossing to that gazebo area and then it's basically all of the internal area
there. Um that's kind of where we stand at the moment. Um it it looks like we're going to recommend to uh pass on our uh right of refusal. >> And this is the house and the land
associated with it, the greenhouse. >> Yep. >> Yeah. When when I looked at the property, my I looked at it and went, "Ooh, that that would be conceptually nice, except there's no
I guess with the greenhouse maybe." I was looking at saying there's no particular access or >> There isn't. Um, the former owner of the house had been kicking tires and trying to get the town to buy it for years for
a million or more dollars with the threat that there was a 20 lot subdivision there. >> U, but there, if I recall correctly, there isn't adequate frontage to keep the house and create a road.
>> Sure. Mhm. U at $400,000 it might be attractive to remove the house but it is a qualifying property in the APD so that can work in our favor currently. >> I mean and
if it gets frankly if it if it gets developed it's not really the end of the world either. It's I mean it'd be >> guess it depends who you talk to. I I How could It's only a 17 acre property, isn't it? How could you do Oh, is the minimum lot size smaller?
>> Oh, is it seven? I thought it was >> I thought it was more. >> I thought it was uh upwards of 20 or 30. >> I could be misremember. I looked at it the other day. I could be misremembering. >> And e either way, it's in that ballpark.
>> Yeah. like 20 was everything was going to work out perfectly. And we all know that that's always how subdivisions work. >> Mhm. >> Oh, yeah. It's 17.57. >> Oh, okay.
>> I think there may have been another piece that somebody Maybe not. I don't know. >> But I mean, it's it's what it is. >> Yeah. Um, I mean, for $400,000, we probably
couldn't get a better parcel for town hall. >> You said we probably couldn't. >> Yeah, I probably shouldn't make >> I like that. Hate that you said that unfortunately because now I look at it and go well
>> new middle school or new new elementary school senior housing >> sugar booger. >> Mhm. >> I was thinking of it just for conservation purposes in my mind. >> I think that's what all the abutters
would love to see. Uh there was controversy about a decade and or more ago about a sawmill being operated there and whether that fit into the agricultural nature of the parcel. Um I
I I don't think it's a great piece of land. I think it's challenging. It sits in a bowl. It's an old agricultural field. Um it is in the sewer district. It is in the water district. So, you're not up against it for
septic systems for housing. Um, I think if our fi financial condition were not what it was, there may be a more viable argument for let's find the money for it. I think in the situation we're in, while there may be viable
planning purposes for it, I don't know that it's a it's something to stretch for. I think I'm in the same boat. I just really you get one shot at these things. You're
correct. You do. And I hate to see us. I mean, the classic penny wise, pound foolish. >> Can I >> There's more than a penny. >> Let me ask a question here. Um, in other towns that I worked for,
uh, at at the annual town meeting, they would set aside anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 and put it into an open space acquisition fund. Do we have such an animal here in >> No.
Well, I open space might want to consider that. Um 5,000 to 10,000 >> as a request. Um isn't a big lift at usually at town meetings. Um, and
although you're not going to be able to do a lot with 5 to$10,000, if you let that accumulate over two or three years, you've you've at least got enough money to buy an appraisal of an of a property.
And once you have an appraisal for a property, you can contact one of our regional land trusts and see if they might be willing to write a state uh land acquisition grant
um and help the town come up with some money to to buy it. So that might be an idea for open space going down the road. We could also pass CPA and have open space fund through that at some point.
>> Oh, small towns like ours love CPA. >> CPA, >> uh, Community Preservation Act. >> Oh, okay. >> Um, yeah, there's probably no need right now. >> I don't think that there's not a need. I
don't know that it's a >> in competing priorities it falls quickly down the ladder. >> I that no I agree that that's really what I mean comparative. >> So >> it just bums me out how many of these uh writer first refusals we've gone through
and then immediately like oh no we're putting 15 or 10 houses here. >> Mhm. >> Never mind. All right. I would look for a motion. Uh what are we motioning? Because this hasn't actually been recommended to us
yet. >> Yes. It >> Well, this has been given to us as the planning board. >> Historically, the planning board has re relied on open space as a information point to its recommendation to the
select board. Uh the select board has also historically asked for open space to weigh in directly even though they're a subcommittee. Um even if they don't function that way all the time which is kind of a good thing and hopefully will
change. Um, I I would move that we um inform the select board that we don't see a need to pursue or >> we don't feel that it's an appropriate
to pursue this in the current financial environment regardless of potential planning purposes. >> Second. I like that wording. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> I
>> um and uh open space also um wasn't going to get to it again till your next meeting, but um they >> um the uh town manager admin assistant
Melissa believes they needed that info sooner. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> So, all right. Now, revised storm water permit standard conditions. So, I got some comments from Adam
and I've integrated them into our uh draft conditions of approval for storm water permit. And I talked with our building commissioner about them and we we both seem to think
that this takes care of our storm water permitting system from from uh from cradle to grave. Um, so unless you've got any further uh edits you'd like to offer,
have at it. >> Uh, no, I think it looks good. >> Um, have you had a chance to look at the other document I sent you? >> Yes, and I think that is something that we would give to the applicant along with the decision.
>> Correct. I just I think the board should adopt that and I I think we may want council to just say that he's on board with it. Um >> how about I submit that language to our town council? >> That's Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean it's it's currently used in
another community. So I know it has passed a town council test, but um I know our council is particular in his own way. So, I would rather just be sure he finds it defensible. And >> I've got an appointment with town
council tomorrow afternoon. I'll give him that language and we can take care of that part of it at uh our next meeting. >> And I think if if he's good with it, we should add a condition that prior to occupancy that
be recorded as the final addition in this. Yes, I I thought I did that with condition number 39. >> Oh, you did. I'm sorry. I missed that. >> So, you do want to hold off on this until you get town council's opinion on
the deed language or >> I would say I'm good with this as it is and just make sure that he's good with that. uh because I think as we start issuing these permits that are in front of us, that'll be an important part of
those those approvals. Okay, I'm comfy with that. Um we talked we talked about this briefly as well. So yeah. Okay. I process everything. All right. Anything else? >> Ask for a motion. I was going to say,
>> oh, I move we accept the conditions as presented. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> Great. Um, abuing community notices, anything interesting out there in the world we need to know about?
>> No accessory apartments and dimensional variances and all that good stuff. >> Um, okay. We heard any word about the Costco in Lemonster >> next summer. >> Next summer because that >> they're doing Southboro now.
>> That went through their planning board. Correct. >> Okay. That's what I thought. But some discussion out there in was people were saying I don't know if it's really happening. And >> well, I think people want I think people think they're tearing the whole mall down to build it rather than adaptive reuse of an existing structure.
>> Fair. >> I'll build it myself at this point. I want lightly breaded chicken chunks 15 minutes from my house. >> But you get them tax free if you go to New Hampshire. >> That's true. >> They're food, Adam. >> We don't pay taxes.
>> They better put a gas station there. >> Okay. Committee reports. I'm getting us there. I know I am slower than you would like, but I I work at my pace. Um yeah, master plan steering committee.
Um I did receive um the final well what what overunder hopes is the final copy and I will send that to Stephen to send out to the board and hopefully we can
we'll put that on the agenda for the next meeting to discuss and if we're happy accept it. been nothing on the committee side. Correct. Otherwise, >> not that I'm aware. >> Okay. No, nothing that I've seen. So, great. Open space committee. Um, other
than previously mentioned and some continuing discussion about the possibility of the committee's independence, uh, nothing additional to provide >> that process. Moving along. >> Yeah. >> Great.
Um, municipal building design committee has not met since our last meeting. Oh, that's right. I have to check for Laura when that next date is. Okay. Capital Planning Committee has not met since our last meeting. Economic Development Committee has not
met since our last meeting. Is meeting tomorrow. Storm water task force. Uh it is contingent upon me to get the agenda in tomorrow so we can meet on Thursday. Okay.
Montichus Regional Planning Commission. >> Uh I was not able to attend. I had a conflict. >> Fair. Montichus Joint Transportation Committee. >> Once again, I was not able to attend. I had a conflict. >> Fair. All right.
Minutes approval for our March 23rd meeting. Does anybody want time or can I >> You go for it. >> All right. Uh motion to approve uh
minutes from uh March 23rd, 2026. >> Second. moved and seconded. All in favor? I. >> Wonderful. >> Meeting schedule. Um, as always, friends, our meetings are twice a month
here at town hall unless published otherwise. Upcoming anticipated meeting dates in well, the planned meeting dates include April 27th, May 11th. There'll only be one meeting in May because our regular cadence would
put it over um Veterans Day, not Veterans Day, Memorial Day. Thank you. >> Um so, one meeting in May. So, again, April 27th, May 11th, then almost a month until June 8th, and June 22nd.
All right. Just a heads up for the board. Um we've received the paperwork and plans for the first phase of uh Palmer Road, the uh share driveways and storm water permits. So those will be on
your May agenda. >> Be a banger of a meeting. >> Yep. Um just thinking ahead to meetings as board members as we plan out our summer vacations. Uh if you're going if you know you're going to be missing a meeting, do send that out ahead of time
to everyone because if we know lots in advance we're not going to have quarum that would be relevant. >> Yep. Yep. >> Um I think I continue to luck out on my vacations falling opposite like >> the other weeks. Um
>> I'm looking positive for the 11th, but I really won't know until the week before. >> Fair. Um and we after um elections in May, we will very likely have a full board.
Okay. So, any board comment? >> I just had one quick one. >> Oh, yeah. >> Um NOVA Health Equity Partnership. I don't know if anybody in Lunenburgg is going to these meetings. Um I've within the last month I've kind of uh been
catching up on the emails. Uh, and they do have meetings coming up. I'm planning on attempting to go to a meeting. Of course, the first one that I can I can't make. Um, but I just didn't want to step on anybody's toes, so I didn't know if there was
>> I I don't know if our health agent knows about them or not. If you send me an email with the link to it, I I'll ask her if she's part of that. >> Okay, perfect. Sounds good. And this is >> is this the group that was established in response to >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. So it's all of the region that would have been uh covered by Nishova Valley. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. All right. Amanda, thank you for looking into that and stepping up. Um
>> appreciate it. All right. Any other board comment? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor?
>> I I All right. Thank you, Lunberg, for another wonderful evening. We'll catch youall on the flip side. See you in two weeks. Take care.