This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable subscribers. Now that we have everybody in attendance this evening, to my far right, Bob Riggs, then Jim Lee, Mark Darnell, Paul Fergal,
also Paul Demon, and our board consultant, retired planner for the town of South Hadley, Richard Harris. I believe this is going to be televised even though our TV doesn't work,
but they assured me that we I can't see them, but they can see us. So, we'll open tonight's August 5th planning board meeting for the town of Southampton. Uh, we have a couple of small projects here to do with before we
get started. Um, earlier this week, I had uh approved the building permit for Matthew Gabrov at 87 East Street. And if some of you will remember the last meeting, he was the same person that came in to
change his address from 87 East to 3 Pleasant. He's building a house and he's uh wants the frontage on uh Pleasant Street. So, we approved the address change and now he has the U building permit for a house and it's uh well
under 40,000 square feet of um disturbance. So, um, I had previously approved that and I would just like the board to accept it if I may. >> Do I have a motion? >> Move that we uh approve your approval of
the U building permit at 87 Street. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded. Any other further discussion? All in favor? >> I I >> Thank you. Next we have up a storm water
residential storm water permit applied for by Peter is ita >> okay at puty crooked ledge road and this was published in the daily
hampshire gazette and the abutters were notified I personally mailed those notifications and I will read the public hearing notice pursuant Mass General Law Southampton Planning Board will conduct a public hearing August 5th, 2026, 7
p.m. at town hall for residential special permit application in accordance with the storm water erosion control bylaw section 14. This application is submitted by Pleerflower for 50 Crooked Ledge Road. The application is available by contacting the planning board at town
of southampton.org or or at the town clerk's office. And it was published uh July 24th and 30th in the Daily Hampshire Gazette. Um the plans are before the board. They
have submitted uh the sets of plans, site exhibit maps, uh certified list of abutters, the check for $75 for the application fee, and the also the abuters notices for 17 abutters
within 300 ft of the property. So, Mr. Castau, I'm sure you're here representing yourself tonight. So, please come to the podium and you can explain why you're here. >> Good evening, everyone. Uh, my name is Pete Mustava. Again, I'm here uh for 50
Crooked Lodge Road. Uh, when I bought the property, it was 85 Maple Street. I think I had that changed uh the first year I owned it. Um, since then, I've cleared it little by little. Um, changed my mind about a hundred times where I
was going to put the house. So, it started off as a little one or two trees, quickly uh quickly grew. Piece of land is uh 5 acres. Um I'm looking to build a three bedroomedroom house. Uh two-car garage, just one structure.
Um so far, I've gotten the well put in uh new service, the electrical services in there. Um, per the surveyor, approximately 77, 700 ft² of of uh wood's been cleared.
Um, once the house is done, it'll be about 3200 square ft of house and driveway and approximately 65% of the site will remain woods. And I no plans of taking any more trees down or anything. Um, per Heritage, uh, so I
hired out, they're recommending that I put up roughly 750 ft of, uh, silt fence and hay bells or straw bail before the construction. Um, and then a like a temporary driveway
to begin to get in and out of the site better. Um once the house gravel driveway and the septic system has been completed, all the survey areas will be lomemed and seated to establish a permanent vegetative cover. Um there's a hill in
the back of my where the my backyard will be and they've kind of u suggested a native stabilization seed mix will be placed on top of erosion control blanket. Slits in the blanket will be cut to plant native shrubs for
anchoring. Um, and they've also a proposed drywall will be installed to allow for infiltration of storm water at the corner of the house closest to the steeper sloping area that will be reveated to prevent um erosion
on you. They applied under section 14 of the zoning bylaw which does exist as advertised that way 227 but your notice and verification refers to section 14 z
incorrect notice. >> Does that mean anything? >> No storm water. Yeah, but it it doesn't give guidance as to what portion of bylaw they're what bylaw they're actually applying under. >> Well, it's
>> or advertisement. They stated it's not in his own bylaw. >> No, it's general. >> It's a general bylaw, but they're not their letter and their notice reference section 14's own bylaw.
>> Given this is residential and it's so far along, >> it's I'm still I'm just It's not application. >> That's not his fault. It's mine.
>> That's is that heritage? >> Continue on. Sorry. Um I'm not sure what waiver they're really referencing, but it's just a comment. They they basically gave me these notes to read. Sorry. So based on the limited amount of proposed
impervious area, the substantial amount of existed woodland that will remain undisturbed, and the proposed storm water management erosion control measures, I respectfully request that the planning board grant a waiver of the pre and postdevelopment drainage analysis requirements and inspection and
maintenance agreement. >> Is that a peer review? Yeah. >> Well, no, that would be a we can wave that, right? Yeah. I'm not an engineer, but I will defer any questions on this to Mark and Paul or Jim. >> No, I think it was pretty
straightforward. Um, I didn't have any questions. I will I I will say that when Richard just got my ear um we've got two storm water um
bylaws on our books. One is general and one's >> we don't have a zone bylaw. >> Well, there's a storm water permit on a special permit. Correct. No, >> there you only have one stormwater bylaw. That's the general
So just for the record, it was advertised incorrectly instead of the general it for some reason or other I had um
pulled up the section 14 on storm water for special permit or something. So given that it's not the applicant's fault, I'm asking for a little bit of um basically the the old bylaw had a storm
water provision in it. That's no longer in the zoning bylaw and several years ago appearing in the town adopted chapter 227. Heritage in their letter of in their application references the old zoning bylaw and did not reference the current
storm bylaw. And so Paul simply took what they had submitted. So I'm just asking just to make it clear for the record that it's so the applicant doesn't get penalized for this technical error because it's
the old ball bylaw versus the general bylaw that we we u we give consideration on that technicality. So, they're still in front of us for a waiver. >> Yeah, >> that was a question. Did the is the
waiver apply to the stormwater or the old? >> I think they're both in one and the same. The um the general bylaw specifically provides the plan board may wave strict compliance with any or all of the requirements of this bylaw for project that will in this judgment
generate minimal stormware runoff and erosion and sedimentation have minimal impact on the municipal storm water system and nearby surface waters. And if such action is allowed by state, federal and local statutes, bylaws and andor
regulations is in the public interest and is consistent consistent with the purpose of this bylaw. >> So it gives you very broad waiver authority. >> So again, I'm we're going to defer to Paul and Mark on this. you see with the
plan and um you I doubt seriously it needs a peer review because we do that more for commercial but I again you guys please comment >> um I don't think it warrants a peer
review my opinion um the storm water I think is um reasonable to request a waiver for calculation issues because of the minor area of disturbance and the large area
retaining natural vegetation. >> I agree. And they also have a professionally professional engineer who stamped the plans as well with >> mitigation measures. >> I agree with Mark. I don't think it warrants your review. Um it's a single
home and um the plan looks very complete. I know the error, but um I agree with Mark. I don't think we need a peer review and I think we should continue. I don't think we should penalize the homeowner for a clear error on our part. >> Bob,
>> I I agree with Jim. >> Any other questions? Any other information we may need on this? And so someone make a motion with the u condition that we wave the peer review
and also accept the technicality of the u mixup in the which storm water bylaw was referred to >> don't need to wave the peer review because peer review is not required that you can choose to do peer review or choose not to do peer review.
>> So you don't even condition on it. No, you all you need to do is need to grant the waiverss they've requested. >> Yeah. >> And approve the application if that's what we want to do. >> You like that in two motions or can we make it in one?
>> I think you make it in one in my opinion. >> I make a motion we approve it as well. >> Make motion to wave the grant the waiverss requested. >> Yes. I make a motion to grant the waiver requested. >> Waivers. >> Waivers. and we'll we'll technically
deal with the clerical error on our part and um approve it. >> Grant approval without condition. Yeah. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion made by Jim and seconded by Paul. All in favor? >> I
>> I you want a second motion to accept the application or is that >> No, he all wrapped up in one. >> He did all wrapped in one. All right. >> So, Peter, you're all set. You'll get a notification of that and a decision will
be sent to the building inspector next couple of days. So, uh you can continue to have fun out there. >> Thank you very much. All right. Appreciate it. >> This is the same Okay, now we got some more
paper for you. >> I don't need it. >> I don't want this back. >> Not really. >> I'm just going to be >> there. >> Here's one for you guys.
>> All right. You can have the whole thing. I've got one. >> What? >> I went through this hole today and I've got this one right here, which is the other thing with this look at emails. I mean, I was just crazy busy all day.
>> All right. >> You want any of this paper? >> I've never seen this their u what is this? They submit their storm water plan. >> Probably already read that. Yeah. >> Where's a
Here's a printed copy. What is going on here? Okay. Next up, we have another public hearing tonight. an application from KBIP
LLC care um care Southampton Mass and it's for a proposed medical office at 38 College Highway in Southampton. Once again, the hearing notice to the abuters and
all the surrounding towns was mailed. And here is what it read. Notice is hereby given in accordance with provision chapter 48 Massg that Southampton Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 5th
at 7 p.m. at town hall. Consider an application by KBIP LLC Michael Kent for proposed medical office at 38 College Highway map 14 parcel 6. This is for a special permit. Article 10. Article 9
site plan review in chapter 227 storm water and erosion control and article 7 water supply protection and flood plane overlay districts of Southampton zoning and general bylaws. Copy of the application may be reviewed at the town
hall Monday through Thursday to 4 by email planning board at town of southampton.org. It was published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette July 20th and 27th. The fees were received. The auters list was provided because
mailing was made. And tonight we have here >> your name, sir? >> Uh, Mike Bowen. >> Mike >> Bowen. >> Bowen. B O Wen. >> Yes, sir. >> And he's from LCAN Associates in Westfield. Correct.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. So, without further ado, would you present your plan and application? So, good evening everyone. Mike Bowen, Arbec Associates, uh representing uh
KBIP LLC for their project at 38 uh College Highway. Um so, I'll start with the existing conditions on site. Um so, College Highway obviously is a mass DOT road um mass DOT rightway. Um
the the left side of the project area is bordered by a uh intermittent stream with associated uh wetland areas. Um the northern portion of the uh project area is bordered by the Manhan River um which comes along with the riverfront area and
inner repairarian. Um there's also uh the majority of this site is within NHSP uh priority habitats. Um, and we're also within the the flood uh overlay district and the water protection overlay
district as well. Um, so proposed we have an access drive off of college highway. Um, kind of in the similar area where there's an already a driveway apron, a curb cut there. Um, and there it goes up to the parking area
with handicap spaces. um and obviously the medical building. Um and we have a proposed bio retention area um that will collect the runoff from the parking lot and roof areas.
So we have presented this last week at conservation um they didn't have too many comments. They wanted to see the septic uh plans submitted to board of health before they um approved the project. Um the septic is shown
schematically at the moment but it's uh sized relatively to what it would be. Um we also received comments back from NHSP. Um they had a few uh conditions but very minor. Um so we were very
easily can take care of those. Um and yeah if there's any other questions that you guys have I'm happy to answer them. Have you filed with Natural Heritage yet? >> Sorry. >> Have you filed with Natural Heritage? >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah, we filed with them.
They uh issued their comments. Uh there's some conditions. Um I can read them if you'd like. Uh but they're pretty minor. The one at the top of my head is just uh changing the type 2 BM to Cape Cod Berm. Um so that was like the
>> So they didn't they didn't require any type of easement, any type of conservation restriction. Okay. No. >> So how many parking places again on this mic? >> Uh 36 are proposed. >> The minimum is two per thousand square
foot which be minimum of 15 and the maximum we can do is eight per thousand which be overfill. Yeah, there be 56 thou 56 parking spaces. >> Can you repeat that last Can you repeat that last statement again?
>> The maximum number of parking spaces allowed is 8 per thousand 7500t building would be parking spaces and the minimum is >> uh two per thousand for 15.
Yeah, the number on the parking. I guess uh to me it's an obvious question getting ready to the site plan. Um is the driveway doesn't seem to accommodate service vehicles, emergency vehicles, dumpsters, uh garbage truck for the
dumpster access. Um possibly a propane or oil tanks or some sort of septic pumping truck to access the site without backing out onto College Highway. >> Yeah. Uh yeah, that was uh something we
looked at. Um we are kind of waiting for fire and uh police to have their comments on that. Um but we we have noticed that uh you know it's you're gonna have to back out. Um so >> just to let everybody know highway have no comments and I did not hear from
police, fire or water. I just have a hard time imagine Southampton ambulance backing out or any semi backing out on two. So your your uh question again Mark was
the what is it the turning turning radance or the >> egress of any service vehicles or emergency vehicles whether it's oil or propane or >> well it's laid out there is no turnaround area for >> no turnaround area for vehicles large
vehicles. Now for automobiles you can maneuver within 24t wide driveway but for garbage trucks for any service vehicles there's no turn around here. Um and I assume is a fully sprinkled
building. >> Uh I don't believe so. I think you once you reach 7500 you need the sprinklers. >> Question comes up there is >> fire >> fire access because usually fire chiefs like to have access around the building. Yeah, we do have a sorry
>> two sides of it. >> Yeah, we there is a fire hydrant uh right next to the drive aisle in the in the front of the property. Not only and look at the layout of it. It's got even a a curve. So even trying to back out, they've got to
maneuver around a curve here. is on the right hand side of the building looking at it from college highway was there any reason I mean or on even on the left side there is there any
reason you can't make any kind of um area for for backing up or turning I know the right hand side has got more parking spaces but on the left hand side over where the dumpster is is that too
close to any kind of uh retention area or something where you couldn't make a bump out there. >> Uh we were potentially looking at the So if you're looking at if you're standing on College Highway on the right side of the building um potentially doing like a
turnaround there to do like a three-point turn. >> Um that is the area of uh the leech field for the septic. So, we, you know, we wanted to at least have fire tell us that they they definitely needed that before we did that. Um, but that was a
consideration that we had on that right side there. The left side, you're kind of getting closer more to conservation area and there's a lot of there's a slope there, too. So, that's less than ideal, but um yeah, the right side we were we were looking at. >> If you reduce parking spaces, would it
would it um remedy some of this? and and would still qualify even if they drop some parking spaces. >> They meet the zoning of the drop parking spaces. They've got 36 versus minimum 15. I'm assuming that they've determined they need more than 15 parking spaces.
Um, and it depends on how you redesign the parking lot whether or not they would resolve the issue. In theory, yes, you could. You could eliminate 10 parking spaces and create a turnaround there, but I'm not sure that's what they were
going to do. Um, and he's already said they can't come up on the right side cuz you got the leech field there. On the left side, they're already going into the 100t buffer zone with the parking lot. So, anything further would
potentially get even much closer within 50 foot. Um, >> so they've got they've got a limit to the opportunities to address it. >> And I will it's a little bit uh interesting geometry too because we're kind of squeezed between the the
conservation area from the top and then there's also a existing like water easement uh in the front. So we don't want to have any structures or anything in that front area either. And um >> so >> and I would assume if it expanded the disturbance area, you'd probably have to
go back to Natural Heritage for further review. >> Uh that most likely. Yeah. Send it back to them. >> So going back to your site here, if you can't come over here for a second, come here for a second. I want you.
>> So why why couldn't you do something here like open this up. Um, even, you know, >> have it kind of square and then >> Yeah. or something that's not open because you seem like you have dead space here that would help a vehicle.
But >> yeah, I think currently we just have to close it. Yeah, that's exactly doing a turn around there. So, >> could you show on the >> Yeah. So, we were just talking uh this
there's kind of a dead space in here uh where we could potentially do like a turnaround area and you know some of these spaces maybe and depending on how far they need to go up this to the north, you know. >> Where where's the leech field on the
right side? the leash field. I don't know if you can see this border right here, but it's pretty much this entire yard area. >> So, you can't put in pavement through there then because that >> uh that would you wouldn't want to uh Yeah, >> of health wouldn't be happy. I would think
>> Sorry. >> I wouldn't think the board of health would be happy. >> Well, you could do an an H20 uh you know rated field, but >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Um, so there's two accessible spaces. >> Yep. >> You have how many parking spaces? >> Uh, 36. >> Given that it's a menopole office, does it does that change the equation for you guys? >> I don't believe so. Um, the the rule we
were going by is the one uh per 25 for the 521 CMR. Um, that's what we typically use. >> In essence, if there's no parked vehicles, could a dump truck make a or excuse me,
a garbage truck make a maneuver to get out? >> Um, you know, we haven't run uh vehicle tracking on that, but that's something we could absolutely do and see just using the parking spaces.
>> If you eliminated the four parking spaces on the right side of the building, >> these four right here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Could you then not use the driveway to pull in and then those four spaces to
back out, back up and exit for larger vehicles? >> Potentially. Uh, you know, I can't say off the top of my head whether that would work or not. Um but I think that area is the prime spot if we want to have a turnaround area um
in that area. Yeah, >> they that leave you with 32 parking spaces and >> I do think Mark that >> um yeah, I mean um I'm okay with reducing the number of parking spaces, but I would like to see an analysis of
the truck actually backing out of an auto turn or something like that if you could demonstrate that it could accommodate. And that approach would be wouldn't require going back to natural heritage. It wouldn't expand the pavement area in or there's not much
>> if he did uh if they put uh pvious pavement. >> Yeah. >> They have to go back. >> I It's already I I would think so because you've already gone natural heritage with a proposed
redevelopment that area with the leechfield. Uh let me read their uh response because so their conditions were first one just duration of the authorization is 5
years. Second one is to install Cape Cod BMS. Third comment is the temporary delineation of the limit of work which is like the self fence limit of work area. Um, fourth comment, uh, plans of record. All work must be in conformance with the
documents and plans of record. Uh, any changes, updates, or revisions to the proposed project or revisions, uh, shall require additional review of written authorization by the division. >> They'd have to go back, >> right? >> Could you show me because I can't see on
this particular plan. What do you got u planned for lighting? Is it on the building or in the on the parking lot or both? >> I believe it's just a wall pack lighting for now. Uh that could handle the uh the parking area >> just just on the building.
>> Yeah. >> So it will not be lit at night the parking lot for other than what's on the building. >> Yeah. You can have like wall packs that um you know extend out into the parking area. They're not going to come out into the street, are they?
>> Sorry. >> They won't they won't u come out into the street. >> No. >> Okay. >> You guys, I mean, this is kind of an isolated site, right? Across the street. >> You have a driveway right here. So, there's Is that where uh Giler's
property is across the street? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Very close. >> Right here. >> Giler driveway is over here. >> Yeah. So, it's not like they have any residents around them. >> No, no. >> Is there Speaking of residents, is there
anybody here from the uh community Butters that would like to have questions on it? Go ahead, identify yourself, please, and you can stand up. >> Uh my name is Dan Rean. We live directly next to the project
being proposed. Um I want to little speech. When my wife and I purchased the home, we understood that the property was probably going to go for sale and we knew that was always a possibility. Um, our main goal is simply to ensure that the development is done in a way that respects the existing property and
protects the long-term value of our residents. We hope to have a positive relationship with the owners and the business. And we believe that that starts with everyone's uh concerns and us being heard. Uh we do have a few concerns looking over the project and a
lot of it is privacy because as of right now it's been empty abandoned for years now and uh a large building in a parking lot located so close to our home significantly reduces our privacy that our family currently enjoys.
particularly that my daughter's bedroom, our dining room, living room, and my son's room, deck, and pool are all located on that exact side of where parking lot and building's going to be the direct line of sight straight into
uh vehicle headlighting is also a concern. So vehicle headlights uh entering and leaving maneuvering during winter hours when it's dark at 4 or with plow trucks that's going to since the medical facility it's going to have to
get plowed to obtain it to be working. So having strobe lights and headlights while plowing that is going to go directly into our home. Um which is going to disrupt our privacy in our home while we're trying to go and sleep. Um,
lighting is a significant concern which they already said if it's going to be building, we're just concerned that it's going to doesn't come onto our property if it has parking light like lights in the parking lot and like overnight like signage too. If
it has illuminated signs, is it going to be on all night? Is it going to come off when it's closed? Will the lights in the building be on during the night or is it going to be off? Um, safety is another important concern. We regularly host family and friends and we have young
children playing in our backyard. Having a parking lot immediately bordering our yard increases the risk of vehicle related incidents that creates safety concerns that doesn't exist today. We also have a friendly family dog and freerange chickens that roam our yard
all the time. going to go down an adequate boundary fence or protective barrier. This possibly could wander over into that side of the parking lot and get injured. And like they have going on plans, they have the arbor buddies, a
minimum 3ft arbor buddies which are going to be spaced out around 2 ft and it's going to take years for those to actually grow. And if they don't get maintained, they can die and then there's going to be no boundary and it's just clear sight into our property and our home. Um,
and we already have drainage issues and water issues because of the river and when it has heavy rain or like snow melt, our yard does gets like swampy and like our basement gets flooded. So, we want to make sure that the construction doesn't create flooding
or erosion and more issues on our property. Um, we respect uh respectfully ask the board to consider reasonable conditions such as a minimum 8 foot privacy fence uh that borders our side of the property so
that and required downshielding fence light fence lighting uh and limiting careful direct vehicle traffic so that headlights are not aimed directly at our home particularly at our daughter's bedroom, dining room and living room to ensure
the storm water management prevents runoff that doesn't affect our property and if these conditions are approved, could we get them in writing in binding conditions in the final resolution plan? Ultimately, we're not asking the board to deny the project. We simply want to
ensure that the design in a way that minimizes unnecessary impact on our home. And thank you for your time. >> Thank you. And yes, any any conditions put on that is in writing and filed with the clerk
and the building inspector and you can also receive a copy of it too when it happens. Um just uh continuing what he mentioned about u drainage. We have there any drainage um calcs or
>> um I I have to comment about drainage. um first called this planet said the company also manufactur sheh horns you based on working there and I was very skeptical but I did do a a very detailed review of the drainage calculations and
the d submission I found them to be um complete and accurate and I had absolutely no issues with the drainage calculations even if your flood came within 2 in of your emergency overflow comment but that usually emergency overflows are protected from erosion rip
wrap but um given the quantity and rate of flow I don't think that's necessarily solid very complex complete um drainage analysis regarding quality um and peak flows so um I only would had positive comments this time on the active
drainage calculations >> Mark can you u maybe uh relay that assure the neighbor that just spoke that there's nothing that he has to worry about anything going over onto their development and drainage from the site do
tend to flow to the to the south and not toward your property and any of your flows from your property to go uh subtly is made appropriate I think uh covert and ability for the water to leave your
property. I don't see it as damning up your property as all. So, I take you don't see a need for peer review then? >> Um, I don't think so. Enough for that. >> Not for Jan and J. >> No.
>> Jim or Bob, any comments, questions? >> No, I think the privacy fence is a reasonable request. >> Um, >> there are going to be headlights in and out of there and and yeah, 4 or 5:00 in the afternoon is could be annoying and plows at night, whatnot. So, and the
bushes will take a while to to grow. It's a good point. And so, >> I'm assuming this a medical office probably be closed by 5:00. >> I think that's the intention uh to have it, you know, normal operating hours. Um, >> and no weekends probably, right?
>> Um, I don't believe so. Not on the weekend operationally. >> It's very preliminary, right? >> Yeah. Prelim before we go. >> Yeah. So, how far is the neighbor's house from the
site? It's not >> Where's the property here? It doesn't show the house. >> Yeah, we I'm sorry. We didn't do you know have the survey uh you know their location of their house. >> Where's your house? The the foundation from the property line. Would you guess
>> foundation from our house? >> Maybe a football field. last yard >> that far. Okay. >> No, that's fine. >> So, is there vegetation
that's between >> just oak trees and maple trees that are separated properties? So, >> so is there a clear line of sight from the >> So, you can So, there's a foundation
that's called on that property. >> Yeah, you can see there. >> You can see that foundation. >> You can see >> very well. >> Yeah, there's a foundation. >> This is the house. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. The same thing right here. That's
>> Yeah, that's a full. >> Yeah, that's the property line right there. >> I guess my my few things >> I think they're going to be back further, but yeah, >> usually with the same plan, we usually have a lighting analysis, right? Just a
>> photometric plan. >> Yeah. To ensure that there's no >> impacts to the neighbor's home property or to their home. >> Yep. >> Um so I think that's something that needs to be submitted. Yeah, we can we can have that. Uh >> particularly with whatever lighting um
proposed lighting you have on the building >> and how it's going to be directed. >> Yeah, we can >> we can uh provide that for sure. >> Okay. Um I So is the intent to have lighting on all
night long for security purposes and uh I'm not sure to be honest to speak to that. Uh, we don't know the operation hours and all that kind of stuff yet. Um, I I wouldn't imagine that they would need it all night long, but again, I
don't want to say definitively whether or not. >> So, this is not a u you don't have enduser for it yet. You just you're building the building that you're then going that the owner is going to rent out for medical purposes, but they don't
have a tenant signed up yet for. Okay. So it could be a medic clinic for 7 days a week or it could be just 5 day a week dentist office is uncertain. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> So so I think it'd be beneficial for a phototric analysis to be provided. >> Yep. >> Um and >> and also somebody me they mentioned signage. Is the sign going to be on the building? Is it going to be on the street? Is it going to be lit?
>> We don't have a proposed pylon sign uh on the street. Um I'm not sure about signage on the building. Um and I wouldn't imagine that it would be lit, but again, we don't know that yet. >> Signage signage part
>> that we'd want some sort of u >> especially was a freestanding sign need showed on the site plan. >> Yeah. Uh, and I I would think you'd have hard time with that with a parking lot and the water easement sever putting it in front. That could be an
issue. Um I think it could also be helpful if and I know LC and associates can do it is take an area photograph and identify the border of the join house on it just so
get an idea of the distance separation >> an idea of how Yeah. >> Yeah. So you have a driveway opening that's about 30 ft wide. Is that >> looking on there photo looks like a pretty
fairly good distance away? But >> but you're opening the stick to the uh route 10 there is about 30 ft. Is that is that the width? >> Uh so the drive is 24 and um so yeah that sounds about right. I don't know
the number outside top of my head, but >> So you you still got to go in front of this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And we filed with Mass Dot, so we're um you know awaiting their comments as well. And I suspect Matt D would have concerns
about layout for vehicles, large vehicles backing out too. I usually to be honest I I think they just care about the opening more than anything else and what what impacts
are with existing drainage as it ties in to the side of the roadway and whatever impacts they might be doing to the guard rail which is not in this case.
But the the other thing that we would expect DOT to make a stink about is making sure you kind of have that here is intercepting any runoff that's going to come off your site and go into the
natural topography which you've done which is fine. You know, usually those are the DOT comments that are expected. Um, I I think there there should be
consideration for a backout to eliminate that back out. um mentioned earlier the the nighttime lighting impacts should be addressed. I don't think I have anything else to
add. And if there's illuminated signs, maybe there's a there's a shut off time that you know they are out whether it's on the building or by the street or both. Yep. Did you have someone taking notes for you for all these list of things?
>> I was just thinking about it right now, jotting them down. >> They get recorded. >> Hope the YouTube's doing their job. >> Yeah. >> So, let me just see if it matches up with what you have here. And then you can chime in, board members, if I'm
missing something here, but we have uh signage. We want to know about signage on the street on the building or both lighting plan especially night night lighting and hours. >> It's a phototric analysis. >> Phototric analysis.
>> Photometric. Okay. Um the driveway egress right Mark with um turning vehicles. Um there's a question here about sprinklers, but you said that probably wasn't required or
>> you mean in the building? >> Yeah. >> Uh yeah, I believe the rule of thumb is um 7,500 square feet you need sprinklers and we're at 7200. >> All right. So that driveway eress would also something you want the fire department probably to weigh in on,
right? >> Fire DPW in emergency vehicles. >> Yeah. and and the service vehicles because they're going to need to plow it. They're going to have garbage collection and stuff like that and need to be sure they can turn around and
don't have to back out onto cont. >> So that means um maybe redesigning the parking area. Correct. >> Correct. >> Or eliminating spaces >> to see a vehicle leave the site safely. >> Yeah. And I would think that if you're doing the turnaround on the right side
of the building as you're facing it, that'd be minimal review for Natural Heritage because you already proposed the leech field there. So >> yeah. >> And is there any problem with your snow storage in doing that? >> Uh yeah, that was an area of our snow
storage. Um, so, you know, when we look at that, we'll take a, you know, double check where we can put it and and, um, take another look at that. >> And also, um, incorporate some fencing on the butter side there. >> Privacy fence.
>> Privacy fence. Yeah. >> Privacy fence. >> Uh, they mentioned 8 ft. Is is that allowed in? Is it six feet the top? >> I think six I think uh, six feet allow 8T. You need a permit. >> Yeah. Could we do eight? I don't know how that works out. Richie,
>> let me check and see what the zone says. >> Anything else that I forget? I'll tell you that >> the maximum I would just say maximum allowed under the zoning without >> any addition to put it this >> is is
given the use of the building and it's been a while since I I think we've seen a commercial development from town um before us. >> I think the last one was O'Reilly Auto Parts. >> Exactly. Was right. That's exactly right. Actually, they might have been a little bit of the uh storage units that are by the Verizon that that that
overlap in the town. I guess where I'm going with this is >> just what's that? >> If you do have the privacy fence since you're near national heritage areas, they require I think a 4 inch gap underneath a lot of turtles do crawl
underneath it. So, make sure don't put it on the ground. >> Got to leave room for the turtles to get over to your yard. >> Don't forget the science of the turtles, too. Um, I guess where I was going with this is is the fire department or the police department going to opine on the on the
lighting and the safety standpoint given that >> it's set back quite a bit from uh from the road there is privacy. >> I will ask fire about the stuff that was brought up tonight, but I will ask police as well what if they can comment
on it. So, you guys have a sidewalk. Does that extend to the road? >> Uh, it does not. >> There's no uh sidewalk on the road in that area. >> Is that what that is? >> That just contours. >> Oh, I can't read. Okay.
>> There's no sidewalk. >> Yeah, that's parking. >> Yeah. Is there anything anything else Richard that need to have before we I ask for a date for continues? >> So there is there is a bus route now
>> on route 10. >> Mhm. Bus stop reminding me that was >> Yeah, we should we should put a bus stop in there and lit up. >> It's in front of Pyano somewhere, I think. >> Yeah. Okay. Fencing.
A fence, hedge, wall, sign, or other structure vegetation may be maintained on any lot provided that in the front yard area can't be more than 3 ft high above the adjacent ground within 5 ft of the front line lot line. and has shown
that such vegetation will not restrict visibility in residential districts. No fence shall exceed a height of 6 and 1/2 ft in a budding non-residential district unless a special permit. So I don't see a maximum height for commercial
properties. What I see is a maximum height in uh in residential districts. So you could specify 8 foot and that looks like it'd be acceptable >> just becomes part of the special permit
>> or the permit. Yeah. >> Approval >> conditions. One of the conditions we can >> Okay. >> You are ramping up and you are turning ve left turning vehicle can be potentially projecting headlights. >> I think they're building sits just like
this. >> Yeah. So it could be protecting headlights with left turns. >> Screening and buffer strips shall be required on in any industrial or business district which adjoins a residential district at the time of construction of any permitted
business building um as follows. Shall be 35 ft in width. Shall contain a screen of plantings. screen shall not be less than five feet in width and six feet in height at the time of occupancy of such lot.
Uh so you need to have 5 foot privacy area adjacent to the residential property and the minimum height is 6 feet at time of occupancy. So you can't have anything less than six feet and if the board
won't require 8 ft you can. So, does that mean you have to have both the vegetation and the fence or does it mean or >> or it's uh >> cuz they've got it around the perimeter as it is. >> Screen. >> It says screening and p and buffer
strips. Screening could be a fence >> and but it says and >> screening and buffer strips shall be required. Uh, so yeah, I guess you could read this as saying you have to have vegetation, but what I read this is you
have to have a five- foot buffer and it could be a fence with grass vegetation there. It doesn't have to be a 6ft high vegetation and 6t high fence. It could be
combination of a fence and natural vegetation. You couldn't pave I don't think you could pave the buffer strip and put the fence in it, but you could put a five foot wide uh vegetative area with the fence in it. And that
vegetative area could be grass could be >> right. Grass is even >> grass is. Yeah. >> Well, I've most commonly seen is like a fence or some type of nice plant sometime lowlying plants that >> right some decoration for it,
>> right? Anything else to put on the list before I ask for continuance and get a date? Let me back this up a little bit. A solid wall or fence not exceed 6 feet in height
by suitable plantings may be substituted for the landscape buffer by special permit. So you could do 6' high arborites the board could approve it
or you apply for a special permit to put a fence there instead. So, a fence requires a special permit. >> Yeah. And if you're not doing the landscape buffer, >> but I mean we could require the fence,
correct? >> Rather than the bedroom. A solid wall or fence not exceed 6 ft in height component by suitable planners may be substituted for such landscape buffer strip by special permit of the
planning board as provided for an article 10. Strip may be part of the yard area and building can be within 25 ft of the property line. uh if the joint property is is a resident district
>> but >> but this is this is already including special permit in site plan review >> but they didn't ask for that as part of the application though >> can they amend it and make it all one special permit or do we have to have two
>> I would say given the discussion and given the reason for it yeah I think you probably could incorporate that into the special permit for it. >> That makes sense. >> Yeah, >> it makes it neater, too. At the end,
somebody's looking to see what the conditions were or whatever, they'll see one area. I don't know. >> I think you could probably do that. That's particularly if the doesn't object, but it cannot be more than 6t high fence
though. Anything else? Okay. I don't believe you're going to have this information. We're ready for the 19th, which is our next meeting. So, um,
September 2nd. >> Um, >> have it ready for >> Yeah. Yeah, we can definitely have it for Yeah, for September. Absolutely. I was just trying to think if we could get it for the next one. >> But you're probably going to once you do your vehicle turnaround, if you have to
change the area for the leaf field a little bit, you may have to go back to natural heritage and be sure they have no objection. >> Well, they have to change that regardless, don't they? >> Well, I think the leaf shield was shown schematically, not actually designed. It >> was shown schematically, but it was sized relative to, you know, what our
use and everything. And the problem is site the site plan shows a clear line for the parking area, the pavement area. If there they extend that up a little bit to create turnaround, then I would say they're going to need to go to natural heritage and get that
approved. >> Well, yeah, they you read the conditions that said any changes. >> Yeah. So, and but I would think that'd be something that you get some quick turnar around from natural and something like that because it's already disturbed area.
>> Does he have to do that prior to us approving? >> Does Natural Heritage have to come first? But I'm wondering if we should wait until we're done and then he go back to National Heritage and any other changes that come up in the next meeting instead of >> That's not contingent on our approval.
>> Correct. No, the um >> isn't it more >> that doesn't have any bearing on what we >> approve? Correct. We could approve it and then when we're done, if we make other changes at the next meeting, then you don't want to keep going back to Natural Heritage every two weeks. >> I would not Well, depends how you want
to handle it. But the issue you might have is if for some strange reason Natural Heritage says, "Oh, we're not going to approve that change." and you've already approved it and they're going to come back to you again with a new application to for revised. >> We can condition our approval on a
successful approval. >> But what I'm saying if Nat doesn't approve it, then they come back here for >> correct >> unless you simply hold the keep the hearing open and don't make a final decision to that heritage signs off on
it. >> So So is it I guess What jurisdiction do they have that's outside of this deliation? >> Uh natural heritage. So it's that uh kind of hatched line, >> right?
>> Uh so the area where like the driveway is coming in is is not natural heritage. So everything outside of it. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Nearly the entire site is in natural heritage. >> No, it's not. So actually the area that we've been focused on is outside. >> Actually outside.
>> Yeah. It's on outside of the purview. >> Well, what I heard him say earlier was most of the site is in that territory, >> right? But the opening is not >> the site that the part of the >> So where that driveway opening is >> Yeah. >> And half the building or one quarter of
the building is not >> just Yeah. So it's actually >> it's perfect for them. They don't have to go back >> because they would help if the if the site plan showed that territory line on there. That would help a lot. >> It is on that. Yeah. >> I didn't see it on there. Okay.
>> There's a lot of lines. >> So, they're fine. They don't need to go back. >> Yeah. >> Okay. If Yeah. >> Unless you start changing the size of your treatment. I I don't think that would be necessary. Um but >> yeah. Yeah.
>> You don't even have to go back. Richard. >> Yeah. I just didn't see the natur boundary shown in there anywhere. >> All right. So, September 2nd good with you. >> That works. >> All right. So, I need a motion to
continue this hearing to September 2nd at 700 p.m. >> I believe we continue that meeting to September 2nd. >> Second o'clock. >> Who had the second? >> Bob.
>> Bob. >> Any other further discussion? All in favor? I >> All right. Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> So, September 2nd.
Our next order of business is to select a peerreview firm for the solar array. 435 Pleasants Street from discussion.
>> I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> And I believe Jim probably has to recuse himself as well from this discussion on the peer reviewer first. Um >> is that the last item on the agenda? >> Yeah. But
>> actually, no. Let me let me take this out of order then before you guys. No, >> I'm just wondering if I could leave. That's all. >> Had a I had a request from an ab butter on Cook Road that um would like to have the conservation commission
uh review the so tower application and um which is in the bylaw regulations. We we can ask for their um input. So, I um asked the commission and they
would certainly like to do so, but they want the board or myself being the chair to um notify the land owner because they would like to do a site visit because they want to get a a grasp of where the cell tower is going to be in conjunction
with that conservation area over there. So, um, >> is there is there a jurisdictional land that that that's within that footprint that they >> it's that's state, but I'm not I'm not sure what I think this should be discussed outside
public hearing, but um if there's well, I don't know how your bylaws I don't know how it's written because that I know some communities require send notice conservation commission on all applications
And if uh if your bylaw allows for you to requires you to notify conservation, then you have to. But I would be hesitant if there's not shown in the
plans jurisdictional land. >> It it does that the language is in there. I saw it. >> But does does the site plan show >> that we is that we can and this is a request from an abutter. But but if does not show jurisdictional land
>> I I don't know it's it's conservation area and I don't know who's got control over but I understand it's state but I'm not >> conservation is not >> but it's does it does it show cons conservation jurisdiction land on the site that's being subject to the
hearing. So, so what it what what I'm what he's trying to say is that >> if you do if you dive down into the regulations, so their purview is on areas where there's wetlands or if there's a stream or if there's a >> potential wetlands or there's
>> Yeah. >> And I don't recall that being a >> No, it's a pie. >> I'm sorry. >> It's up high. >> It's up high. Right. So just because it's conservation land, that doesn't give them a a an opportunity. We
continue this hearing until the 19th, right? >> Thus far. Yeah. >> I would suggest that we can we put this as a discussion at that hearing. >> Do you have a site plan? There site plan here by change. I left that in my my
house, but >> of the cell >> of the cell tower. >> That was neat. I'm not trying to be hardline here, but I don't think that's agreed with Richie there. I don't that's not their per I'll
wait to mention it on the 19th. >> Okay, gentlemen, you're you're relieved of your duties then. >> Okay, now they have to be here to make the motion to adjourn. They can't stay here for that. And that that's the very
end. >> We can wait in the hallway. But >> I will wait. I'm going to step out of the room. I don't want to. >> You guys can get out of the the snack room. >> Don't forget to pay. >> And Mark, your reason for because you're a former employee. >> I'm a former five years involved in
Westfield. >> I'll go camp out there for a minute. and to prevent the appearance of possible conflict of interest. I would rather recuse myself in this discussion. >> Thank you. >> And just be above board, one of the U
members of the Berkshire design staff that's involved with this was planning board chair in South Hadley for about eight years or so and I was planning director there. So, >> all right. So, Richard, you um sent out
the RFP for this or the I sent emails to the station out to um >> specs, >> different firms. And after the last hearing, I sent out email to two more firms and to the two
that previously sent submissions explaining some issues raised at the hearing including noise consideration etc. And so I sent out to Ben Stoddard at one firm, can't pronounce the name of it,
and then to uh Jeff Squire at Berkshire Design Group. Chris from the an engineer from Berkshire Design submitt a response proposal and he there there's a very
thorough u Jeff Lacy from Rural Plane Associates since said that they were a larger they're more like me than they were like engineering firm and um he actually said they've done he's on the
plan board at Conway and they're reviewing an application by waved there and they're having Bookshare Design do the peer engineering peer review and they were very pleased with the work they've been doing and he encouraged me to contact them as well. Um
Burke Berkeley Group had originally submitted a proposal with uh Bowman Associates Bowman as a subconsultant. They have submitted a revised proposal without Bowman as part of it. Bowman has
decided not to participate and so they don't have any engineer engineering uh title uh associated with their submission. I think when you look at it, you have one submission that actually can meet the uh town's needs. That would
be by Brookshire Design Group. Well, again, I mentioned before I'm now an engineer, but I noticed right away that rural planning associates are all land use planners. There's so that was a and I think you mentioned it before,
Paul, at some time. No engineering on on that. And I don't know anything about the Berkeley Group. I know they're out of Virginia, which is way out of the uh >> they have a um >> the area here. They're also in Massachusetts. He's in part of Massachusetts, too.
>> Yeah. >> So, I I have I don't have any any experience with them by any means. Bergkshire, I've known that group for a good number of years. They've been around a long time. They've come before
this board. They came before the Northampton Planning Board several times when I was on that board. So, very well-known firm. Well, I will ask what overlap is there between rural land
group and Bergkshire design in terms of planning the planning services land use services. Is that something that is a ne necessity for review or is that a redundancy with
>> rule plan redundancy with me? Um I don't see that what Burch has designed has proposed I don't think they would have any any involvement by rule planning associates. >> So they would you mean there would be no
need for >> Right. Yeah. >> Correct. So they would check the boxes. >> Yeah. And then Burkshire Design do entire peer review. >> Yeah. Furthermore, Rural is already doing work for Blue Wave and is it Conway?
>> No. U rural plan is not doing work for blue wave. Jeff Lacy of Rural Plan Associates is on the planning board in Conway. >> Oh, that was it. Okay. >> And they are reviewing the blue wave and they're using B the Berkshire design review design group as their engineering
peerreview. >> If I read your email, I mean it looks like rule kicked the can basically to Birkshshire. I mean, >> yeah, that they they did withdraw, but they essentially said there's no need, >> right? Yeah.
>> So, u rural plan associates is more like me except they do have more experience with solar. >> Yeah. >> And do uh but when looking at peer review uh function, I think your design group does the work that we want. And
they said that the um the only thing that their recommendation was or well they might require or we might require a separate review for the fire department but under uh it's in their it's in their write up
on the mitigation. Are you talking about Bergkshire Designs uh write up? >> Yeah. Um their review of the hazard mitigation analysis and emergency response plan supports planning board's role. Full understanding of the project.
Confirmation of the documentation is complete and internally consistent and attention to specific points where these documents intersect the board site plan authority. Review of the analysis against NFPA855 fire code applicable to energy storage
systems as adopted by Mass under 527 CMR 1.0 is a separate review under the jurisdiction of the fire department and is excluded from this proposal >> and that that's part where you want preview to advise us on is if there's
other reason yeah >> and just and I've you know the noise aspect, too. But it seems like they're willing to they're going to take that on
the sound aspect. >> I'm sorry they are. >> Yeah, it's Yeah, unless I'm missing something. Um, it looks like that will be part of their task. Um, What's the accuracy of the statement
that references the NFPA 855 um as it relates to the fire department, the fire code? So, how does our fire department have the
technical knowledge to appine? Unlike the not they they need to have a uh consultant advise them on it. >> So, so that so that creates another
question. What what mechanism does the fire department have to hire an outside consultant to peer review town? They don't hire a consultant to do
to assist them in anything I would imagine. >> Right. But they they would have to direct us to do that since they don't have a they don't have funds coming out. That's qu if they have funds or not. I don't know. That's um I've done fire
department that fire departments that usually have some type funds for >> Well, I guess that's that's the question I'm trying to because if they if they're not going to give us a thorough review of that particular fire code because they don't have the technical expertise,
how is the town protected? Well, since I read the code requires fire department to have to review it for compliance. >> Well, what if they say they
they don't have the expertise? >> We'll find that out when he comes to the next meeting. >> They need to hire the expertise. And >> should that be a planning board requirement help? >> Yeah, I think that could be ultimately is that the uh planning board could
require that the uh applicant pay for a uh consultant to review it for the fire department >> if and if you think we can go along that track a little bit. I mean, I think that's going to be >> Yeah, I think we could >> something we're going to have to do, I
think, in a few areas on this project. Um not just fire department >> for tonight. >> That's not that's not for tonight discussion. Discussion is strictly >> do you want to select peer review or not? >> Um so
let's just let's assume that obviously we need to vote on who we're going to select in terms of the terms and conditions. So these guys are asking for $7,000. Is it
>> correct? As I recall, >> so we would require that to be paid up front. Is that the way it works? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Berkeley is proposes not to exceed 10,000. >> I don't think Berkeley has the
qualification has the engineering. >> Does not. >> No. That's why they originally had Bowman as part of it and Bowman decided to back out. >> Yes, they did. >> How many how many U companies declined?
As my email said, um, BHP time bond and >> CL Kleinfelder >> Kleinfelder >> uh declined to submit proposals. >> It's all on your shoulders here, Polly. I'm all for Birkshshire going for this.
Um, my my my earlier concern about the fire department. But I think that's something we need to figure out. It doesn't preclude us from selecting these guys cuz that all >> fits in. >> No, but if more studies or more um
consulting is needed down the road, then that's what they have to march to. >> And I would suggest that maybe Paul should the chair should talk to the fire chief and say this is going to be necessary.
Do you have the expertise or do you know someone who could do the the review for you? >> Right. >> And if so, then at the next meeting, we could >> he could probably have his friend the fire marshall come,
>> right? >> Yeah. >> Sometimes that's who does is they go up state fire marshall. >> He's and he lives locally too. So All right. You want to make a motion?
>> I'd like to make a motion to utilize Brookshire Design Group as part of the peer review of the Blue Wave. Manhan LLC,
>> uh, Manhan River LLC, uh, Pleasant Street Solar and and and the SS or Best Development at 43 >> 53 Pleasant Street. >> Motion made by Paul, seconded by Bob.
All in favor? I I >> So, do I contact Bergkshire? Oh, first need contact u the applicant to put up the $7,000 orders
and once we have that then and we notified Bergkshire they've been selected but we're waiting for the 7,000 orders from the applicant before we sign an agreement with them. >> Does is then Berkshire in contact with Manhan for for all the application
material or is that come from me? You should we we should send them a link to the materials on website. Right. Right. >> Send link to the web to the materials to Birkshire via email >> prior to the 7,000 or wait till they get the
>> I'd wait till we get 7,000 because technically you don't have the funds to hire the the peer viewer until the 7,000 is deposited. And some town treasures say until money is cleared the bank.
I've I've never gone by that. Uh I just assume that somebody gives a check, it's going to be good. >> It's a bad check. It's a problem. >> I noticed there's nothing in here to sign as a contract. So an email is going to be >> That should be sufficient.
>> So are we the middleman? >> What's that? >> Are we the middleman? >> Essentially, I guess. >> So are we Are they making the check out to us or want to tell town of Southampton? >> They hold it in escrow or something.
>> No, they uh put it into a separate they what they're supposed to do is put into a separate account and usually interest bearing whatever and usually minimum amount of interest acured on it. Um,
and then when the preview is done, whatever money is left over, if any, gets returned to the applicant. Um, if 7,000 isn't sufficient, then the
applicant has to put additional money for the completion of it. And the peer reviewer should keep the town notified if they're going to see the $7,000 limit. Um, usually peerreview firms when they give you a number, they give you a
number that's higher than they anticipate so they don't run into that. Um, I believe there was one project in South Hadley where the applicant had put up an additional mount which they
weren't happy about because they didn't like the original mount. So, but usually it's the initial amount is sufficient and the town has to be certain when it's done if there's any money in the account that it gets
returned to the applicant whether it's 50 cents or $5,000 or 50,000. Mhm. >> Uh there is one community I know in Massachusetts that the new town planner found that they had
>> period 53 G funds from 20 years ago still lingering in the U treasures accounts. I don't know how the auds but you can't just wipe them out. He had to he had to return them.
>> Let me call back in so we can adjourn. They could have left, but Relax you guys to fight down out there. I was getting a little loud. >> You don't get to find out now. >> Anything else from anyone? >> I'm good.
>> I'm good. I'll make a motion. We No, >> I heard a motion to adjourn. >> Motion made by Jim. Do I have a second? >> There you go. >> Second. Motion made by Jim, second by Paul. All in favor? >> I I >> Very good.
>> Our next meeting is the >> 19th >> 19th. Um, I have not haven't heard a word from Atlantic.