##VIDEO ID:NdGObJbi_20## e e for is joining us it being 6:30 we will begin our work session of the chelms RO planning board on this Wednesday August 28th um we will be recording this meeting and also will be televising is live and will be available on demand on chumford tele media um first on the agenda is a review of the proposed update to the outdoor lighting bylaw um I almost did not get almost did not get it forgot well good evening everyone I'm Kelly BD 117 Park Road and the um sort of the driving force behind this initiative um since we last since I was last here I've had meetings with a number of the possible stakeholders for that would be impacted by this or could contribute to this uh in particular I had a a really good meeting with the department heads in town a couple of weeks ago and we we we sused out a number of things that I think we can modify in my draft to uh to make it better one of the things that is emerging is a notion that um the you might recall that there's a sunset clause in my proposal so that um lighting that is non-conforming will have a period of time to be brought into conformance that's sort of the basis the heart of why I'm seeking a general bylaw instead of a zoning bylaw and it seemed uh the consensus that I was hearing at that meeting is that maybe we ought to go a little slower on the residential side of that um and uh uh so that um people don't feel like there's the lighting police running around town and I'm I'm sensitive to that uh one of the key things that has happened since I was last here is I had a really productive meeting with a woman named Kelly Seager who lives here in town she's a lighting professional she works for a huge company called signify and in particular her specialty is policies and standards oo wow and I gave her a copy of the draft as it existed and she was very um uh supportive of it and thought it was a good basis to go forward and so I think I I didn't really come with anything besides that new to discuss with you but I think that um aside from the fact that that um Evan has approached Town Council about the viability of the planning board putting forward a general bylaw and Evan you can speak to that but apparently that's okay it's within your purview to do it is um and so I guess what I would like to throw out to you as a suggestion is maybe uh with an eye toward getting this on Springtown meeting is that uh the board formed maybe a small subcommittee of a couple of people which could be combined with me and M Seager and maybe somebody from DPW or or on the town side to kind of work through all the details of this and come up with a consensus draft that would be something that we could um be closer to a final of what you might want sure I think that sounds like a good plan um apart from that I'm here to answer any questions I I you know I've met with I've met with the uh historic district commission and I've met with uh previously with the Kirk the president of the cba's chonor Business Association and he was very supportive initially and he's going to bring it up at the but they take the summer off so their next meeting is September 12th he's going to put it before the the board at that time I expect to get some feedback after that meeting and now you don't have any feedback yet from the woman that you spoke to or you I I do she has she actually feedback she she actually went through it and has some details uh comments not many but uh she hasn't pass those on me she's a busy professional she had a big national meeting that she had to attend um and uh but she did promise to get back and specifically uh was quite willing to participate in making this uh a better draft uh going forward great okay um anyone else have any other thoughts or questions yeah I had just a couple of questions I want to poke at a couple of corners of this I'm by and large I think it's a darn good idea but um in uh I'm looking at the standards um sections three and four have to do with the height of Lights yes and in a general sense that makes sense but I think there may be situations in which you have signs that are themselves bigger than some of these does that mean signage well so along the highway for example right does that mean that you have to uh illuminate them from below you can't illuminate them from above a great question and um one of the things that I did with this draft you might recall that with the planning board I we worked on a sign revision to the sign I remember that was way back and that's right one of the things I did because there were elements of that in the previous version the existing version of this bylaw and so in my draft I've sort of removed all the signage yeah bits uh and so I would expect anything having to do with an illuminated sign not to fall under this but in fact fall under thinking cuz because and it occurred to me that you could with a little bit of wording you could say the the light can't be any higher than the top of the thing being illuminated right or something like that probably ways around it uh okay the second thing I was looking at and and and just to just to put fine point on that one of the things I'd like to do maybe is to which I haven't done yet is to go carefully through the signed bylaw and see where link them up that well or where that might where the sign bylaw might be improved so that there Standalone entities but together are a a coherent whole Probably sounds as if if if we put together a committee to do this you Pro we probably want to look at both the signage and the lighting together or at least the aspects upon which the impacts the overlap the second thing I noticed in uh in items six and8 no no sign or building in any residential district or with a 300 blah blah blah blah blah and eight no flashing moving color this is the old one right you're looking at yeah yeah you might be looking at the old one okay I'm looking I I thought I I thought what I brought up was okay that's the old one all right in that case uh the reason the reason I looked at those because none of that's in the okay I'm I'm looking at the wrong dock then that's okay uh but the the question becomes what do we do with people that want to put up absurd Christmas displays with flashing lights and every other darn thing which I've never been a fan of but are part of the culture right and so one of the things that I do address um there are exemptions there is an exemption for Holiday lighting okay but it puts a little bit of a uh constraint on that uh let me see if I can find it for you it is section 3.5.2 that decorative liting it doesn't really specify what is or is not allowed but it says it can only be up for a period of six weeks before to six weeks after I think one of the questions that I got during the department heads meeting is like well who defines what a what a holiday is yeah and that's that's above my pay grate right I if if you but the the point is that we've all seen people who have what are obviously Christmas lights yeah that are still up in like March or April and I'm not suggesting that we necessar I'm not suggesting that we necessarily use this bylaw to to enforce compliance on that but it kind maybe it sends a little bit of a subliminal message yeah home owners or businesses that you know maybe there's too much of a good thing no I mean I I'm inclined to agree with you but I looking for ways that the rules can be worded but maybe that's a committee job it might be and and you know I one of the things that I stro when I first appeared before you I said that I tried to take the best of the old bylaw and incorporate it into this and I'm I'm sensitive to the fact that people like to do things with their homes one of the newest trends which we don't have too much here in town but we might someday is something called feston lighting which is strings of light uh few places around that have it that are just for decoration they don't really serve a functional uh uh role except to maybe look pretty um there was there was a pretty obvious Case by The Old Mill uh coffee house uh six month but those are gone now and and so that's fine but that's one of the newer Trends in lighting that I hope to capture there's a piece in here about landscape lighting that we haven't had before that I hope to capture okay and not necessarily make that illegal but to put some limits on what is reasonable mhm all right cool yeah that was it that's what I had I thought you addressed a lot of things I hadn't really thought about that yeah come under this Common Sense topic um so I guess uh Anita is by the way is coming but was thought she'd be a bit late um so is there is there anyone who would be interested in volunteering to be part of a subcommittee you think two people I it's your choice uh I mean I you know for example Chris I know you had a lot of good input and maybe you might be a logical person I'm not going to you know point fingers or anything like tag your it or anything like but but obviously I I mean here's the thing we the the raw how do I put this delicately I think sometimes uh citizen petitions come before town meeting that are not fully vetted and they have a rough time at town meeting this is the template that this is drawn from uh was something that was developed collaboratively by by me and others and including lighting professionals we now have Kelly Seager to to uh help us back stop us I had a really great session with Evan more than a year ago and we worked out a lot of the details there are some things in here that that are um new different I might arguably say bold like the notion of having a lighting professional on call to adjudicate the lighting plans that come before you and then passing the cost for those onto the developer and and so I'm open to as many people as as you think is the right number um obviously you'll all get to weigh in on it after this next draft is developed which I hope wouldn't take more than a month or two maybe a couple of of hour long yeah yeah it is technical but it's not rocket science right yeah and there's some excellent illustrations in the back yes those illustrations by the way are pretty standard Nationwide when uh they're used in many many many different uh uh you know regulations of this sort uh sort of a standard deck if you will y so any volunteers yeah I'll volunteer I see Mike you're raising your finger so the MBTA zoning took a lot out of me so get some wind out of your sales I would prefer to sit this one out yep I think that's I'll join you guys may maybe just three of three of was a heavy Lift You lifted well thank you and I I suppose Evan it would fall to you to to find out from the town side whether they're yeah I'm happy to join uh your group yeah um and coordinate between other Town officials good okay sold I mean I can do it too if no one's interested um we can ask Anita if she has any interest when she comes um okay so thank you Kelly okay my pleasure thank you again for your attention and uh engagement on this so maybe we can figure out who the other people who the other stakeholders are CBA us Evan you the professional and did you have anyone else in mind to be on the on the subcommittee um you know in reaching out to some of the stakeholders um I have provided the drafts that you've seen the annotated versions and I said look I I I welcome your your commentary your you know feedback where you think there's something a Miss from your particular point of view um one of the things I hope to get along the way is a little bit more uh uh detailed feedback from say Public Safety uh on how what they feel about it because it was interesting in I don't want to belabor this but in in the town heads meeting you know it was pointed out that like the building inspectors who are they're sort of the first line of defense for enforcement of something like this they're not around the town at night right so we can't really ask them to be going around and you know checking things out but on the other hand the police department is so maybe there is a a role there a slight role or some kind of role for them to be um make the rest of us aware of situations right um and did you get feedback from the building inspector so far um only only in the only in the town heads but I we did have a a a good little uh I was sitting right next to him and we had a good side discussion and this notion of you know um enforcement did come up sure and I want to have an I think between now and whenever we next meet committee or otherwise I I do want to engage him oneon-one and and see what his what his thoughts on how this in detail might be might might work great um okay so I guess I don't think we need a motion nope no motion um all right so next thank you Kelly okay and so uh if I may I'll leave it to you you to tell me who the people are and then I'll reach out to them or do you want to be the driver on who meets when on what I said in terms of this little subcommittee does the does the planning board want see if Anita has a particular interest I assume Joel would have piped in if he did um so if if Anita isn't interested then I'll do it with Mike okay um and uh then you know if you could get us some dates sure that's good because um uh While most people have been traveling the last couple of months I start a fair amount of travel in fact this morning I was bobbing off the coast of Maine on a cruise ship and here I am oh my goodness so anyway thank you very much again and um I look forward to to um continuing thanks thank you all right next up we have a proposal for Consulting plan for the aquer protection District which I assume is just an FYI it's an FYI mentioned it uh bunch of months ago uh so this process is underway at some point uh in the process um it calls for uh a variety of town boards and committees to appoint uh several members to a working group um so you can begin to think about that uh and those individuals will uh represent the planning board in a kind of a detailed work session all members will have uh an opportunity to engage as well I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention as an update and that would be in um in in addition to conservation and correct they likely to be Water District Board of Health planning board conservation perfect yep okay sounds great um next up we have the master plan implementation actually before we go EV what's the timeline on that do we know um I don't know if it's uh definitive but I know time is of the essence the funding got approved yeah yeah um I think there's uh some interest in um bring articles to town meeting if need be so I think it's probably 6 nine months okay for spring I think that's I think that's a partial goal yeah yes going to be a busy spring okay next up we have our Matrix um so just the context for this um the mass BL implementation committee um has been meeting for a couple years now they've been systematically going through and then revisiting so this is part of their revisiting uh they're interested in having the planning board uh specifically um provide stat updates on these items M um they do not have um a meeting scheduled for September uh but as soon as the planning board can complete this review you know uh then we'd be able to um schedule a master plan implementation committee meeting where this is uh presented for an update so so the first one they're looking for um design review the question is how the question is how much have we done have we made any progress we haven't but the third on the last Comm status that was my initial right my initial update that was given you know sure I would agree with it hasn't commenced um and I was just reviewing the ciod design guidelines the other day um and they're pretty basic to the extent that they exist um I think that this is something we should maybe I don't know I mean we we picked some zoning things we wanted to take a crack at at the last meeting and we haven't now taken a crack at them but I think that as this is part of the master plan um implementation and I I think that we there something probably we could knock off pretty e pretty well I mean we've had some preliminary presentations but we do have the Co does have um dedicated design guidelines um they're not referenced um they're probably about 30 pages oh it's a it's an addendum to the zoning bylaw it's not referenced very often um I can probably circulate that and maybe we could take some time to look at that yeah okay let's do that didn't we start that we discussion a while ago and we talked about the trees and we talked about this this what I'm referring to is it's architectural okay all right and those um design plans for the seid were developed by the planning board in what kind of a time frame consult yeah simultaneously with the adoption of the zoning overlay by town meeting okay so they it dates back some some time at this point and who developed them and the uh zoning working group that was appointed by the planning board and the consultant okay I'll get them out to you via email thank you that'll be great okay um impact of the 1958 revisions implemented in 19 yeah that one that one may have to stand still for a while given the uh the uh recent vot yeah the recent State uh legislation until we figure until we get that all figured out uh we may want to tread lightly there yeah yeah I mean we're waiting for guidelines sometime in the next few months for the adus and that would probably shed some light on what kind of regulations we can have are they coming out with that yeah uh recent word is uh those should be out with the next couple of weeks couple weeks oh good yeah we probably ought to start with that yeah right all right issues related to pre-existing unon non-conforming single to feel me again yeah I think that's sorry um contact Mill owners to we talked about this a bazillion times have we ever actually contacted the mill owners Gillette is that it he's one I mean I've been in contact with them over the years um showing any interest in anything cool one the Gillette Mill they're filling um is under the seid so they currently have multif family opportunity the midle across the street is own industri they do not um but they've never formally or officially expressed any interest I mean the board wants to pursue it you'd be pursuing it proactively not necessarily based upon any property owner um preference how do people feel about that I feel like they're getting a lot of tenants right now I've been noticing that filling when you're referring to sold cross from Gillette sold yeah so it seems like they're filling it pretty fairly quickly with tenants commercial what it was in a school there right definitely diverse group of tenants there yeah and dance and stuff right yep used to bring my kids to dance there that that's still there let's I think let's table that for the moment is now um so that's pertaining to a mill reuse overly District I mean are those the only Mills I was kind of thinking of the property down on Wooten Street down the end of Waton Street yeah where you you are yeah that that's what I had in my head when we were kind of I would love if zakar R developed Al it's probably in the flood plane where's that location where's that location down by you yeah yeah well down by the farm soft F the softball fields you know oh yeah all the way the end what's all that what is that building down the end it's there's something there now it's a big Mill building I think they're multiple maybe multiple tenants in it used have for a long time wasn't it us to be like a filter Place donor occupied he runs some sort of clothing Fabric business yeah yeah he had filters at one point air filters and filter material that was a long time ago a great place for a restaurant in a brew pub a big balcony you get the softball people or brew pubs to marry I don't know I mean we could make a make a effort in the winter when we maybe have more time and make a set up a meeting with the mill owners and see if anyone has any interest or maybe call around and see if they even want to meet yeah you still involved in the vinyl viny quck yeah I'm in that committee those are the people you prob they a general area are you for that area down there you talking about yeah I mean what's his name wants to put a um build gillot wants to put a train station down there yeah doesn't he ever well he's trying to get that train line opened up to Nashville I know I know I working on it if they do that sweet wants to put a train station there not entirely clear where the parking is going to go that's probably in the middle of my you need a big parking lot if you look at North Bara that's really not that big a park yeah I know when having used North belera let me tell you it should have been twice as big as it was yeah yeah yeah it is it does get full yeah on events okay I can bring it I can bring up cuz both Mills are in there too so I can bring that up in the next yeah be great what you what's the goal though what are you looking for those Mills to do just in just in from them at this yeah do they have any interest in having a mill overlay District that would give them more flexibility towards um Redevelopment development okay yeah what would they be looking at all right I'll talk to them uh 2.5 conduct a townwide analysis of the zoning map and ground conditions I would say ongoing we've done pieces of this yeah started not complete where on the zoning conflict the conflicts yeah yeah we never went through with it we didn't really resolve any of it no this is a townwide analysis we started that elate land use conflicts right in process right but what's the status of it with ncog are they still they done yeah the analysis is done they're done with phase one right results were given to us now we got to do something with it let's open it back up again so yeah we should let's the three things that we picked wait maybe we should put the information that they gave us and the first of the three choices that we picked on our agenda for the next meeting or maybe one or the other what other people think we did prioritize that we did where I have the notes on that somewhere I don't think we did prioritize that one it got an A no it was the um the listing that we did I don't know if I have with me 129 overlay Kate's corner and the Rison mall I think one two and three yeah the Kate's corner is a zoning conflict up in that area that's what yeah yeah but I don't think any of those were in that analysis neog did um the Kat's Corner area is is it yeah that lot that location was right in it I didn't think so do you have that with you not the top Johnny on the spot so North chelsford riverneck mlon Town Center and Acton was it Acton Road Acton Road yeah that's the katees corner or unless it's the beginning of it it's I don't think Kate's corner is on here where to tell Littleton Road no it's the uh multif family area on Littleton Road oh okay so yeah Kate's Corner wasn't on here on the N COV oh doesn't look like it do you want to table this and if we have time later this evening we'll we'll come back to it well have if we pick one of the things the areas of conflict and put on our agenda for the next meting sure sure yeah y oh one at a time I was just referring to the rest of the list here oh yeah well we have another couple minutes this was the third thing on our work session right out of three so can we get through another one or two well I had suggested riverneck road is first off high our priorities for that conflict areas I yeah I I would second that I would say we St with that did I get the vote wrong was that not what what was our vote I don't have with me oh did you write down our yeah we wrote it all down yeah but none of those were the zoning conflicts they were areas that we wanted to address but none of them were the ncog zoning conflict all right why don't we come back to this all right all right it being 7 o' going to open the general meeting of the planning board of August 28th this meeting will be recorded as well as televised live and also available on Demand by chumford Tel media um first up we have public input is there anyone who wants to make public input this evening on a topic which is not currently the subject of a pending public hearing seeing no one um administrative review we have nothing new public hearings we have none continued public hearing first is the um review of site plan and special permit rules and regulations um I would like to take a motion to um continue this item I move that we continue this until next planning board meeting second okay all in favor I I I it's unanimous um next up is Nancy Chun Garrison Place for the property at 313 Littleton Road for the purpose of creating three new residential Apartments the applicant requests approval under ciod and subsections 19511 C5 and other permit relief as required under the zoning bylaw my name is Nancy Chan from Garrison Place Inc in the last meeting I I didn't have enough document from water department from uh fire prevention department so now I have all the documents right so we had um submitted to us documents from fire and the building inspector and the water department um the fire department laid out um quite specific um parameters that will need to be um met as well as did the um building inspector and the chelsford water district indicated that they have no open issues um so um did you have anything else to present to us Nancy um yes um last meeting U member concerned about the hallway I just want to tell you a story in 1993 when I bought this property on the left hand side is a build a hall you know pool hall the whole thing and then I rent to a um computer a design company and uh he didn't like build a h on the left hand side and his research company on the right hand side you know so what I try to say is even though they are all commercial office building upstairs you know people different business still don't like the each other sometimes so every time I rent to any new tenant I always sometimes talk to my existing canons make sure you know they don't conflict each other so right now uh last time we mentioned the um replay Avenue actually he just used that unit as a storage for I think more than 15 years he only comes once a month to pay the rent he he stored all his expensive music equipment although if you check online you know he has a company something but because leg he is a legally blind so blind so it's very hard anyway he has no problem with um you know with change to apartment I mean he only use for storage okay and also if you know the history the Builder who built this building in 1989 he he built as a commercial condle so each unit has their own electric meter gas meter on furnace on air condition everything just like a condle you know and the only thing he did that the Builder didn't do is he was planed to apply for the condo um d d for the condo but he didn't so every time I showed a contractor and they said this is perfect for apartment because what's the difference between condo and apartment yeah okay um does anyone else have any thoughts or comments on this plan did we get revised PL nope wasn't that what we asked for transfer site plan and they're asking for a designated parking area and I haven't seen that yet I'm sorry the parking the designated parking that's what they were asking for also and I don't see a plan for that even oh I submitted last time right to and we have 155 parking space and I I write wrote it down how many parking space each business using and I have 100 extra ones but where where the designated residential parking is going um they can park anywhere because um I have I think they they're looking for dedicated residential parking um right uh right now I only have one unit right and um um I tell you the truth is I don't see why I have to designate a certain area for them because I have 100 extra empty parking space all the time anytime any day you you know that that building has too many parking space that's why I pay a lot of a storm um seage storm drain um to the Sewer Department because too many parking space although it's unused so can can I make a motion that we continue this until we can get the documents that we be um requested meaning a site plan and um the allocated number of parking spaces yeah well my concern is that we've asked for it a couple times now and have not received it the parking thing no the site plan site plan I site plan be I've asked a couple times for you typically need an engineer I don't CH I'm not going to change anything in other words it's just right now it's used as office I will rent as apartment that's the only thing I don't plan to change it just as is so the concerns that were raised last meeting was that there was a shared hallway between residents and Commercial and then a shared bathroom off of the hallway even though it's supposed to be private the plan show doors going into the hallway what we asked for is those need to be changed in order for us to consider this yeah I mean when I if if I find a tenent when I remodel I'll I'll change it those that's not how this needs to work we we're asking for those plans now so we can approve those plans okay the only thing is um um my question is if I want to use one the unit for office could I do that as well even though they are uh apartas so I mean that gets to another concern that several members expressed which is diff you know we the one of the things one of the goals of the ceio ceid is to encourage Redevelopment of properties that are underutilized and to encourage the the transition to making some housing units so you're you're like on the right track but um but there's we have never had any structures in town and I think that this is going to prompt us to to change the zoning by LW so that it we don't necessarily want commercial and residential on the same hallway like with we we are encouraging of of commercial downstairs and residential upstairs and that's highlighted you know various places but with different entrances yeah separate entrances different entrances the residential is go use the other one uh the commercial is using the central ex but they go into the same hallway yes no if that's your concern as I just told you the story at the beginning uh the why is build Hall why is the research company what we did is we we we put a glass door separate the hallway if if that's what you you think proper then we can do the same thing 30 years ago there they have a separate entrance on the other side yeah no but the doorways are opposite yeah two they use the same hallway yeah they come in two different entrances but they use the same hallway she's talking about putting a a glass need but anyway we would need a plan of that which we don't have and apparently it's we've asked for this many times like twice twice or three times I feel like we're going around circles we're going around circles like we had a month here to get us plans are you gonna get us plans subit the maybe we miss understand I thought I submitt the plan you wanted the whole upstairs I I submitt that right well the way it's submitted in other words I'm not doing any you know this property is underutilized okay that's why I want to convert to apartment mhm okay it's not a i I fully rented and off so then I want to apartment now it's been 30 years I have hard time to rent office upstairs I mean it's from day one the research company doesn't have doesn't want a build on the left hand side you know so and as I said if you worry about hallway I just do the same thing 30 years ago put a put put a gas or you can push over it can't work like that so I would suggest if you want to put residential in to the whole second floor residential and take out your commercial your commercial public businesses on the second floor you have two then private entrances for a residential hallway and then I think that would pass could I point to you where the door was installed you still need it for where the door will be will be you have a dance hall with young kids down the end of the hallway and 20 ft away you're going to have a residential bedroom no and so we've been asking for this it's been more than two times D it's been going on so I just think you you a solution to this is to make that whole second floor because it's underutilized all residential and then I think you would have no problems I only want to get the minimum requirement like a three units I already have one you canot have commercial SP across the hall you cannot have a private residence Mike the other thing you could do is put all residential on One Wing all commercial on the other and then put a wall in the middle right separate we need plans to approve she needs she needs an architect right and we're not getting that so I think we should just close public and if this is what she's presenting her plans then I think we should vote on this okay could I point to you where the door was inst started it doesn't matter matter no I mean if you want we don't care it's where the where the door will be that chose it only two staircas I want to sub substantially changed two staircases in this it's only two staircases and that creates a problem need to have two more staircases if you put a wall down there I have three now so just add one more you have to and have it totally separated off separ yeah if that's the plan I can do it I just want to make sure the plan is what you want could I point to that right now we want them to be separated and we want to see the plans for that I to point it out and have my but then we want to see the plans for I will give you because my is arit when I tell him today he won't give me tomorrow what I try to say is I want to make sure I understand what you want and not accuse me oh you didn't bring that you didn't bring could I just point that to you what what what we had 30 years ago um let me make sure okay so right now see this is Dance Center I this so they use the um main entrance downstairs and then and we had a a door right where the the building turns I I I think it's yeah it's either right here or right here so the research this side is the research company so the build you know go this way the as as right now build goes from the um Lobby entrance only you know and the research company that use this the problem you're going to have with that which is what Mike just mentioned is that that right side of the building is only going to have one entrance and exit yeah that's why we're going to uh do something about the the only thing is that we can do is we can do this like a um emergency door you can push open anytime but you cannot open from this side you know but this way emergency they can push out you know that's so if we continue this meeting will you come back with plans on how this is going to be yes architectural plans yes okay okay because this is what we asked last time so I just want to make sure we're Crystal Clear I'll make a motion to continuous uh give two meetings out two meetings out yeah yeah give her a second then so the I want to make sure next time I give you the right plan exactly what you want instead of you accusing me you need give me the plan as I said my tenant is so good to they only charg me $50 at now so anyway I I also I mean this is kind of beyond our purview but I do just want to point out to you we've had other um people before us wanting to do similar things who then came back because they didn't understand that when they did a a a full plan that they were going to have to do for the fire department like the the they need you know it's special there's a lot of things for the fire department that can be quite costly yes so I just before you spend money on architectural plans you might want to find out exactly what you have to do for the fire department and how much it's going to cost because it's very expensive sometimes I know thank you for telling me I just talked to him that's why this letter they sent it to you and about the separation you got to talk to them about separating what what would be acceptable to the fire department will you have a month to do it and then come back to us I'll talk to him tomorrow okay sounds great that's my kind job all right so I'll make a motion to continue this uh September 25th September 25th thank you second and all in favor I I so motion by Chris second by Anita unanimous by Paul Oh I thought Paul made the motion I made a motion oh I suggested the date okay okay onward next up we have North Road baking Development LLC for property at 150 North Road for the construction of 16,000 foot Early Education facility with Associated site improvements the applicant request site plan review and a special permit of the zoning bylaw and any other zoning relief deemed necessary site is located in RB residential and consists of approximately three parcels just before the applicant begins uh Town Council is on Zoom as well as um your town engineer good good to go hi everyone for the record my name's Chris fendon I'm here on behalf of the applicant biking Development LLC uh also in attendance here with us is our architecture team civil team and traffic engineer as well any technical questions I'll certainly have them come up and speak to those items uh before we get into it I thought I'd just give you a little recap on on Project stats uh and and kind of our application status to this point um you mentioned some of the things 150 North Road is the address we're looking at roughly 3.12 Acres uh we are Zone single residence RB and our proposed use is early childhood education facility uh with a 16,200 ft building 5700 ft playground and a private parking lot with 50 parking SP spaces uh original application was made on June 5th that included site plan special permit and the anr is that percussion it's yeah oh sorry I'm kind of hitting the table so our original application is made on June 5th that included site plan application special permit in anr site plan was uh filed under chapter 195 section 104 of the site plan bylaw and uh the bylaw use regulation table in that has our proposed use listed as exempt under M General law uh chapter 48 Section 3 and that lists every use as permitted by right in every zoning District uh special permit we applied for special permit uh based on some disturbance requirements that we felt we triggered I just want to point out that uh we submitted that in good faith and feel that that should not you know be used to unreasonably withhold approval of this um the anr was then continued at that meeting and reviewed at the um July 10th meeting um Town Council was in attendance and the board U endorsed the plan at that meeting uh we made our second submitt a few weeks ago and that brings us to tonight three objectives for our meeting tonight the first one will run through all of our site plan updates based on all the feedback that we received from both the neighbors and the board at our last meeting uh then I will run through site plan approval criteria from your bylaws and explain how we meet and comply with with each of them and then based on items one and two we would ask for the board to consider uh a vote for approval tonight so to start with objective one um we'll discuss site plan updates that have been made I want to emphasize that we did listen to all the neighbor feedback and board feedback that we received last meeting and made a strong effort to incorporate design changes and prepare additional documentation to address them uh the items I we'll be talking about her there on the screen we'll go through them one by one first item parking at the 626 public hearing meeting we did receive a few comments on our proposed parking under the uh current bylaw chapter 195 section 17 uh we are required by for our proposed use to have 81 parking spaces uh the table there on the bottom left is a couple supporting U figures to go along with our proposed 50 spaces looking at the uh Institute of sorry yeah the Institute of Transportation Engineers uh parking generation manual their calculation recommends 57 spaces um we had kimley horn prepare a parking memo for a school in Northbrook Illinois where they determined that at a peak hour our our biggest demand is 30 spaces uh in addition to that if you want to scroll to the next slide um I've also compiled a table of 13 schools that have recently opened of similar enrollment and size uh 10 of them are open three of them are permitted and under construction here in Massachusetts you'll see there um on average the number of spaces is 46 and the median is 48 for those schools uh with those key pieces of data I just want to point out that uh with those numbers in our understanding of our operation we do believe that the 50 spaces is adequate and will operate without any issues the next item is landscape screening to address the comments we received uh related to landscape screening uh we made a number of changes along the north northern property line we increased the length of our 6-ft woodl vinyl fence we increased quantity and spacing of 8 to 10ft trees we we relocated the trees closer to the parking and away from the residential home that works with the the grade of the site to help screen it even better on the southern side we did similar things we increased the number of trees around the building in the playground we brought them closer to the building to help screen them uh immediately uh we completed an existing tree survey where we identified within about a 30ft buffer on all sides of the property what trees we can protect and that'll add an additional layer of screening and then overall the development has now Incorporated 250 new plantings and identified over 100 existing trees to remain uh this is just a quick side by side it might be difficult to see uh the image with the blue outline is our new proposed uh landscape plan um there's hoping you can see the additional trees we've kind of lined uh the plan right side uh with you might not see the the line work for the fence the fence was also extended as I said and then if I can focus your attention around the playground area you'll see uh a substantial increase in the amount of plantings uh between the building and our uh Southern a Butters next item is is noise levels uh plan updates that we made to address noise levels we've now um updated our designed to include multiple layers of noise mitigation we've changed our playground fence from an ornamental fence to a vinyl fence but the vinyl fence has a little bit of a noise mitigation factor to it uh We've increased again the number of trees around the playground to add a landscape buffer we've indicated the existing trees that'll also provide a buffer uh the playground also has a 6 to 8T retaining wall around it that will also contribute to noise mitigation and then on top of it on our southern side we also have the 40ft paper street that adds another buffer of existing trees and vegetation next one is light trespass our current photometric plan continues to show zero light trespass across our shared property lines and that considers all proposed site lighting and building lighting we've we've determined that all sight and building lighting will be placed on timers and will be turned off from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. light poles have been relocated and oriented to direct light Inward and away from property lines all light pole specifications Now call for shields uh 12T poles Along The Pedestrian walk have been replaced with directional ballards we've reduced parking or uh yeah parking lot light poles from 20 ft down to 15 ft and then as I discussed in the landscape section we've increased landscaping and fencing to support the light uh screening as well next one is sewer capacity uh we'll be participating in the town's infiltration and inflow sewer credit purchase program Public Works uh we'll compare the usage of the site from previous 10 years to our proposed usage um and then from there they'll uh establish a 2:1 ratio for that and then uh a portion of our fee will go towards future maintenance and improvements of the town's sewer infrastructure I will note Town engineer has confirmed that there's adequate capacity in the North Road main for all to serve our development storm water design Gardner School is working closely with DPW uh on the technical design to make sure there's no adverse impacts to the downstream infrastructure or residence some some highlights here we've got a 10,500 cubic foot underground detention system 5,432 cubic feet of that will be treated in proposed Water Quality Systems we'll be providing over seven times the required uh groundwater recharge volume and the design of our system results in an overall reduction in runoff compared to the pre-developed condition next one is residential character of the area we've selected building materials such as siding brick wains coating scon fixtures window trims that are high quality finishes and are commonly used in residential construction including nearby homes and businesses our proposed 22t Building height is less than a typical two-story building and the Gable roof design gives it a residential feel helping the building blend into the surrounding our building meets all dimensional criteria of the residential zoning district and our proposed early childhood education use is similar in compatibility to that of an elementary school being located in a residential zoning District next traffic and pedestrian safety our plans have been updated to include the construction of rectangular rapid flashing beacons at two existing pedestrian Crossings along North r Ro North Road at wigin Street and North roow at Erland Road uh We've agreed to design and Implement an optimal signal retiming and phasing plan we've agreed to review and test the operating condition of the existing vehicle detection system and we've completed the the peer review the ti peer review from beta and they have not identified any additional concerns with the originally proposed uh mitigation measures okay so now on to objective two site plan approval criteria subsection h of the site plan bylaw indicates that there are eight objectives that the planning board is to consider uh when approving a site plan I have the eight listed there we're going to go through them again so we won't we won't read them um off this slide first one minimize the volume of cut and fill the number of removed trees 6in calip per or larger the length of removed stone walls the area of wetland vegetation display soil erosion and threat of air and water pollution we've minimized the volume of cut fill generated on the site by developing an efficient grading plane that effectively utilizes slopes and retaining walls we've minimized removal of 6-in caliber trees by developing a compact site plan and reducing our limits of disturbance we've minimized removal of stone walls to portions that are in poor condition or essential for site access um we're also proposing to um construct our wall along our Ada access path to mimic the aesthetic and materials of that wall that will be torn down we have no Wetland resource areas impacted by this develop ment and we will minimize soil erosion and threat of air and water pollution by developing the erosion and sediment control plan with strategically placed BM piece number two maximize pedestrian and vehicle safety both on the site and egressing from it we've provided light lighted Ada accessible Pathways from North Road rway to our building main building's main entrance we've obtained fire department approval of all turning movements into and out of the site we've agreed to design and implement the optimal signal retiming we've aged agreed to review and test the operating system of the existing vehicle detection system we've implemented the CR the flashing beacons at the two Crossings our stopping sight distances at our access exceed the minimums for 35 m per hour roadway our access location exceeds masto guidelines for spacing from an intersection and the proposed development would not result in a material impact on Motor Vehicle operations beyond that expected to be experienced in the no-build condition number three minimize obstruction of Scenic views from public publicly accessible locations this is not applicable as North Road is not currently on that list objective four minimize visual intrusion by controlling the visibility of parking storage or other outdoor service areas viewed from public ways or premises residentially used or zoned this is going to go over all those same things we talked about with landscaping and lighting right we meet the arttic we meet all the requirements of article 9 which is landscaping and the chelsford zoning bylaw we've increase the 6ft woodl vinyl fence we've added uh 8 to 10t trees we've relocated trees closer to the parking lot to for immediate screening we've done the same things on the south parking lot we have a a a thorough tree survey that's identified over 100 trees that can be saved as an added layer of protection and then as I said before we got 20 250 new plantings and over 100 existing trees protected minimize glare from headlights and Lighting intrusion our proposed design meets all the requirements of article 7 outdoor lighting of the chord zoning bylaw our photometric plan so zero light trespass across our shared property lines our lights will be on timers 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. light PS are pointed Inward and away from property lines light poles have been reduced from 20 to 15 ft all light pole heads have shields we've replaced 12T poles with ballards then we've added landscaping and additional fencing to provide more screening and make sure there is no trespass number six unreasonable departure from the character materials and scale of buildings in the vicinity as viewed from public ways and places we've carefully reviewed the local context and selection of materials to complement and reflect the character of chelsford as I mentioned before selected building materials such as site sighting brick Wayne's coating scon fixtures and window trims are high quality finishes that commonly that are commonly used in residential construction our proposed 22-ft Building height is less than twoot iCal residential structure we have a gabled roof design the building meets all the dimensional criteria of the zoning district and we have a strategic design of site grading and Landscaping to help it blend in you see there at a bottom a couple renderings that we had submitted that's one of them number seven minimize contamination of groundwater from on-site Wastewater Disposal Systems or operation of the premises involving the use storage handling or containment of Hazard of substances this is not applicable as I mentioned site will be connected to the municipal sewer system and our proposed osed use will not involve any storage handling of or contaminant of hazardous substances and number eight ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter including parking and Landscaping our team has reviewed the zoning bylaw chapter 195 zoning and determined that we comply and exceed the use regulations dimensional regulations signs and Outdoor Lighting Environmental Protection standards landscaping and administration and enforcement as I mentioned before we are proposing a reduction in the parking I explain to you that the Institute of Transportation Engineers our parking memo our existing facilities all support the use of 50 spaces and we ask that the the board look at approving our application with those spaces so with that as I mentioned objective three we feel we've submitted a thorough and complete application we've addressed all the planning board and neighbor feedback we've responded to all Department comments and demonstrated compliance with all appical site plan approval criteria so as I mentioned at the beginning we would ask that the uh board consider a vote for approval tonight thank you thank you for your time like I said I have my design team here with me if there's any technical questions okay um anyone have any questions for the applicant I do have a question um can you tell us a little about the hours of operation and how it works drop off time how are they getting are the students arriving by bus all being dropped off can you tell us a little bit about that yeah operation is 7:00 a.m. to 6: p.m. what time's drop off so we have a flexible drop off I can tell you that in the studies we've done drop off is typically 7: to 9:30 and pick up is 3:30 to 6 but again there is no set hours if you're a doctor's point in the morning the kid can come at 11:30 2:30 it it's it's flexible it's not like a public school where you know everyone's there at 8:30 so there's no like particular time that the majority of 90% of the kids arrived at 7 o' that no that's what the the peak hour is that's what the study shows is that in that range is when everyone is dropped off but there's no requirement okay do they rrive by buses or just personal vehicles all personal vehicles public transportation you know whatever um whatever car pooling staff sometimes have uh students enrolled that type of stuff the hours of operation I'm sorry are what 7: a.m. to 600 p.m. to 600 p.m. so the lights will come on at 700 a.m. right when you're starting to open correct 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. where is when they'll be off but staff shows up earlier right yeah I I I wish were yes so if you're looking it that way the sun rises at a certain time of year about that time so how late do they work do they just leave with the kids or they well students are there till 6 p.m. so I would imagine you know clean up taking the trash out an extra 30 minutes and there's kitchen facilities at this particular site heating up and and warming of food but yes it's a full kitchen so deliveries how do they come how do they get their uh food is it track to trailer is it small truck we've done the Turning movements for it it's a 28t truck it'll be scheduled for the most part on off we try to trash deliveries try to do it outside of those Peak drop off and pick up Windows I have a question for Evan um so this is in a residential area can you into the microphone sorry this is in a residential area however this is allowed a school daycare is allowed in residential area my concern um and we've seen this before with people from out of town out of state look at something on a map and they think of it and they look and they see route three they see North row they say oh this is great people can get off good business opportunity um and then reality for those of us who know this area really well um and someone who's had two children in daycare the last place I would ever want to drive to and try to get to by 6:00 to pick up my child would be North Road what happens if they go out of business who can go in and then rent this space um a similar a similar type use only a similar type use without without going back to the planning board likely any change to a different overuse would likely need to come back to the planning board is there any way we can tight like make restriction that like yeah I mean we can work with we can work with counil on on some of that language like there's no way like someone can come in and say oh we've got a nice this is a nice little strip mall built out we could convert this into a strip mall or something like that like and again not that I don't think you guys have done your due diligence but we've seen this with other developers who come look at a map and see an ideal location that looks like it would be great and knowing the traffic on this road and like I said like as a parent who's really busy and trying to get places you need to make and pick up your kid by 6:00 on this location I wish you the best of luck the you said you you you dealt with headlight mitigation yeah so your your entrance is facing directly across a residential property at the end of Wigan as far as I can tell correct how would that ever get mitigated for that particular resident that that's I mean it's like adding an access to any site plan you know look at a residential home you know there's there's there's only so much you can do about screening a left and a right turn out of out of a property whether it's residential or daycare use there's a there's a light pole that sits right over um our access point that probably produces as much light as a as a headlight I looked and didn't see any um is there like a curriculum somewhere that I could look at I could get one for you yeah yeah that'd be great um and then I don't know everyone myself included has a lot of concerns about the um traffic and safety there therefore um impact of this property I'm just wondering is there any way Evan that we can I don't know if everyone would do this if it was a possible thing to do but is there any way we could get make a change to the traffic on North Road so there's no trucks or no trucks between certain hours or maybe change the Google Map so that it doesn't make it a track from 495 as the shortest route to three like is there anything we can do as a town I believe North Road is already truck exclusion yeah you're not supposed to have tractor Trails on they can get ticketed on North Road right I've seen them ticketed on I can't they they can deliver too sure they can deliver to a client on that if they're like correct they can do it for uh you know residential for moving they can for purposes of that I think they can do but not an ongoing business I don't I don't I don't know I don't know that's a good question but I mean Beyond what's been discussed within the um traffic mitigation uh looking at existing signals signal timings adding um pedestrian safety uh there wasn't any other um mitigation measures identified that would be about a traffic just going to say that like what happens like we had this with um when UPS came in right like they did a traffic study everything passed they didn't put and then they realized with UPS we need a traffic officer there I mean there's there's one at McCarthy at school beginning and ending or at least there used to be it's the traffic guard but what about a traffic officer if the if the police department identifies it as a public safety issue they can require a detail okay paid by it' be paid by the applicant the applicant is always free to um request and pay for a detail um I don't know about the planning board requiring a detail I mean that's again it's probably a question for for Council um you know the there's no evidence within the traffic review um from your peer review consultant or from your uh police department um indicating or referencing the need for police detail who who came up with the sidelines CU I know that property pretty well um and I know I noticed is there is a diagram of a sight line and 250 ft sight line to the north and you said 35 miles an hour you're above the minimum stoping what is the minimum stoping distance for 35 miles now you know the answer thank you very much uh good evening everyone once again for the record uh my name is Daniel lasva I'm a traffic engineer with Vasan Associates we were the ones that uh compiled and pulled together the uh sight distance plan that was attached to our uh response to comments um so for a 35 m per excuse me 35 m per hour approach speed the minimum required stopping sight distance and by proxy intersection site distance is 250 ft so that's what we show on the uh site triangle plan we show 250 ft measured along uh North Road then you take the end of that connect that to the driver's eye location within the driveway to make that triangle so you meet the requirement by 250 ft in this we meet the 250 foot requirement with and this was mentioned within the uh traffic study with uh selective trimming and removal of trees and vegetation that's all on your property that occur either on our property or within the public right away so with Town approval we could go in and trim and clear that out so what's the distance of a 40 mil per hour or 45 I don't 305 ft I believe what was the average that you saw during your study uh we do site distances based off of not the average speed we do it based off of the 85th percentile speed the speed uh at or below 85% um of traffic is traveling in the Northbound Direction uh we found it to be 29 mil what page you on uh page 10 of your initial report yes uh page number 10 I don't know what it is in the PDF we don't have page numbers for the figures but it's down a couple Pages oh figure number 10 NOP just right there okay um so in the Northbound Direction it was 29 miles per hour and then in the southbound Direction it was 34 so we went rounded to the nearest 5 did you specifically do from say 7:00 to 8:00 in the morning 7 o'clock in the morning or were you there later we counted 48 uh total hours so we essentially put down a tube or it may have been a radar recorder in this case and got 48 hours worth of travel speed data okay cuz at 7:00 it's a lot faster at 7 o' in the morning it's a lot faster the the traffic is less but the speeds are higher at 7:00 between 7 and 5 o'l in the morning that is something we can certainly go back and check but based on the the speeds that we found which was 34 uh miles an hour that's what we did our site distance off since we're on traffic I've got a couple questions related to Traffic um in the department in the comments or responses to departmental comments there was a statement that said the assumption is made that turns will follow prevailing flow of traffic why was that assumption made was this in our response letter I don't know it was a response to the departmental comments I don't know who provided those okay um do you have a specific page number I mean I can try and while while maybe we do some other things I can skim through and see if I can find exactly where that see if I can find it is but you without a police detail you wouldn't be able to take a lot out of there go nor does it have the bowler head or does it have head um oh yeah I think it might have been in there in the bowler I think so oh oh oh the first okay yes sorry um so the so the first um I don't know if you have it up Evan it's um response to the police department in Boulder's letterhead comment to is it my do I have the right attachment here August 14 building department all right want police here police right here yeah um so the beginning of that says that uh trips associated with the projects are expected to be dispersed to the North and South along uh North Road and will follow the uh prevailing flows of traffic um that is based on our anticipated uh trip distribution for the project we would anticipate that um especially because a lot of if not most of Route four traffic especially during the peak periods um consists of commuter traffic um is expected that a significant portion of trip associated with the site once again especially during those Peak periods would consist of uh parents either dropping off going to work or picking up coming back from work and thus uh would uh be represented by prevailing uh travel patterns was there a second part to your comment that I toally skipped over well I also wanted to get our peer reviewer's opinion on that one so I don't see um Dennis on the sorry I was expecting you on Zoom tonight no sorry to disappoint you yes good evening for the record Dennis Flynn with uh beta uh performed the peer review for the uh traffic excuse me Transportation impact assessment um before I respond I just want to make sure I understand that the it's the behind me here the comment about the Assumption related to how the traffic exiting thank you uh the site will travel either north or south and I believe the response which we agree with is it would we would expect it to follow the existing travel patterns existing distribution two and from four to and from Route three we we would expect and that's typically the case with pretty much every development with some exceptions this one we didn't see any reason to feel that those exemptions would apply that as the vehicles exit the site they would follow the the current flow of tra or the distribution uh that you see today on the so you mean they don't they wouldn't go into the neighborhood they would stay on roof four you saying they would go in the direction of the the traffic we would not expect that we can't say they would not you know they they're free to drive where they'd like to but based on the current travel patterns you know there's not a Exodus off of Route four into the really to go north on Route four or south on Route four excuse me say going to go on Route four either way yes you say yes exactly okay thank you the other question I had related to Traffic is early on the applicant had mentioned that the reason why they selected this Spa this site was because the neighborhood they felt that there was a demand for um daycare in that neighborhood yet as part of the response to the peer review they felt that they didn't need to study the intersections in the neighborhood to Route 4 because there would be no traffic coming from those areas so it seemed a little bit counterintuitive to me and I'm just wondering if you did select this location because of that neighborhood why wouldn't you then assume cars from that neighborhood would be dropping off their kids on their way to work so I I can't speak to the traffic study portion of what they assumed comes from the streets what I can tell you is we typically look in a radius of uh drawing uh children from about a 3 to 5 mile radius so that that stretches beyond the the few local streets along the north Road portion but that's not to say that there aren't some turning movements considered from each one of those local residential roads onto North road which could lead to our property my recommendation because there are significant residential areas behind that area my recommendation is to at least take a look at those intersections because I think if you're putting a daycare or Child Care Center there you might get um folks on their way to work coming from those streets um in that area so I'll let you speak to it but my one thought here is those are considered passby trips those are those are residents who are already using North Road to go to and from their property so that's sort of considered in our study I'll let Dan speak to it more but makes sense so to to uh Chris's point I do 100% agree with you that there may be residents Within These uh surrounding streets that will use the daycare right that's the hope is to uh pull uh students uh from nearby roads from nearby residential areas now to Chris's point about what's considered a passby trip for the purposes of the traffic study we assume that all trips associated with this site will be new trips from outside of the study area and that was for the main reason to provide a conservative estimate of traffic within the uh area or a higher than will uh likely actually happen amount of traffic within the uh area any traffic associated with those existing residential uses will not be a new trip within the study area they won't be a new trip onto Route 4 will they alter or divert their travel patterns maybe maybe they're headed up to Route um three and now they're going to take a left out of their house come down drop the kit off then go back up uh North to Route three maybe but once again those are not new trips those are existing trips and the reason why we didn't uh look at uh many of the smaller uh residential streets is because one we don't expect any new traffic down those streets and two uh we expect that any of the uh changes in travel patterns that I just just mentioned would not materially uh affect um motor delays or vehicle queuing at any of those smaller size streets along the Route four okay could we get the peer review perspective on that too should stay closer yes good evening yes I um to sort of build on uh what we're saying here so yeah it comes down to really the traffic impact assessment trying to measure the impacts uh the expected operations and to uh the the point being made when we're talking about traffic coming from the side streets we would not expect new vehicles new trips from originating from those side streets on through Route 4 to go to this new development uh the term passby again is associated with a trip or vehicle that's already on the roadway that is using this already on the roadway today they're driving on the road and they would not be added on onto the roadway so we did have um had the comment about why just one of the I think it was just Wigan Street was was analyzed and it was largely based on the proximity of Wigan to the the new driveway and then also um I believe the comment was just if you look at the traffic generated from these side streets the these very side streets intersect Route 4 uh the volumes on there are one are not very high doesn't mean people aren't waiting a long period of time to exit but the new development will not add traffic to those roadways it will add new de new traffic on Route four so the operations of those some of those side streets could degrade slightly because of that additional traffic um but it's basically about essentially just new trips as pointed out that we would not expect new traffic originating or going into these side streets based on the development they may be people who live there today as you were pointing out that would drive but they are already on the roadway Network today they're not being added on to it but you did mention that those side streets May degrade in performance with the additional trips on Route 4 so right is that potentially another area that could be looked at potentially when you look at the amount of traffic expected to be generated from this site it stick with the morning peak hour believe it was about 137 correct me if I'm wrong when you look at that number and you think about that in context of an entire hour that's less than three cars a minute being added to the roadway so the additional impact to the to the side streets of one car every you know 20 seconds is is probably not considered significant and that's in both directions so I think the term uh or the phrase that was utilized in in the in the impact assessment was no material um so we're talking a matter of a few seconds is what my estimate would be of additional delay not going from a situation where you have very little delay to uh a lot of delay or a higher delay or you're waiting you know an unreasonable amount of time I think it would be largely um something that the the average person pulling out of these streets would not would not recognize okay thank you thank you not is there is there a way to um Land Bank what would be required if if required the extra 30 whatever parking somewhere on that property so you're asking for 50 it requires 80 is there a way to show that on a plan where you could add the additional 30 if needed yes but I don't know that I would agree with with that approach like I said we have substantial uh documents and data that support our 50 spaces uh if we wanted to be open to some sort of a a re-review of our parking you know six months after opening or something like that we could be amendable to that I just don't think banking 30 spaces is uh reasonable with the way the site is laid out non profit I have some other questions on parking um so the and comments so the Illinois study um that you cited was October 2020 October of 2019 yeah that area what I looked at was a retail area with a lot of extra parking areas so I'm wondering how much of how much of that impacted the usage of your own parking area you're and I'm concerned that we're comparing apples to oranges because well let's not if you take take the the adjacent uses out of it a little bit you have to consider the fact that every student has to be walked in key coded in and dropped in their classroom so each parent has to come in drop their kids off get their kids out of the car and walk them inside so whether the surrounding use is an office District or a residential home they still have to drive in Access the site get their kids out and do the same thing but they could be parking outside of your lot in order to do that sure there may be a few then they've got to walk with their their car seats their one or two year olds uh a longer distance well the staff could be the staff could be parking in seven staff is that it there's 32 staff 32 and each one probably have a car right uh typically there is people who use public transit who get dropped off um so you keep talking about public transit there is no public transit in that spot the traffic study shows two bus stops one at each um north and south of us he's not from this area just I understand every every every location is different so I can't predict that I'm just telling you what we see typically across our schools I'd like to see the land bank parking on a plan like i' I'd feel comfortable with that again I I I feel like that pushes the limits of reasonable I feel that we've provided enough evidence to reasonably say that we can operate at 50 spaces so in December of 2023 you guys proposed a project in wayth you proposed 55 spaces correct um and so my question when when I looked at the the minutes of that meeting you guys talked about how that was standard for your area why are you asking for Less in chelsford so again the the 45 to 55 is optimal range for us we have sites I don't know if they're listed in that table that have high 30s in parking spaces we're flexible like the parking shows we fill 30 spaces in our Peak Peak periods so it's not a set number that our parking is based on but we also are a business we don't want our our parents and students to not have a parking space to be upset with the way our parking operates so we care just as much about the number of spaces and how they operate as you guys do I'm also concerned because the snow storage that you guys have on your map is completely covered in plantings and with the minimal snow storage you have on the plans that are also covered in PL plantings and trees a lot of that snow is going to end up in the parking lot because you also have fences surrounding the property so the snow storage is not going to be able to go over the curb in most areas okay so that's going to cut down parking as well in Winter that's not the intent of the design and coming from the operational side we could certainly make it a a condition of the approval that all snow removal is pushed and not to impact parking we could even conditionally look at revising our proposed snow snow storage location but given the plans there is no other place to put the snow that's not entirely TR well in the current configuration sure but to his point on land banking is there a way for us to fit a couple more parking spaces or an area designated for snow storage absolutely but 30 spaces that's that's pushing you know the limits of what we can fit in this also in the Illinois study you mentioned that 30 staff are on site um that only leaves if assuming patterns in chord hold most people will not be taking Transit that means that 30 parking spaces will be taken by staff correct just like uh pick up and drop off staff is also sort of tapered right at 7: a.m. when we open we don't need all 30 staff members so the parking lot fills over time as the parking lot fills over time you have that nice congruency of parent parking and teacher parking that work together and that's where you see the 30 spaces in the study over time if you watch that grow there's a combination of more parents coming but more more spots being occupied that's because the staff is parking to to show up for their shift you've also mentioned that in graduation and other events you'll have off-site parking correct uh it'll be held offsite okay but some events will be in the school for classroom parties and things like that I'm assuming yeah there will be um happiness hour where we have ice cream on the playground uh things of that nature typically those are uh staggered as well so the the one and 2-year olds will be from 4:30 to 500 the 2-year-olds three-year-olds from uh 500 to 5:30 that kind of stuff okay what are the ages 6 weeks to 5 years and how many trees are you taking down you know the answer to that I'd have to give you the answer I don't know the answer um did you use the do act in weth as well I we followed the same process here that everyone was aware of it understood did you use the do amendment to get approval we did exactly what we're doing here tonight and we discussed what was considered reasonable for approval like I mentioned I think in wayth we have that re-review of parking after 6 months um yeah you can't you can't add parking after six months here though this is a tight a lot I guess in wayth you mentioned that you would have space for queuing if needed where would you anticipate that on this site if needed uh I believe that comment was probably related to queuing of enter or exiting the site yep and I think that our proposed access Drive I mean entering the site it would be only exiting you're talking about well entering there shouldn't be any any delays okay again there is no drop off Lane there is no pullover it's every person Parks okay we would make sure loading and trash pickup and all that is off hours so that they're not conflicting with circulation uh driveway is also one way which helps with that as well I think the last time I I was on zoom and I don't know if I got the answer but um can you just explain why did you get pick this site and what or did someone push you to the site can I ask you that question why did did you choose this site in Chumps we have a number of criteria that we study to determine Target markets we want to be in and Target locations within those uh this met a lot of those boxes and there isn't as many opportunities out there of this size in those locations that meet our criteria as you think okay so your realtor that you worked with didn't show you the other areas of town that are much larger than this that are vac so that's not entirely true we have looked at other portions of Chelmsford I believe we even had uh pursued another opportunity that ended up not working so it it it the consideration is just a number of criteria that check boxes traffic you know U age limits of of kids in the area things like that that competition sure and you're and uh you're a for-profit organization or a not for-profit for-profit you're a for-profit yeah okay just a question on fire apparatus um I don't not sure if it's B the bowler uh letter or VII but I thought I remember reading that um there was there was um an answer or a question and answer about piece of fire apparatus um if it if it entered the site being partially out of the driveway but it there was a statement that it said the fire department didn't have a concern with that I'm just wondering if my understanding is correct my my concern would just be if a piece of fire apparatus and its large response to a medical emergency at this location I read it as chelmsford's biggest pieces of equipment fits but the standard wouldn't is did I read that right I missed the last what wouldn't so chelsford you did it specifically for a piece of equipment chelsford has right they provide us the dimensions yeah yeah but it didn't quite meet the standard for that's usually used used and it would hit the curb is that correct so I believe the discussion that occurred over the last 24 48 Hours was the a bumper or the rear Andy if you want to you you hand overhang uh yeah I'm Andrew plat from bowler so uh we ran the fire truck turning template we used the standard template provided by the fire department so I just spoke to Captain Abbot this morning about that comment and he was okay with that he was aware of the overhang it's just to probably the um aerial platform over the front of the truck so it really has no impact there's no vertical obstructions or anything so we we do have a sign off on that than Evan I also remember seeing something about historic district commission yeah how did yeah so I did um Deb did email uh late this afternoon uh saying that the historical commission uh deemed that there was no uh no requirement to preserve it and that they would like to work with the proponent um if they're building new retaining walls or replacement retaining walls along North Road okay and the structure the structure is not historic they don't need an inventory or anything they've already uh deemed it uh not historically significant okay so I don't even have to do an inventory or anything we have it I can share it with you oh I don't care through the process perfect so it's done yeah so you mentioned a couple times this um that you're that you were talking about re revisiting in 6 months the parking and that as we discussed it doesn't seem to be an option here so I mean if you were to try and um generate an additional number of parking spaces would that requires like um enormous you're saying in the future how many no well no how or or now I mean if you were to try and have more spots would that require a whole like site plan revision or is there something that could be done loss of playground or something um so yes and no it would be a substantial change just because of trickle down right if I extend my parking lot it changes our grading it maybe impacts our drainage design so it it gets into a little bit bigger of an issue than just adding a couple spaces uh which is why I throw out you know uh the six months or or a year of reevaluation as I've indicated at this point we're fairly confident in our operation working at 50 spaces if you guys gives you some satisfaction in knowing we can revisit in 6 months I'm I'm open to to that knowing that there's a potential for you know some some re revised you know construction impacts my concern with revisiting in 6 months once this is developed is that it would be really hard to retrofit anything additional into it not much wiggle what I would like to see is at least an initial pass at um additional parking and looking at the snow storage again not necessarily doing all of the additional storm water calculations and stuff like that but if you do an initial layout and just get back to us into what else would be needed to to be done and changed and what what are those trickle down items because I think that you have way too little snow storage and that's going to impact parking and if we're do if we're following it standards for traffic we should be following it for parking as well and that is that recommendation was 57 so I would like to at least see 57 spots so I can I can come to terms with that right I I think like you mentioned wayth is 55 I can see where you would pull from it and say 57 I would like to see if there's a way for us to potentially conditionally approve it based on the incorporation of those seven spaces right can I can I can put that design together it's going to look very similar to that it's just going to push us back a little bit I mean I I am never going to conditionally approve that without seeing the plans I just I I go back again to the reasonableness I've presented a bunch of data that supports our operation at 50 spaces I'm meeting you in the middle at 57 which I think is completely reasonable and I don't see any reason why we couldn't agree on the condition that with 57 space is this is acceptable because like you said there are trickle down potential ramifications and I since I've joined the board I will never conditionally approve plans that I haven't seen I won't do it and I I won't do that for any project you personally or what me personally what if what if engineering and planning reviews the plans and approves them at that point right CU we need their sign off so ultimately they're going to review the drainage revision the parking revisions all of that all I'm trying to avoid is us coming back and having this conversation again when we're this close to an agreement how how do you know with this close you think with is close I don't think with this I I understand but to my point earlier I feel like I've put together a strong no you have done a great presentation but you're not there's requested the board by a board member and there's other concerns so I I don't think you're very close okay and that's fair if if there's other items uh that we feel need to be looked at then then I understand where you're coming from and this um facility you said is going to be a for-profit organization correct so I'm a little confused because all the reading I've done maybe Evan can kind of help me I thought the do amendment was for nonprofits no it educational is included and it doesn't specify council's on the call think oh council's on the call oh Council oh I'm so glad can cuz everything I'm said like I thought it had to either be leased owned by the Commonwealth or be for a nonprofit organization maybe Council can explain um is that is that something I should respond to Madam chair yes please if you would please thank you just sorry to be formal but I just want to make sure no I appreciate um yeah no it that requirement is in chapter 486 Section 3 however it's specific to um educational uses and I believe also religious it is not specific to daycare there is no um nonprofit or profit requirement for daycare protection under that same same statute so okay all right so that's what I was getting confused with because I was looking at this as an educational facility there's a chug here it's child care so child care they can build using this do Amendment correct okay thank you thank you so just to uh try to facilitate this a couple of members have expressed particular interests the applicant's trying to engage with you but I think the applicant's also looking for what what other uh interests the buard may have well that size building calls for 80 parking spaces if they reduce the size of the building that would help the whole situation it's a huge building I mean there's also a um part of the do amendment is the reasonableness of our stipulations and I find it quite unreasonable to put a 16,000 square foot building on a property that recently housed single family housing well they've made a um I mean they've followed the oh I get it as theyve followed everything as to height and building dimensions and they've made reason AR for that building they've made a reasonable argument as to why they parking calculations are appropriate for this for their business plan but that's not forever is what I'm trying to get out I have a thought here if this were not a Dober Amendment use then the range of things that could potentially move in there would be quite a bit greater we're somewhat limited we're locked now I'm going to guess and maybe Town Council can weigh in here given that this is a a use posited at least on awareness of the do Amendment if this use were to end and I think you brought that point up Mike if if this use were to go away and and another use were to be proposed I would assume that that new use would have to come in before us and if it were not a Dober Amendment kind of use then the do Amendment kind of uh uh adjustments that we might make would no longer be a necessary or part of our process does that sound right um through the chair that is correct um if this use um ceases to operate on the property any new use that comes in would have to comply with the zoning bylaws if it happens to be protected by this Dober Amendment and the same valuation would take place if not then the parking requirements of the B would apply and we did that in in practice around the corner it was was built as a church overuse and then the church went out of business and it came back to the board and converted it into a daycare yeah that was my neighborhood one which one was that one small one uh small Parker the corner one I lived in the little white Cape right next to Rose yeah um so I'm I would like to see an updated plans not necessarily the whole package of plans but at least the concept this page of what it would look like and then what else would need to be done as the KnockOn effects to get it completely done for 57 spots at least 5780 I think it depends on the part the snow removal because because if they keep a fence around most of the property you can't move snow beyond the parking lot and so it has to be either the islands or parking spaces and if parking spaces are going to be taken up by snow they're going to need more than 57 in my opinion so I don't want to limit it to 57 I'm saying at least 57 and then depending on what happens with the the snow storage to have reasonable snow storage for that I don't think that's unreasonable 80 may be unreasonable but what Chris is talking about is what we're talking that sounds fair yeah because that's a big long driveway and a big long parking lot to put Snow storage in two small areas that already have plantings this this isn't the current site plan I can tell you that just because the fencing and stuff on the on it might it might be ex I just didn't know if the updated one but this is it so we can uh we can definitely add snow storage in in areas there's a area um kind of the U U-turn there well looks like a U-turn the white space at the very bottom of the screen there's some area there we can move some plantings um we can move fences you know we can make adjustments I think the point that Chris has been trying to make is based on so many other sites they have they know what they need for parking and it's not more than 50 so they're confident that what we have proposed here is is adequate so I mean we can you know provide another plan if we need to but they know that they need they need fewer than 50 spaces that's Prov they need that right now correct and I get that yeah yeah we get that okay I get that but we're also using it data to set the standards for traffic I want to be consistent and use those same standards for the parking that's related to Traffic and that that's just my point is that if we're using the data for one thing we need to use that same data for the other and not pick and choose which data we're we're using okay so I'm in agreement on on 57 spaces we could certainly work on that if if the concern is snow storage coming up with adequate I think if if you look at the the the the dimensional criteria for lock coverage all of those you know imperviousness all of that that snow storage area that you're saying is Landscaping can be turned into pavement and striped as snow storage area instead right that that can change I have lot coverage in plantings like I said that I can give up some of that so this whole area if you don't mind me pointing this area is is wider than than it needs to be for truck turning movements I can widen that by 5T I can make this all paved area and I can stripe that all for snow storage it would be used nothing for but snow storage again I go back to I I reasonably feel we only need 50 parking spaces here if it's a snow storage issue to Andy's point I can certainly find places on this site to to give you more snow storage and that that's just what I'm asking for if you can find more places for the snow storage on the the layout then that's kind of what I'm looking for because what I've seen in other cases is the snow storage is underestimated and then it ends up in the parking lot and I understand your point I I get kind of the the telephone effect of the guy who's actually shoveling the snow out there doesn't get the memo that it doesn't go in a parking space understand where that's coming from so we can work with you on that I have no problem with that okay um in terms of of the 57 spaces I'd really like to stay away from it if I'm if I'm going back to the drawing board to to show you more sow snow storage I I'll happily draw a concept of what seven additional spaces are but I I want to be careful there and understanding that that it's an increase from what we feel is truly reasonable MH I get that and I feel it's reasonable to use the it data for the parking if that's if that's where it's landing and there's no other issues that that people want us to take a look at I'll happily take our site plan back adjust the snow storage draw potentially where seven more spaces would go and we can discuss that I I would also like to have a revisit at some point down the line about the um the traffic calming measures and if they're not adequate consider having a um crossing guard be required so have the police weigh in on that maybe I guess going back to all the points before the police have said they have no comments I will reemphasize that our use is less intensive than even in elementary school as the point I made earlier we don't have a set drop off and pickup time we have less students than your Elementary or middle schools that were referenced earlier the traffic in and out will be substantially less than any of the public schools 2 miles up the road so the use of of say a crossing guard or a policeman to direct traffic um is is probably a little Overkill but we can do that at if we see that there tra that can be done after the fact right like the police can require that after the fact right it depends on how the conditions written and um that it's agreed upon by the applicant yeah I think I would want to I would be open to it but I would want to make sure traffic's involved in the standpoint of you know we're we're not substantially impacting it with this development it's an existing condition the right the The Pedestrian safety should be addressed because there is actuated correct flashing beacons so it's the future is not going to be based upon a pedestrian safety issue and then you left to with the vehicular safety issue I'm not aware that there's any right safety accident related concerns the business may find that they may need to have like a police like if they haven't like peak hours always free and clear to pay for detail absolutely okay all right yeah operationally if we see an issue we'd Happ you to come to the town and like I said we we have to ensure the safety of our parents and students for our business as well um are we going to continue well public yeah so let's open this up to the public see if anyone has any questions or comments for us or for the applicant good evening my name is Megan Reeves I live at 156 North Road my house is all over the site plans um I want to start by saying I am very appreciative for the um revisions that have been made regarding the landscaping and the lighting especially um especially as my bedroom window and my children's bedom bedroom windows open right up onto this space um I do have a question though for the board um so the elevation of the space where the parking lot is going to be is going to be raised up from where the current elevation is so I think on the plans it's listed that my driveway and my house are at approximately like I think it's like 177 ft um and the elevation of the building in the parking lot are going to be raised up to it was like approximately 189 ft um with the lighting and again I appreciate that the lighting has been dropped down to 15 ft um if they're raising the elevation by 12 ft and the lighting is 15 ft tall um does that still meet our zoning bylaws of not needing special approval for lighting over 25 ft as I was reading through the bylaws it said that lighting needs to be below 25 ft without special approval I understand the lighting is now 15 ft but the elevation of the space is going to be raised 12T my concern is that with that additional increase in elevation and the 15t lighting um the lights are going to be like directly visible um of my family's bedrooms especially when my young children are trying to go to sleep before 800 p.m. and so I'm just wondering if that is allowable special approval is needed for those lights to go in um with the elevation increase it's from grade right from grade grade so whatever the finished grade would be so so it is it is based on the new elevation mhm so it's the height from that new elevation up so it is allowable okay so it doesn't matter that they're increasing the elevation from what it is currently but I mean we are in the process of redoing the lighting policy which will be also retroactive and there's not in our new policy that will be forthcoming in the next few months there's not allowed to be any like noise pollution over the over the line no glare so everything has to be pointed downward everything has to be horizontal um so I mean that that if there's a problem it would require enforcement of course but it won't be allowed to be blaring you know shining in your light in your bedroom window and thank you I um unless it seems like there have been efforts made to make sure there are not lights shining directly in my window I appreciate but also it's very nice right now that there is no light coming off of that property and there are a lot of trees and I do appreciate that um many of the trees will now remain but um with the changes being made when the leaves are off the trees um come you know we know November and the 8 to 10 foot Evergreens that have been added there're still going to be even though it won't be glaring directly into my window it still will be um somewhat of an eye sore for me as I'm putting my children to bed um my my other question was just why why the 8:00 p.m. time was chosen if the school is closing at 6:00 p.m. needing time for staff to um get everything wrapped up go home why is 8:00 p.m. the time that was chosen for the lights to go off rather than an earlier time um if no one's going to be around for that last hour hour and a half yeah if you could respond that' be great if you wouldn't mind uh going down a couple to the lighting plant so so I think it's hard to read yeah so I think in the lighting bylaw the requirement is it may be 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. or 10: p.m. to 6:00 a.m. we we improved on what your requirement was um to your point I don't know that we necessarily would feel any hardship with moving it to 700 p.m. that'd be very much appreciated if that's something that um could happen I think the the last um point that I want to make and I don't want to continue with something that I know has been said many times but the traffic piece is still I understand I I've read the the studies the peer reviews I understand um and still the the 44% passby rate still seems kind of surprising to me and the amount of traffic that is going to be added it just still seems significant I understand that based on the studies that have been done that is allowable but I as a member of the community and as someone who turns onto that road every day and watches people take lefts um on lefts onto that Road off of that road um it's just still concerning and I want to name it here I come out of colonial all the time so I know I will also say as as a resident I cut through those side streets myself to avoid the traffic on a daily basis um and so I I do think that it is possible we see also more traffic increasing on those side streets for people cutting through I'm I do it myself I agree people are going to cut down Wigan that's yeah y how's it going uh my name is Michael I live at 147 North Road uh I have that house that's directly across from the driveway um so yes I am probably going to see some headlights Michael what's your last name Joya Joya U so I don't I don't want to spend too much time on traffic uh since I don't think it's going to have really any weight in the decision um but I do think that the 44% uh is a little odd uh I did put together that petition I door knocked mon view uh Charles Village View Wigan erlin uh Colonial I only had one person not signed no I'm not sure with you guys Gardner this uh idea that the neighborhood needs this um when I only had one person not sign no I door knocked I haven't heard anything from you guys directly so you haven't asked them so you're just looking at statistics and assuming that people in the neighborhood need this uh so I think that 44% might be exaggerating a little bit um and what weight does it hold are you going to go over the 50 6% of outside of the north road traffic I doubt you guys are going to vet those incoming people um and I did see that there might be some safety concern uh at Primos there is View vehicle queuing trying to leave there at the peak hours what happens when there's 10 cars on that driveway and a fir truck needs to get get in and there's traffic grid Lots there's nowhere for anyone to go um I could see that being an issue obviously it's a very rare circumstance type of issue but it's still something that could present uh maybe the same thing coming in you know if we only have a limited parking space uh Primrose has 35 cars in the parking lot every day at non- peak hours uh not leaving a lot of space for pickup you could definitely see the vehicle queuing down that driveway and emergency vehicles getting stuck um so with the decision for 150 North Road I feel like it's obvious that this came from an out of state perspective or even out of town perspective with the traffic reports um this Road's difficult taking lefts is difficult people don't want to go down North Road and there's going to be cuts from Wigan and Erland I know I cut through Erland to get over to Dalton and Jord Street people are going to drive out of here and I don't understand how this traffic cud wasn't down on the Orland intersection if you're coming off of chumford Street uh taking the old exit 31 or was it 33 I don't remember I I haven't kept track of the new exits uh come up chord Street to Dalton Street you're going to cut through early to get here so you don't have to deal with all that North North Road traffic from Dalton to this driveway so I feel like that was an intersection that was very much ignored I cut through that intersection every single time I need to get to chumford Street I take that quick left off wigg and I take that quick left on to Erland everyone who goes here that's going that way that's the they're going to go to avoid the traffic um and with that traffic and choosing 150 North Road and the avoidance people want there's other options that are easier to get to right there Keystone in North chumford you've got Primrose right on the corner you've got um I think it's knowledge uh knowledge Beginnings knowledge Beginnings right on chumford Street uh there's a new one being built in Littleton Road in Westford there's already uh I think it's Garrison or uh something with the G on Littleton Road there's so much that's easier to get to from a business perspective I am a business owner this isn't where I want to put my business to try to get people in and out of the space through all of that route four traffic it's probably the busiest Road in the town I mean you can maybe argue that chord Street gets a little bit busier but you know they're neck and neck I don't want to drive down that street to get somewhere um um especially where there's other options uh you know 129 so many empty spaces uh you know there's a lot for sale on Old West Road behind the McCarthy I don't know if there's any Landscaping issues with that property but you know that alleviates some of that North Road difficulty and then other issues that would you know need some legal counseling there were two Superior Justice cases Rogers versus the town of Norfolk and Regis versus the town of Weston that I feel could play into this a bit um first uh vers Weston uh they in lanord made the uh decision that in order to operate under the Dober Amendment you need significant or the majority of your program to be educational last last time when I was here even if it was a mistake we heard that it was a slight part of what they offer it was a slight part the educational person it a big part of what they off it was a slight part of what they offered even if that was a mistake even if you know you ignore that and the Dober Amendment uh covers it just on Nursery School Is there a way to uh keep track of the age group under 9 months doesn't isn't covered by the Dober Amendment it's 9 months up so if their intake is 50% or more of 9 months and under which you know it is could or could not be uh they're not covered they don't meet do Amendment requirements in the Northfolk Northfolk case uh Northfolk tried to Institute a bylaw limiting the size of child care facilities um and this byw was struck down under the what I interpreted was the issue that there were no other restrictions for buildings in single family zones so it was discriminatory Against Child Care Facilities uh per 19514 single family residences are limited to 4,000 ft before having to be presented to special uh with a special permit making a 16,000 ft facility unreasonable in comparison to that bylaw there's precedent we restrict single family houses to stand before you guys over 4,000 square ft I don't think you'd approve of 16,000 foot house here I don't think it'd be discriminatory to reject this because of the bulk of the business building based on the Dober amendment in its specific writing that says that you guys have the power to reasonably limit and restrict the bulk size of the building obviously that requires some heavy legal counseling on those issues um but that was what I was able to find in my research of core cases of similar matters uh and that's everything I have uh I do appreciate the changes that were made to the drawings the ballards versus poll lights on the walkway um but there's still the question of why and there's still the question of how can you consider this reasonable in the space where it is in a historic neighborhood that you're tearing down a historic house for I know it wasn't deemed historic by the commission it's still almost 200 years old it's got relations to the emersons the Spaldings everyone knows the um Hell's Angel stores with the Lion's Den you know chumford adopted the the School lion mascot because of the lion stand and the association with Hell's Angels and you know the mark it made on the town There's history in this property well that was a that was a rough B I don't think that this house should be subject to demolition without being pres presented across the street it's been presented it without without more public opinion on it is what I meant um well our our advising Authority has actually did meet with them before this meeting I I did talk with them um and their suggestion was that they couldn't go back to re-review uh but public opinion could change their idea of it not being deemed um and that's that's it thank you thank you hello Jason BTO uh five Wick Street um quick question on uh I know the fire department uh reviewed plans and said that they could fit their piece of largest piece of equipment up into the the site I kind of think it'd be really tight especially in the winter time with the extra snow around the perimeter and not being able to have as much turn radius at least on one of the ends but was it just one piece of equipment because if there's a call that comes in it's not just one piece of equipment that shows up any call you have police and uh ambulance has to show up as well and sometimes it's more than one piece of Fire Equipment if it's a call like that if that was you know taken into consideration because if you have a call come in fire department gets there first they come they come in they're not getting out of the way ambulance comes in and if the ambulance has to get out they're not going to have an easy way of getting out especially if they're blocked in by police and with the serpine driveway it just seems like it's going to be a congestion there and be a safety concern um my opinion uh and second point is because I live on Wigan I've already seen the increase in you know the you know once school started of the people cutting down the street and they don't go slow they don't observe any sort of speed limits and I got kids and neighbors you know kids that they play with up and down the street you know playing and tell them to stay on the sidewalk you know but kids are kids so it's just a safety concern for me you know that you know it's going to be when this comes in it's going to be even more traffic going up and down there so it's a big concern thank you thank you anyone on zoom and Joel do you have anything questions or comments no I think you covered it really well thank you okay so I guess we have a couple possible courses one is the way I see it to to um take a vote tonight to make a contingent approval and one is to wait for the amended plans and make an approval or make take a vote at the next visit or next meeting rather in two weeks um I personally would like to see the plans okay Anita I agree Mike I agree see the the plans I absolutely agree okay John I agree with that so we can see what we're voting on I have no problem with it and I'm good with that too so I think that we are going to request that you give us a new plan with 57 spots and moved around and striped increased snow so would it be fair to update the site plan with the increased snow storage area and then maybe just an exhibit with uh potentially fitting seven additional spaces right that that you could potentially do at a later time if needed yeah and and so like banking them yeah I'll sort of right banking exactly I'll look at maybe your adjustment to a a retaining wall alignment so that it creates the option for seven more spaces okay I think that's reasonable that people agree no I think Chris wants to see the 57 and I want to see the 57 yeah on on that page of plans that's the minimum I want to see I just I go back again to reasonable I don't know what the seven spaces is really increasing and giving you I I'll happy to show you more more like if if I mean I rather see the plan of if we needed that extra s then the extra extra above that but I'd rather have more buffer more trees more green space get focused on the business that's there right now right and I'm looking at the property and that's a 16,000 square foot building that requires 80 spots so we'll reduce it I get that but um what will you want to see what it would look like yeah yeah can you do something that that size building that shows what it will look like if you needed with seven additional spaces mhm yeah that's I mean yes additional yeah that's and that would it would just it would be an exhibit it be an extra document it wouldn't necessarily implemented into the current plan set I would bring it as a document for us to review not the whole plan set but what I'm saying is that page of plans that includes the plantings and things like that because I want to see especially with the plantings and the retaining walls and all of that I don't want to see just it'll be the yeah sure it'll be the site plan that was up there yeah I just we're going to have two of them I'm going to keep my 50 spaces with increased snow storage and I'm going to bring a sight plan exhibit showing the exact same diagram with an additional seven spaces with some understanding of if you did this what else would need to be changed the storm water things like that just some narrative is yeah a narrative okay so so Chris you're not requiring the seven existing spaces you just want to see them on a plan but you're not going to require next week next time we meet that he implements them in the plan I don't know it depends on what I'm hearing from him he's saying he's putting him on that they won't do them but they're going to show you them for future but you're saying you're saying you want them so I think right now we got miscommunication them out the door that's just me that's just me we can vote on it tonight you're asking for seven additional spaces plus snow storage additional yes and you want to see it on plan yeah your your intention is to implement that I don't know I think it depends on how much other work need would need to be done to get that seven and what the implications are if it cuts down screening if it cuts down all the other stuff maybe it's not worth the seven extra I don't know still open for discussion but they would be available if needed in a future time frame potentially right fine but I think that's the discussion we need to have no no I'm just trying I was I was reading something different from him and then I'm reading something totally different from YouTu so I just didn't I want to used for that property if this business folded tomorrow would be a church and that's a 16,000 squ foot church that would require how many parking spaces we have to look at every possibility for that property not just necessarily because even that church would have to come before us so now it might come they only have three point whenever Acres if I may is that a reasonable thing to consider in terms of this is what's in front of us we could play the wh if all g game all day of what what may happen on this site but I can't control that we've put our best foot forward here to be extremely reasonable kind of look at what it would look like with the additional 30 if it had to be there have have we come to a conclusion amongst ourselves that we're going to we're going to continue this to next time we're going to look for new plans containing seven spots that we may or may not use and incre snow storage that we will that we will in insist upon and commentary on any other adjustments that would need to be made there may not be anything that everyone can agree on okay okay would the board be comfortable at the next meeting if we pull back on some of the other items so that we're not going through the thorough long presentation come focused on just an update you gave us a very thorough presentation this evening I just want to focus Us in on on what what we want yeah will you make sure the lights are shining down please too yeah they are I promise we we made those changes I listened to the lighting bylaw last time we were here so we added the Shields and and tried to put some of those points in you might want to look at the draft of the new one it's on it's on the website okay yeah can I just um has nothing to do with this plan but in the future can we ask for our applicat to give us the side view from neighbor's P pers because this has come up yeah like it's come up multiple times and be nice did you see the rendering we did was that that though just the there's a second one from like the parking lot side okay I didn't see that one then maybe but it would be nice if we could have or even like yeah and again not we would have to remove trees and let take this a new new business yeah um okay so I think that we are then ready to move on I don't think we need we need to make a motion to continue continue do I have a second what's the date are you second oh second okay all in favor I next meeting right 911 911 okay oh thank you great okay and next we have 10 hildr Street requesting uh still says six slot definitive subdivision approval and applicable waivers under subdivision control law and the rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land in the town of Chums and a special permit saveing enery whatever you guys want to do for protection know I knew we were saving money thank you uh for the record Brian G with ancock Associates representing property possible along with me this evening is attorney howler um oh he's opening he's opening we're going to put the AC on oh God it's getting warm you were the first one to wither I'm dying I didn't know if we were saving money I was I thought it was broken that's why I had I known I would have it is getting a little sticky in here has this is going going to get it just about to get I was thinking maybe you can't do it after September 1st but I think couple days sorry EV hey on thank you Evan we we're generating a lot of hot air that's the problem we're good at that thank you thank you guys broken me too thank you Evan Brian good sorry Brian no problem so uh where was I uh so what we've done since the hearing all right let me take a step back uh so the last two hearings that we had we we engaged in uh a little conversation about how we want to mold the subdivision to allow for kind of some joint goals between the planning board and the Conservation Commission so we had issued to sketch and it was primarily conservation driven regarding Lot 4 um and the limit of work within um uh the Wetland buffer now we had proposed uh several waivers associated with allowing for that laot to have a reduced developmental impact if you will basically pull the lot outside of buffer zone um we had requested sidewalks be waved on both sides of the street and the associated right of way um narrowing down the board took a straw pull and and determined or gave the indication I should say that a sidewalk on the north side of the the new road the proposed road is appropriate we issued a subsequent sketch uh last month and showed kind of a hybrid because we only got one sidewalk versus uh both sidewalks wave we still have a little bit of of impact on lot four within the buffer zone we committed to taking a harder look at that and which we've done with this revised plan um and we also had conservation last even so to kind of update the board on on where we stand with the commission the commission is satisfied with the current plan we have a little bit of housekeeping left um with state agencies and then we'll be in a position to to close um the notice of intented proceeding and have the commission issue an order of conditions and that was um described last night and and kind of opined by the agent now for the plan that you see this evening uh just to stay on waivers for a second I know Doug's going to speak to them a little bit uh later in the presentation right now we have four waivers being proposed we have two waivers that were associated with the sidewalks so waiver um of one side of of sidewalk on one side as well as the reduced rideway from 40 ft down to 34 ft in the current plan we're also requesting a waiver for pavement width of 20 ft and that's remained consistent throughout uh all the exhibits and we're also asking for a waiver of full culdesac build out um in lie of a a hammerhead turnaround so it was brought to my attention today that the fire department had issued a a review letter um which we have yet to respond to so we we need to do that um and it's basically revolves around the sweat path analysis which we've already done on the Hammerhead turnaround if you recall our initial submission when it was a six slot subdivision and they're also asking for signage um to indicate that people shouldn't be parking within those turning movements in the Hammerhead so we'll we'll have that done and um hopefully a letter from the fire department for next hearing can I interrupt you for a second to clarify I'm sorry to throw you off your speech but I maybe I misunderstood you but I thought you just said you're doing the culde act now but I thought you were doing a hammerhead now we are doing a hammerhead okay sorry I thought so I apologize if I misspoke no the current plan is what we're currently proposing so in in I missed a change no we're we're proposing the Hammerhead um another item that was brought up uh during kind of our last couple of meetings was a concern about parking uh we described the fact that each one of these units has a garage and they have two parking spaces um within the driveway so you have a garage space and then two stack parking spaces so a total of three parking spaces per unit uh there was still kind of uh this this concern about Christmas or Thanksgiving or just the a party in general we've added visitor parking in two locations on this plan so up towards the the front of the proposed roadway there are now three spaces to be shared among residents and at the end of the dead end the the Hammerhead turn around there's an additional four spaces there so that's seven spaces the density of the project is seven units so that's an additional space per unit that brings four parking spaces per unit um within this this subdivision um with respect to engineering uh two two kind of items we had a call this morning uh which Evan helped facilitate Thank you regarding the hildr street expansion plan um which I'll get to in a moment um but the engineering department had also reviewed our four law definitive for Vi storm water calculation and there are a couple of housekeeping items that are associated with that uh generally speaking it's a cut fill analysis and um the sewer line for Lot 4 and just if anybody uh is curious what that exactly meant the existing sewer line for the existing house kind of runs through um runs towards Lot 4 if you will and what we're proposing is the house on lot for connect to where the existing house is currently connected but in the current plan there's a an unbuildable parcel so we have four Lots proposed and then we have an entire parcel of unbuildable land to uh to be held either by the homeowners association or or in some other configuration that sewer line Falls within that unbuildable paral so the engineering had commented that it should be within an easement or that sewer line be relocated so that something that we're going to address on the plan um with an easement kind of the key point of the the engineering letter is they fully reviewed our storm water calculations again and we are fully compliant with both local regulations and and state regulations there so again a couple small items that we need to address we hope to have that uh ready for the next hearing along with a a revised letter from engineering so in terms of our definitive application um just the project itself and and we'll get to hildra Street in in a second what I'm looking for tonight is uh an indication from the board on those remaining two waivers and if there are any other outstanding items um of concern within the subdivision proper the second part of this evening we have generated a sketch for hildr Street wide and that was requested from us uh I believe two meetings ago to show how we can widen hildra street where the locations of the widen pavement are what the impacts to AB budding neighbors are going to be and just generally what does the alignment look like um so we have a a variable width right of way out there that's 40 ft or less it kind of depends on where within the layout you're you're located and what we've done to generate this uh widening exhibit is we looked at the existing condition so we looked at driveways we looked at grades we looked at Landscaping we looked at trees mail boxes kind of anything that you see as you drive down hildra street and we determined in red the areas that we are proposing to widen to 18 ft so Street widening is essentially going to consist of um saw cutting the edge of Pavement in these locations to get a clean Edge on on existing asphalt then subgrade is going to be excavated to provide proper subbase the existing pavement will be Mill um to a depth of an inch and a half or 2 Ines so that top coat depth and then it will be paved over in in two courses so the new pavement a binder course will go down and then a second uh top coat will be put over the top and the reason why we do that is to interlock the the pavement patch if you will into the existing Road the road's in good condition cuz because it was just repaved by the town um but this this will widen it and basically maintain kind of that that condition that's there so everything that you're seeing in the red uh is the areas that we've earmarked to widen now on the plan there's kind of three locations right you have the Eastern side or excuse me the western side of Hilder Street up by b r Road and then it shifts to the Eastern side as you head down and then there's a small segment at the end of hildr Street uh towards Plum or at the intersection of hildr and Plum as a part of the conversation about uh H widening Hilder Street probably two meetings ago the board or or members of the board expressed that that section should be widened as well we we've shown it we don't necessarily have uh a desire to widen that section of the road I don't believe we're trying to put people from our uh proposed project the new road onto Plum Street we want them to take a right and go out to 129 but we have shown that option so if the board does have a desire to widen that section um that is what it's going to look like so this morning uh we had a call with Evan and with Tony um to kind of go over the plan and generally speaking engineering understands what we've what we've proposed here kind of the reason why we're proposing things on either side again it's because of existing trees Landscaping driveways grades mailboxes uh it's just the best fit for the least amount of disturbance um within the the the right of way and in that in that call there were really two takeaway items that I had one of them revolved around the existing drainage structure that's there I know there has been com Ary that it's it's a problem it it doesn't drain effectively uh from our knowledge and from dpw's knowledge there's no pipe that goes anywhere it's a leeching catch Basin so it's essentially a structure with holes in it that's um surrounded by Stone storm water enters it kind of filters it a little bit and then it discharges uh storm water into the ground but if it sees too much water or if it becomes accumulated with SE sediment uh it's not going to affect ly leech that water out so we're going to propose at a minimum to to replace that structure um basically what we have to happen is we need to dig a hole kind of at at the beginning of the street widening project to understand how big it is um what the surrounding soils are and then we'll select a structure specify a diameter of aggregate around it and then basically take it out and replace it in kind um the second part of the conversation which I haven't had a chance to talk to the applicant about yet is there was a desire by uh DPW if we were conducting full RightWay survey in this area to actually generate a street acceptance plan so that the town at some point uh part of this project not part of this project would be able to use that plan to petition that town meeting to take over this portion of hildra Street um for continuity it's there's there's a disconnect that this one segment of the road hasn't been publicly accepted yet and I think you know from his perspective it would be in the best interest of the town to do that can't commit to that level of survey and plan yet but I will have that conversation with the applicant to see if that's something that we're willing to do um with that uh kind of said uh what I'd like from so we had the direction that we were looking for on the original plan was with respect to those two waivers and any other outstanding items on the subdivision with this plan it's General commentary because obviously it's the first time that that you've seen it but it's really it's also an indication of whether that that last segment of widening is desired by the entirety of the board uh in which direction we're going to we're going to go uh on that piece of it um with that I I think I'd like to turn it over to Doug to have to continue conversation thank you Brian um quite frankly I think Brian summed up all the important issues um I just want to note that this plan is getting very close to an anr plan um at the rate it's going but I just want to remind we have access in erress all of the Lots meet all the dimensional requirements so we you know those are non-issues for us in terms of a subdivision approval um the width of the road that's a question you know we're willing to improve it hopefully to this 18 foot standard that the town seems to want to do so that it can accept it which to me addresses most of the alleged safety issues and concerns that were brought up by the neighbors because the town's going to be willing to accept the road if we do this survey work and not at the town's expense but my client's expense to make these widening improvements um so that looks like a win-win for the town for my perspective um I think we address that it meets the state storm water standards um there was some question about in the past about title five and the septic designs I wrote to the Board of Health this past week asking them to make determinations if the septic designs we've given to them uh pass their requirements it's it's my understanding that's entirely within the Board of Health uh jurisdic ition to make a determination it's really not for the Board of Health excuse me the planning board to determine whether or not the septic plans are met and and the requirements are met so I'm going to kind of defer that um that it's really not something that's subject to the jurisdiction of this board um and uh we've already gone through uh there was also some question at one point about the right to remove U some of the stone walls we have all that right that was opined I think previously by Town Council so we're we're pretty much there except for these two waivers and we're hopeful that you consistent with what has been said in the past from members of the board that you'll Grant those two waivers and allow us to go forward and make those changes and we can finally get a subdivision that's approved either with or without conditions I it's going to be conditions no question um I would think one of the conditions you're going to add though is is uh a determination by the Board of Health about the septics I think that's you can approve that subject to uh the Board of Health input so we see that as I consider the open issue with the Board of Health only and other than that I don't believe I have anything else particularly to add unless there are particular questions that the members have for Brian or for me um and by and I did submit a legal opinion now more than a month ago about the street widening and to my knowledge Town Council has I received nothing back that says my analysis is off for we're wrong because we have received nothing so I'm presuming I'm correct on the opinion thank you I have a question on the original plans the first time you came up because this is a very long time ago long meetings were there any waivers requested first time you came here yes there were there were waivers when we initially submitted uh our application when it was a six lot subdivision it was sidewalks it was roadway width it was Hammerhead turnaround it was essentially what we were what we're talking about right now um I'd have to go back and look and see if there were others I think there was a grading waiver that was Associated at that time um so it's the the current plan is less than what was originally proposed um but yes it did have waivers what are the waivers on the current plan again so the current there are four waivers um um two of them the the board's kind of opined on which is sidewalk on the north side of the road and uh the reduction in right of way width from 40 ft to 34 ft uh and that's a reflection of eliminating that second sidewalk uh the two other waivers are pavement width from 22 ft to 20 ft and a hammerhead turnaround in Li of full culd saac wa pavement with from 22 down to 20 we're currently proposing 20 ft and 22 is required why is that why are you asking for that waiver we don't think that the extra two Feet's required okay so it's your it's your it's your request obviously to go to 20 ft I was just asking why are you reducing it I mean that two feet could help with cars parking on the street getting around we have visitor parking now yeah so we feel that we've addressed that concern we don't think we need an additional 2 ft of pavement out here it reduces impervious it reduces storm water it reduces construction costs uh fire department access is only 20 ft wide for State Fire code there's really no reason why this is a lane it's not a minor road so it's not the 26 ft down to 20 it's 22 down to 20 Anita when we first got the plans we had talked about those waivers that they had proposed and we were pretty much against it MH and then the plans changed um to not do any waivers but then with all of the other conservation related stuff the plans changed again to include the W that's what I'm thinking okay all right so we need waivers in order for you guys to pass conservation otherwise no we we need waivers because we're asking for them the the sidewalk and the RightWay width allowed us to tweak L 4 and move it away from the West w l so as it's currently shown we don't have impacts within the buffer the last the last said waivers allow you to allowed you to move and have a backyard correct so if you do not Grant the waiver that you've already indicated to that would be granted um basically Lot 4 shifts 6 ft South and the 10t backyard at the Southeastern Corner goes from 10 to to 4T it's still doable it's just less than I deal so the if I could just talk about the conservation restriction piece of it so that is a physical and a legal barrier right that people will not be able to use that space so what what we originally proposed to the Conservation Commission about the CR was allowing for Lot 4 to have yard within what is existing grass area Conservation Commission did not like us proposing any yard within the 100t buffer so we took that um that development that limit of work line out to the 100 foot buffer the CR itself it's still in determined whether we're going to establish one what we have right now shown on the plan is a parcel X and it's an unbuildable parcel but where the proposed silt fence is it's my understanding that that will be a post rail fence on Lot 4 correct with posted signs that prohibit people from crossing over that correct into the conservation space into yes jurisdictional area of the commission okay so then I guess my question to Our Town Council is our definition of a setback is that no building within 30 ft of a property line or within 20 ft of any other property boundary area and if that conservation restriction is essentially a boundary area then wouldn't there need to be another waiver for setback for lot four um through you m m Madam chair um I have not looked at that particular definition to this point um given what I know about application of setback in other circumstances I would not expect a a line of a conservation restriction to be a boundary that would define setback um I can take a look at that and look at your definition and see there's a different result but um right now I I can't give a definitive answer to that okay fair cuzz it seems to me that the setback is to allow space for construction vehicles and people to move around and if our if people can't go beyond that boundary then the setback there is essentially a 10t 10.8 foot setback from the deck I thought you said it was setb has a lot of purposes not you know not just necessarily onsite movement one of the chief ones is a a control of density um obviously that would not particularly be a concern here given youve got a cons ofation sitting behind this so again it's it's possible that this definition would apply to that particular boundary um but again I'll have to look at that okay and how much will the setback be now um so right now we have 10.8 ft from the corner of the proposed deck to the 100t buffer our limit of work line I thought you said four feet but maybe correct if if the waiver for sidewalk um the second sidewalk and the RightWay width um reduction are not granted by this board that's 6 ft lot forward shifts 6 ft South and then that 10. I get it it's setting aside where Chris is asked it's it's not a setback issue meaning you can have Wetlands as part of a lot area mhm right there's no zoning requirements you have have to have any backyard or yard area lawn area you can't put lawn on your Wetlands right right so the commission the commission has essentially said uh we're not going to allow any work and the applicants agreed not to do any work within the 100 foot Wetland jurisdiction right still it still counts as lot area but it's not their it's not it's not just work limit it's perpetual boundary is what the Conservation Commission is is considering they may not be able to do that via a conservation restriction that's what you're hearing that's essentially what you're hearing from the applicant lot lot X is to be determined okay the Comm the commission can't the commission without without jurisdiction the commission can't require conservation restriction so the best the commission can do is is is require post and rail and sign it right that's what I'm saying but it's at that point it's still it's still lot area but it's creating a boundary and based on our setback definition Council Council will figure that out yeah and why aren't we doing the C act you've got the room for it it's cheaper yeah um we don't we don't think it's required um so it's it's it's kind of two factors I guess one would be aesthetic right we got four houses on a dead end Road uh I think a hammerhead turnaround is going to lean more towards rural driveway than a big called toac and obviously construction cost would be the second fact uh the second Point provides more parking more impervious we're we're proposing four additional spaces in the area of that cuac that we would not be proposing with the full buildout and we have an additional three so we already have seven more spaces than really any regulation requires yeah but and then if the like CU they're doing the septic under the driveways at least this way it would like if they have the turnaround so with respect to the fire department if I if I may um they require us to show the sweat path analysis the Turning movements of the largest apparatus within the right of way even if it's a hammerhead turnaround even if even if it's a hammerhead turnaround so regardless if we do a loop or we do a 3point turn that apparatus has to do all that movement within the right of way so it would have no impact on any septic systems under driveways right and again the septic design system will be something done by the Board of Health no I understand that but like how we determine like if we give the waiver or not like you know you got to understand like it all's kind of inter played but it is a waiver I just don't want to risk any you know fire truck going on a septic system and so close to the water district that I going give all the opportunity in the world to have to turn around in that area and avoid any emergency where are the parking spaces at the end four spaces right here okay three spes and when they're fully occupied the fire truck turns around no problem correct no no complex I just want to respond to the comment about your concern um your concern about the fire trucks somehow basically crushing well septic my concern is our zoning is our zoning so like if we require a turnaround we should put a turnaround right there's like I just I can I can probably cite how many different col sexs have been waved by hundreds of subdivisions in this town but putting that aside if the concern is based on the septic design and concern about the weight of the fire truck going on to that the design standards of the septic system have to meet that and the Board of Health will determine if and with the town engineer probably will determine that it either meets it or it doesn't so it's something for those the Board of Health to deal with with perhaps engineering from the town engineering I get that it's not for this board to decide I get that I'm not sure you do you keep raising it that's why okay I get that I hear you and can you show me again where the snow storage is sure um on on dead end roads or roads in general is wind row so it's going to be on the sides on front yards I mean with this configuration you have a ton of areas okay all right somebody brought up at a prior meeting about putting a deed restriction on the movement of that about what restricting on what goes on with the original House yep um are you okay with that no no okay I mean I I can I guess I can go into the background of why that specific property had the deed restriction on it but we're not no it's all right you answer the question and we don't have the the the Board of Health asked for uh phase one we don't that's not been it has been you want to speak to board Health at all that was Sor I missed it okay my bad yeah it was required by the Board of Health and it was actually independently peer reviewed as well along with the hydro Geo study yeah I missed that so Brian the only thing I when I talked about the width of the road they just built one of these developments a larger one right next to my neighborhood and up on gron road the new Jackson Road um the neighbors Park not in the driveway they park on the street and uh so there's people going in and out all around that's why I asked about the the depth of it because I think as a team as a planning board we have to change our requirements of that because you see the one the development right here of of uh Turnpike you turn down there any day it's filled with cars and then they Park and they're not they're not in the they're not in the driveway y so I I think we we can't do it with this one but I think we can adjust it on down the road Y without bylaws it's just that it's just falling into these new devel Vel Ms that people are not parking in the driveways they're not in the garages I should say there's a car in the dve and every home has two cars right so there's one in the driveway and there's one on the street two cars in the driveway and then the Street's not the Street's not wide enough the Street's not wide enough for a car across the street and next to it parallel parked for cars to get through so just something we have to consider as a board all right um I have some questions on the hildr proposal so initially you had committed to doing sidewalks from the site up to belrea road I don't think we ever did because this is the first time that we've addressed HRA Street we've committed to widening hildra they recommended they recommended there was a big discussion that I had with with the attorney about wanting that sidewalk to go the other way from the project so the proposal was is that you were going to put a sidewalk okay I asked for it we didn't say yes you put it on one side though you put it on a proposal plan M we've never shown a plan on H Street okay both traffic reviews U recommended it yeah okay so put putting that point aside having the project have a sidewalk leading to no sidewalk on hildr street is a problem for me um I think there needs to be a sidewalk on hildr it's recommended in the traffic studies it's if we're putting a sidewalk on the project site why would we not put one on hild that makes absolutely no sense do you speak well I'd have to ask the client but then you're just widening HRI even wider to the detriment of what you've heard from the neighbors so if you're going to try to require a sidewalk then that plan's just going to get expanded out to accommodate a sidewalk which is going to probably that's a decision the board I can approach the client with it but they've managed to do it without it for quite a long period of time and this is now expanding the actual Road width I'm not sure I would want to tell the neighbors as a board that you're requiring it to be wider but that we're requiring it because of the additional houses in the area that's your perspec that would be the decision that's your perspective I get it but it's a change to the neighborhood no excuse me it's to change to the neighborhood you're changing the neighborhood so okay I'm not sure that you have a right to require an off-site improvement like that but when we raised the issue of sidewalks originally on the new road we said it's a sidewalk leading to nowhere and this board was very several members of this board were very insistent they wanted originally sidewalks on both sides again does doesn't make it didn't make a lot of sense then it doesn't even make sense now as you're admitting it really doesn't lead to anything because you want to eliminate suggested sidewalks on hildr do you want to eliminate the need for a sidewalk on uh the new road and asked for that sidewalk instead to be implemented on hildr street and widening the street why would we implement the sidewalk on one road and not the other I'm just asking I'm suggesting it should be on both yeah okay all right will approach the client but I wouldn't expect that he'll agree this is Joel I just want to add to what Chris was saying that was clearly when we were discussing traffic the issue was pedestrian safety and under discussions about the widening of hildr and and I think it's very I think I had the question in my mind whether the applicant had ever said they would do sidewalks but I think it was very the the board was clearly concerned about pedestrian safety on hildr and I think any discussions about the road widening uh can fully anticipate that the board would want to have a sidewalk elay those concerns uh so that was a question I had when I saw it was a 18t width my first question was where's the sidewalk uh I didn't and then I wondered well had they promised it or not I don't know but the board certainly expressed a concern about that and I think that would alleviate that concern without a sidewalk I think that concern is still there pedestrian safety uh a concern about that right there were two main concerns one was adequacy and one was pedestrian safety on Hildreth yep and my recommendation would be whatever improvements are proposed for hildr it's done for the entire un accepted stretch of hild in both directions so that correct down to Plum the way that we're showing it yeah as designed yeah like down to Plum down to Plum should we take public input I'm sorry yeah um Joel did you have anything else uh just just that um the other thing too is is there a plan that shows the test sites um with the infiltration bed is collocated with it is there a plan that shows both of those uh so if we're we're referencing the the system within the subdivision right at the end of the road yes yeah so she sheet five shows all the testing and shows the location of the underground system sheet five okay thank you yeah I just wanted to look at that and where where the ground water Contours shown are those um in a separate report or uh I mean I think you know where I'm going with this so correct um and that that all of that was on the exhibit that we had discussed last time when we had our LSP here okay so I'll look at that too okay I just wanted to get a sense of obviously the cons the question there is is there is there a question of do we think that infiltration will cause a possible exacerbation of of Transportation or movement of contamination I know that I had briefly addressed it last time but I I hadn't had a chance to look at it so I want to take a look at that and I also wanted to take a look at the the storm water just in particular to look at setbacks from septic and and uh slopes and things like that so that's really it okay I will open up to the public good evening to Paul wood 16 Hiller Street um I'd uh sent a quick email this afternoon I guess because this again this document showed up last night of the Helder Street widening so didn't have a lot of time really to look at it fully as they've done you know the six or eight documents they showed up so um like I said M the traffic study that happened in November I think in originally and that was peer reviewed and then there was a long yeah um there was a long stretch I know that there was no meetings and it's sort of fell off the radar if Feel Like We Never Fully addressed that traffic studies and what should and shouldn't be done so um I don't know where the 18t come came from and if you're baking a 20ft road why would you allow a 18 foot road that was my question um I know attorney Hower keeps mentioning oh they have a problem with safety before if I'm very disrespectful that we are concerned about our safety and our neighborhood and our kids I watched parents eight parents I mean eight kids walk up the street TR with their parents that's only to get good more there's that many young kids in the neighborhood so like I said I get a little angry that if I had young kids I'd be angry that any implications that it's a it's a farce about the safety um I find that very disrespectful but uh like I said I don't see why it should at least be 20 ft to match the this new road and the sidewalk I mean it's just common sense as far as I'm concerned but thank you thanks Patrick morassi 15 Plum Street um could we look at the one that has the the red on it if you don't mind bringing it up thanks sorry for for that so um I live on Plum Street 15 Plum Street near that intersection um towards the bottom right corner there that's come up quite a bit um as you can see it's very close to the proposed uh driveway there which is in the uh bottom middle of the screen there um so that came up in the traffic study in the peer review you've heard from me before about this but it has never been addressed um especially the peer reviewer was concerned about the proximity to the new roadway um because of the poor sight lines from plum in that direction towards that um so that hasn't been addressed um there was also an issue about the radius the radius is not changed by that red um addition of the roadway um in addition to that since the traffic study occurred uh I believe that the proposed roadway may have moved and when the I'm not sure that could be verified if it was adjusted the location um but I believe it has been um and when the study was done it said that the sight lines from the proposed driveway left met or could be made to meet um the industry standard and it didn't explain how they could be met um and if it has moved then I'd like to know how it's going to be verified that it would be met so that might need to be something that's looked at um but again I can't verify because the distance from Plum to the proposed roadway is no longer listed it was listed on the early plans um also with those poor sight lines facing each other can you show me where you were just talking about I'm sorry so in the traffic study there were two sight lines um that were considered below the standard this one was extremely below heading this way and then this one it said that they weren't sure but it could be made in a way that would meet the standard how it would be done so this one looking left this one looking left right at each other or the two um that were considered dangerous then we have this parking I'm not sure uh how close to the street it is it doesn't say so I'm not sure with this view left and cars parked here if that would be a concern as well so that might be something to look at it basically the two turning left can't see each other coming that was the issue um and that was definitely highlighted in the original study by Van Asin Associates and reiterated in the peer review so um both sides um so the other thing is about the narrow roads um still just not sure why I understand try to get it out of the 100 foot buffer but the two are not mutually exclusive we can get out of the 100 foot buffer we can still have a 20 twoot Road yes it may impact the designs but then the designs can be made to meet everybody's standards not one or the other uh at the last meeting there were actually a few different reasons suggested um and they weren't repeated here today so just as a reminder um and these were not all by the applicant um some were from the community development director um we have the the attorney made one today that I'll address as well um one was that narrow roads create a neighborhood feel I think that we've heard from lot of neighbors that they do not approve of narrow roads and I think that neighbors should be the ones that are commenting on the neighborhood feel um another one was that previous planning boards have allowed narrow roads in the past um and then that was just used as a reason for a culdesac I would argue that as elected officials you don't need to make the same mistakes that other people have made in the past and um that you should make the right decision for the individual cases that come to you you don't have to follow precedent from previous board members um another one was that this is a dead end Road and I heard this again um so we don't have to worry about future extensions yeah we can make it narrow now there are four houses there there will never be any other houses um if you take a look at a map and see what's on the other side of this property I'll just give you a a quick view here I was going to send you a letter but I had to make changes because we got this new information in late um so if you take a look here this green property is the property that's being proposed um for development this blue property is the one that exactly backs up to it you can see they share the entire property line it's symmetric flops over and has access to Turnpike and only a single family home on it right now so if we allow this to go in and we have this Dead End Road is really no not stopping a future applicant from developing the opposing property and having a straight shot right over to Turnpike providing cut through from Turnpike um to hildr and avoiding that very busy intersection of Turnpike and Bill rer Road so I would not like to assume anything about what a future applicant might do with that road really it leads right to to the other one um I have some concerns also just about that um roadway in general so one is that it leads right into my neighbor's driveway it just doesn't seem like a very good design to have a road that leads right into a driveway it will look like it's one continuous path if you don't see what I'm talking about there's a driveway right here this is the proposed Road there's a driveway exactly across the street from it I mean I've been looking as I drive around town and I really don't see any roads that lead right into a driveway I'm not a safety expert but it does not sound like a good idea um all right I think those are I think those are the the biggest ones I just ask you um one last time to stick to the industry standard on the road widths and that applies to hrth as well we we looked a long time ago at the commensurate adequacy of way commensurate with the existing uh sorry with the proposed Road my neighbor just mentioned it if this road needs to be 22 ft then the access should also be 22 ft along with sidewalks on both on on one side thank you Jeff Carney 17 hild Street and in asking for a reduction of the width of the road um that would allow them to have the footage on Lot number four and and also get out of the conservation area that's why they want the reduction in the road width and uh we were talking in saying that they had not discussed sidewalks on hildr street before I recall a previous meeting in which the applicant or someone speaking for him had uh given a dollar figure for the cost of putting sidewalks on on hildr street so I know it's been brought up before thank you Kevin Chelli 11 Hilder Street my neighbors have pretty much brought up everything that I was going to discuss but I am that driveway directly across the street from the proposed development so I would ask the board please do not Grant any waivers make them build to the standard when we build a house we have to build it to a standard you if I'm not going to start asking for deviations they should be able to be forced to build to the standard and if you look at the um map where they're considering expanding the road you notice no no prop has been taken from the applicant side nothing has been taken from the applicant side why is that and I thought only the owner of the property could be addressing whing the property they don't own the property yes they do no they don't they're into a purchase and sales they don't own the property they made that perfectly clear during a board Health meeting when the Board of Health was talking to them about a p reading that was extremely high that was never reported to the state they blamed and the applicant said we don't own the property so they're playing both sides of the coin they're not giving you all the data they want to give you what you want to hear to approve it from the planning board and then they go to the next board and give them little bits of information to get everything approved they made it perfectly clear they don't own the property but it's interesting when you look at it they're not taking any any property from their side of the street and why is that just please take that this all into consideration thank you hi Linda Carney 17 Hilder Street and 19 Plum Street and I'm afraid that Kevin stowed a little bit of my thunder but I have a letter here that I prepared and I would like for you to listen through and see if you don't think it's worthy of Investigation is with respect for the board for their attention to this matter the neighborhood's concern and their efforts to ensure that all new construction be done responsibly with respect for the environment and all of the chelsford residents I call the board's attention to section 2.1 application form from the document titled site plan and special permit regulations and procedures which reads and I quote in the case where the applicant is a person other than the record owner of the property the applicant must obtain the owner's signature where required on all forms indicating that the owner has knowledge of and consents to the application in discussion with Evan binsky a neighbor and I asked if the property owner Garrett overhauser had signed off that he has knowledge of and consents to this application a requirement as noted above Evan told us that he didn't have that document but quote if you meaning me want it I'll get it and an acknowledgement to me that the signature is not on file the owner's signature is not on any of the plans submitted nor does it show on any of the public documents provided this becomes important for two reasons the first again with a non-spousal witness we had conversations with the owner Garrett in which he stated he was unsure if the property was still encumbered in addition he expressed sincerely that he was unaware that this contractor was asking asking about a project for more than two units and that his subsequent information regarding the property had come to him from third party sources in town including one of his superiors in the National Guard he was adamant that the bits of information he did know were not from Michael the favor he also stated that the original pns has expired and that he had rented out the property and it told Mr Le faer that nothing could happen for at least a year gav Garrett initiated conversation when he crossed the street to offer us an apology and to tell us how sorry he was that this project had been such an upset to the neighborhood it was not what he understood would be happening when he agreed to work with property possibility my second reason concerns the handling of the asme 1527 D21 Phase 1 environmental site assessment prepared by Will Cox and Baton Incorporated in dated June 5th 202 4 regarding a reportable event we have heard from Doug howler at the August board meeting that his client the contractor possible prop property possible excuse me is not the owner therefore it was not their responsibility to report the violation to the state that it was the property owner's responsibility yet and I quote again the mCP mgl C period 21 period e requires that the sampling results be provided to the property owner within 30 days of the receipt of the results my point is that if the contractor was in even limited communication with G overhauser why did the Board of Health and a certified letter need to be the one to notify the owner of the violation and Reporting responsibilities it also seems as if it would be common decency to make an owner aware of a legal requirement found in assessing the property owner's land that could and now has become problematic for that property this leads me to ask if the planning board has the authority to ask to see the pns agreement or agreements and any extensions thereof to provide proof that poty possibility has the legal authority to act on the owner's behalf especially since property possibility has not filed the necessary signature with the Community Development Office as required in 2.1 site plan requirements respectfully submitted Linda Carney thank you for your time thank you can the council can we have the council speak on that Council speak on uh is Council still on the call yes probably on the call was there a particular question the legality of what she just read to he's going to have to he's going to we're going to have to email this to him yeah we're going to have to email he's not going to get to extemporaneously comment I don't think yeah but just from a procedural perspective why aren't we getting the applicant signature like is that is that something required and does that set us back now time frame like what what happens now I mean Council can look at it if neged we normally would get a letter of authorization uh if the applicants not the property owner the applications have check boxes to indicate whether you are the property owner or not I mean it's easy to resolve this at the end of the day the notion that a property owner isn't aware that someone's making a development application to a to a town seems rather ludicrous to me but it's the reporting mostly right okay yeah but it's just like I mean like from a process standpoint check like sure we have all our of all the reg of all the regulatory issues that are on the table I'm sure this one can be resolved okay well then let's let's let's try to stick to the jurisdictional issues the real issues that a board can actually deny a project on or that you're required to deem you know a compliance on it's okay you thank you good evening uh board members my name is William Harvey I own the property at 91-93 Bara Road first I'd like to commend um board member tanini on her response relative to waivers waivers AR as of right there are bylaws that need to be filed it's up to your decisionmaking of whether or not to Grant one or not it appears is that the applicant tonight is representing that they should be granted one by as of right because there's other developments and there's other uh approvals that were done that's not the case so I would strongly suggest that you deny the the waivers secondly I've submitted several um subdivision plans in the town of chompster and there are rules and there's regulations on how to prepare an application and if a if a document is missing the application is incomplete the application is incomplete it gets returned to the applicant or in the case if the town really wants to push a project through they'll say it's no big deal well if it wasn't a big deal there wouldn't have been a check box where the property owner has to sign it to have a complete application before your board therefore the application's incomplete and this board cannot have any hearing further on this matter I'll send a letter to the town tomorrow and I'll have my own perspective as an AB butter and I have standing to challenge the application the incomplete application that's now before you so there isn't let's backtrack and we'll just simply have the owner write a letter now I'm sorry we're way past that number three is my business mode is if anybody ever uh if I feel that anybody's ever been deceptive to me I clearly will never ever do business with them and what is extremely deceptive about this plan and to have somebody come up and look you in the eyes and say that lot number four is going to be a single family dwelling and then you simply ask is they're willing to do a restrictive covenant correct same thing with that I was required to do on m road where was owned RC I made a proposal that it would be single family and during that proposal I was requested to have a a signed restrictive covenant that there would only be single families on those four Lots so now again tonight they're putting a plan before this board and they're stating that there's going to be a single family house and you ask them will you put a restrictive deed in my case I'd call it a rest restrictive covenant that only a single family dwelling will be built there immediately absolutely not what is that telling you just like I said at at the previous meeting there's no intention here to to put a dup uh a single family the intention is it's zoned RC and it's going to be a two family and number uh number four is it was a simple request by one of the board members I forget is why do you have to reduce the private roadway by two feet well the reason why is is due to front yard setback so Lot Number Four currently has 23 ft if you make him have the additional 2 feet it brings it to 21 ft and most likely with that duplex to be put on that lot it's pretty close so it wipes out the duplex most likely the front yard set back that's the reason why so for somebody to say to you actually for somebody to come up here and not even respond about the reason 2 feet that's the reason why 2 feet has nothing to do with cost because I'm a developer I know what the road costs and 2 feet doesn't cost anything so again something so simple where somebody's looking you in the eye and saying lot four is going to be a single family dwelling complete lie dishonesty deceptive nothing else you can believe from them this meeting's been going on forever I'd suggest that you hold that somebody um close the meeting and put a vote on this I really do thank you very much thank you good evening Nate Montero for Hildreth uh looks like for Hildreth took the the brunt of the uh Road tick and on that picture there I was out there today measuring and the tree in front of my house which it believe it says protect or something I would assume they're going to protect that tree they're going to find 3 ft when the tree is about 4 and A4 a little over 4T and it's a grade so they're going to dig down into damage the roots but they're going to leave the tree the other issue is the trees behind my mailbox those are perfect perfect in line you could you see straight down but yet they're off why why are they off I don't understand why they're off in that position there's a telephone pole right behind my mailbox there's going to be a pinch point the left tree the existing right tree the left telephone pole and then the existing right tree so this is going to be a four pinch point that you're going to have to maneuver with a 3ot additional Road it doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense in that area my driveway is a slope they're going to make it even more slope all that water that doesn't go that backs up into that catch Basin comes down my driveway so now additional water is going to come down my driveway um so that whole area there is just kind of not accurate in my opinion I was out there today measuring it as far as the parking when I have guest over I tell them to park at Center School to try to avoid parking on the street Center School is as close as those three parking spots it's probably the same distance I guarantee you I will tell my guests go down there and park they came over here and said only the residents will park there I bet Kevin cross the street park in there what who what why are we not allowed to park there our guest in those three spots yet why can't we park down in those seven spots all of our guests that come over they make it seem like it's just for them and that we're not allowed to park there so there's got to be some additional uh thought into there might be more parking than just the original four duplexes that are going to be uh constructed appreciate your time thanks okay I think this going to be the last person thank you board members for being here tonight I'm bernardette Gillette from 16 Plum Street I'm sorry I can't hear a thing you're saying I'm sorry I I don't I'm bernardette Gillette I live at 16 Plum Street and if they widen the road down hildra street on the side that my daughter and Kevin live at and 16 Plum um there's going to be retaining wall or something there's a huge slope there so if they widen how are they going to stop the land from just washing away with all the rain and everything so please look at that thank you thank you okay um any further comment from anyone here I'm not a lawyer but um what one of these uh residents just brought up about an incomplete application let's say it's incomplete where is it for everything does it throw everything we did for the last year out I don't think so you council's going to have to look at that okay well is there this is Joel one other thing I wanted to ask about did we have Town Council review What doug howler submitted on the the road and all that sort of thing did we get a response from Town Council on that you got a written written responses uh jol you're not physically here so those are labeled confidential they've been they've been emailed to the board previously and there's heart copies in the room okay I'll look I think they came yesterday yeah they did it was in an email and then um thank you and then a couple of more sort of Gob Backs from very beginning and that was the the question of the stone wall the the reason I had raised that originally was a question of demolition delay um so that so historical has weighed in on that and I know I know they weighed in on 150 North fla they also weighed in here uh other thing they did but then Town Council um commented that if the walls were contained completely within the property that the property owner has the right to just're they're only not able to be just taken down if they're serving as a boundary right I I did read that whole exchange I just uh yeah I just want and then the last thing was that we had requested an environmental information report and we had identified a number of items that were going to be in that report and one of those things was the um basically responses back from natural heritage on both permits um under Misa and then also under um meepa I think it's me no me okay Wellness protection that yeah that's right Welling protection act and under Misa so will those be provided um and is there a comprehensive management permit also being provided by natural heritage conservation and management per um I can respond to that so natural heritage is uh in the process of ising a no take with conditions letter there's not going to be a CMP on this property as soon as we have the letter um it'll be issued to conservation and as well as this board so we can provide that when we get it okay so and that's both Wetlands protection and also Misa has both uh wellins protection would be the Conservation Commission so they're not going to issue an order conditions on the property until natural heritage weighs in so it'll be yeah it'll natural heritage also issues issues a decision on the Misa which is not Wetland protection yeah it's endangered that's the priority habitat versus the estim we're talking about the same thing okay so natural yes that natural heritage letter will be issued it hasn't been yet so are we looking for two distinct things from them Joel I'm yeah they make two decisions um one one is on on on their review under the Wetland protection act and the other is their review under Misa the primary difference is the Misa can include Upland or or is Upland so that's priority habitat and then under wless protection act it's estimated habitat so rare species actually there's two different law state laws that uh natural heritage sort of regulates in that perspective so I just wanted to be sure that we the well protection the estimated habitat is under concom jurisdiction but the the Misa part is obviously not and so that's why I was interested to have it as part of our environmental information report and the report you're waiting for will have both of these correct on this property natural heritage is looking at the entirety of the property versus just what's in um jurisdiction of the Wetland so 100 ft from 200 ft from the wherever so it's the entire property did they give any reason why they were not issuing a uh I mean a um conservation management permit because there they did on 243 River Neck and also on what was then 71 River Neck but now it's Colin Circle and and the reason I bring it up because in both of those cmps they um they specified they put a condition that there should be a fence that essentially fences off the the um the rare habitat area and and like a chain link like a 6ot chain link fence not a h and rail or 5ft chaining pest not a post to rail and so that's why I was raising the asking the question um as to whether there was going to be a similar restriction on this on this uh in their in their decision on this property but you're you're indicating that they're not doing a CMP correct um not not our discussion and the split rail that we're showing is based on the conversations with natural heritage when we get that letter and present it to the Conservation Commission Dave Cowell our senior Wetland scientist is going to be a little bit better suited to speak to it um so when we issue the letter to the commission and to this board um will'll indicate when that hearing is going to happen if you would like to attend and and hear the full kind of description all right thank you that's that's it so I personally feel like I'm not prepared to have make a decision at this moment on adequacy or safety based on this plan um I want to go back and look at the studies which the plans Chang so many times I don't know that if if if I may chime in just for a second sure yes uh so Michael favor I'm I'm the applicant I just wanted to to briefly address a couple of item since we're still kind of debating uh what's going on with the traffic study the traffic study was conducted with a proposed 12 unit subdivision uh We've almost cut that in half so we are still kind of going with data I think we should understand and respect the fact that the impact to the neighborhood and the community is is half of what the study that was put forth showed um and in addition to that the study was incredibly robust um probably three or four times more expensive than what a traditional traffic study would be required for a neighborhood um so I just want to put those things in the the project has dramatically shrunk in size um secondly I think if if the board May kind of control the abutters and the harmful acquisition of who we are as people and what our character is and what our intentions with the property I I think just from a respectful standpoint I I would encourage the board to just take a little bit of control there and keep things professional um and regarding the authorization and whether or not this application is valid um I have been working on this project since 2020 with Kimberly overhauser and many of you may know her her tragic death happened uh later in the year of 2020 I received authorization from her a year or two went by and the estate was getting set up we revised the purchase and sales agreement Garrett overhauser executed that and we've got an executed approval from Garrett oberhauser as well the every bit of work that's been done on that engineering water samples phase one environmental we've gotten approvals from Garrett the entire way I have multiple phone calls with him you know on a monthly basis he is he's up to speed with what's going on uh we also have just notified Garrett of the findings that we had on the property and he's been working now with our LSP to record the documentation to Dees so we we're not trying to hide every anything we were going under the advisement of our LSP that since Garrett did not contract him he was not responsible to file it there's still some gray matter there regardless of that he's proceeding and filing things accordingly so we are making every effort jumping through every hoop not trying to conceal anything we're trying to improve the neighborhood widen the road we've reduced density we've come at you with multiple plans and I think we're trying to put our best foot forward so I just want to make a couple of those things clear traffic studies outdated I think it still worked at 12 right now we've got seven and I just again if we can keep the temperature down to a professional level I just ask that of the board thank you perfect thank you Michael I need I need to respond to that traffic comment um while that is correct that is an older traffic study when that first was being proposed I proposed holding off on the traffic study until the plans were more definitive and the answer I got was no anything we find in this traffic study is still going to be applicable regardless of the size so I want to make that perfectly clear that I proposed we hold off on the traffic study until the size and configuration were more definitive and the answer was no the traffic study wanted to go forward okay so that's the traffic study we're using all right so let's try to wrap this up um so what is the applicant asking us to do tonight um so when we had begun uh I basically I what we were looking for was an indication on the two waivers that the board has not weighed in on so that's a 22t in the C act turn around and commentary on uh the Hilder Street widening have we all heard enough about this or I think we've heard not I re one one question I have is does the applicant have have an idea of what the board is wanting um I'm not even sure I know what the board is wanting but do we need to communicate clearly this is it they they came to us with they plan so right am I right they just presented they presented okay we're ready make a motion so should we close the public hearing I would move that we close the public hearing well the clo are we talking close or are we talking continuing there's no reason to continue yeah you may be right they want they want us to vote on this so that's what they want want to V on the waivers we didn't ask you to close we asked you to give us feedback on the request for the two waivers that's all we've asked for there's four waivers right four waivers two of them we've already there's four total some which I'm so we should vote on the four waivers and then give them that direction well they don't want they want do a formal just do a formal vote on the force on the four waivers I can we vote on on it peace meal like that without voting on the whole straw poll that's fine you want a straw poll I don't I don't know I don't know what the appropriate proced take a straw pole I'm a little confused otherwise I me like I'm confused too I thought we were like either close it or do a closing a hearing and voting on the project aren't we I thought that was what you were asking for I'm not really I'm not really I don't really feel like I'm ready to vote on the project yet right that's what I would have expected the other members are I guess for for me an important thing to know is whether the applicant is willing to uh widen ildr with a sidewalk that to me would be a big factor I would think in our thinking about because because it is related by construction cost uh you know to the things that they're asking for so well I think they said they can't comment on that yet they have to talk to the to the applicant isn't he on the line he's right there the owner right there with all du respect we're not going to have attorney client privilege communic a done on a public meeting well he was just advising us how to run our meeting why can't we he said he's dead on who's dead on he's dead on yeah there's an attorney client problem that's fine right so we're not closing public let's not vote on anything so then we'll continue do we want a straw pole or we we get a straw pole on the waivers so we get a sense and and to the extent there is any flexibility in that straw poll we appreciate it that's feedback for us all right I'll take a motion to um you don't need a motion first right so review the full wav do one wave at a time so let's do the first one is the go back so many Fe um the reduce the width from um 40 to 34 this is of the um right away yep no no no no yes no I guess I'm a no um the second one is reduce the pavement width 22 to 20 no uh no no no yes no I'm a no third one is the Hammerhead see I'm TR with that instead of a uh culdesac yes I'm a yes on that no yes I'm a yes on that no I'm a yes on that and then the last one is the um signage is that right that there's no parking within the Hammerhead or oh the sidewalk sidewalk on the one side all right sidewalk on the North side um I want the sidewalk on the North side whatever boat that is okay so you're a yes yes oh yes Anita no uh so it's only one sidewalk not to completely all sidewalks no not two so yes yes yes and I'm yes okay um so now can we continue the public hearing I'll take a motion that we continue the public hearing when's the best uh September to do go for the next meeting 911 if they're prepared to we want fast Brian do you want to do it 911 or the subsequent meeting uh 911 okay 911 it is second so we need an answer back about the sidewalk I guess we need an indication of what the plan would be like without those two waivers and then also we we need um information we need well that's the first thing we need information of whether they'll build the sidewalk what else about hild Street I think that I think that's what we I would like to have a traffic I mean after we get the plans I'd like to revisit the traffic on that of course all of that like we have once we have that but I don't think we need that from them no no not for the night we also need Town council's opinion on we need Town council's opinion about two things that we asked for already you also I may suggest want to either reread council's memo or engage with Council as to how to handle hild's improvements mhm cuz I I I don't get the impression it's a it's a position of being able to dictate yeah it's the highway department right kind of right no I I know I that that needs to be clarified that should have been clarified tonight how whe whether the board's in a legal position to dictate or whether it is a discussion is he still on well I right we can request but we had a discussion and we asked if they would report back to us whether the applicant is clear to me whether people are requesting or dictating and I don't know what the applicant feels the council's council's memo spoke pretty clearly to me maybe it didn't to others I have to look at it for example we've been told that any any abut who had rights could go out there tomorrow they don't need planning board approval okay that's fine that's all I'm asking that's all I applicate needs planning board approval because it's associated with a definitive subdivision so it's a little more nuanced yeah yeah to the point where you need to engage with councel just because just who says who's who's to say that just because you dictate uh sidewalks that that that's the legal we didn't dictate i' like to know if they're will to do dictation I would like to know if they're willing to do it is it a public engagement with the Town Council or is this a private one I don't understand he's online right right now no but we're not weaving attorney flank CL privilege either you need to engage with your with your counsel as I thought you a Town Council was still with us tonight council is with us he's not going to comment on it at this moment now so we're going to he can't be commented on now that's all I needed to know you need to close it you took motions you ask for you didn't you didn't ask for a vote for the board to continue so we're still discussing it okay so now we need to make a motion again we did the wa you did the motion to continue it was uh rais back seconded by Anita has not been voted yet in fav all done thank you thank you okay oh dear so if it's cut and dry just tell me is it the highway depart no no it's a private it's a private way I lost my yeah agenda my pile of I think I understand get the feeling so once it's righton updates do you have Anison update um I do okay um quickly sener Village all right someone else go first I got to think about it wait a minute we haven't had a meeting for vinyl square they're they're trying to set one up for September so I'll give an update after that yeah I can't remember what going on so yeah we had a couple uh concom meetings um their biggest issue also is Hildreth and we've covered that tonight so nothing new from kcom John I attended the zba it was way back in July they didn't meet in August but they will be meeting the first week of uh September and it was not a it was a short agenda have anything to report on that meeting uh I went to housing advisory and um there's a upcoming meeting on September 18th at 5:30 at the Elks I believe that's a Wednesday when we do not have a meeting um and it's kind of a launch for the Strategic plan um for the town's people there's going to be a ice cream social followed by some group discussions with questions and if anyone could come that would be great there's also a meeting at the Chelmsford Woods on the 11th the previous Wednesday so we will have a meeting that night um but it's from 4 to 5:30 it's a open house for the residents to weigh in on issues pertaining to the housing production plan and the housing production plan for the next 5 years is being discussed in terms of what has worked in affordable housing in the last few years and or not ncog is work working on the affordable housing slh housing plan with the housing ad Advisory Board and um and also they're kind of looking at different sites that for whether they would be um amendable or whether the housing Advisory Board would like to see them redeveloped or developed um we also kind of ran through the outstanding 40 BS and got a stat a little bit of a status update um and um they're a lot of them are just still in the pipe several of them are still in the pipeline with unknown it's not clear what's going to happen with them anything else about that Evan are we at our limit now oh no Justa we're down by 22 correct there's probably potentially eight 13 eight at meeting house five at moros is 13 um are the ones for you Mass West in there numbers no that would be um the six for tremal Crow the six right so that would be 8 + 5 + 6 is 14 19 and then the Crosby Lane one they are changing the plan and then trying to move forward yep all chasing the clock um I'll take a motion I think sorry oh sorry annual goals and objectives oh yeah we have we we do the housing bill at a different time y thank you I we just have minutes to have minutes everyone look at the minutes take a motion move to approve the July 10th 2024 minutes second all in favor I to change yeah program's doing a good job second see you later good night oh man e e