##VIDEO ID:B-L4oGrLw8Q## e e e e e e e she'll decid to come it being 6:30 I will bring the work session of the ch planting board to order it's really loud sorry um by that knob what's that that knob controls the volume this one no the knob right by Chris oh oh I didn't know that thank you um this meeting is we're going to start with a work session at 6:30 um but just FYI this meeting is televised and recorded and will be available later online it's also available by Zoom if you are participating by zoom and the communications goes down we'll have do our best to um continue the meeting with you and get you back in attendance but we will continue the meeting um so the first up is seid applicability we have a um a memo from the former Town Council about um the param s of determinations of applicability um and I just thought that that would be a good terminations of applicability would be a good thing for us to kind of review and think about um as the last couple times we've had things come up pertaining to applicability um it's it seemed to me that the um conversation was delving into more than what's appropriate for applicability determinations so I just wanted to see if anyone had any other thoughts on that or if people agree with that um if anyone had a chance to read the memo so I read the memo but I was a little confused because it I thought this was more about the vcd as opposed to the Cod um well I think that that particular case was stating that the the guidelines for deter for determinations of applicability were the same for both yeah that was the point of that line in the memo I thought okay but it it seemed like it was focused on just the number of units which is one of many determinations of applicability um if you look at the the bylaw for for the overlay there's actually it actually spells out applicability and what the criteria are and it actually lists it out um it it's pretty well spelled out in there MH was the purpose of an intent and it has a number of sections on the actual applicability itself right but the point that I thought the memo was making that was that if there was something insurmountable then you wouldn't grant applicability that a lot of the things come into play later when you have a more detailed exposition of the plan in the project yeah that's that's my interpretation completely but I guess it depends on what it is so there are actual uses in listed in the the applicability and different there are some design considerations that would be taken care of later but there are some other things that it's either a yes or no it's not that well was there something in this in the projects that like say for instance we had the conversation about applicability for um the project on Meeting House Road so it's a Redevelopment project it's a mixed use project um so I thought it met the use criteria um and um there was nothing to my way of thinking that was insurmountable and yet we had a conversation about things that I didn't think were relevant to to applicability and we had several members who voted that it wasn't applicable um so I mean I don't think in this I don't know that it's appropriate to talk about the project currently before us for applicability in this setting but [Applause] um I ideas about insurmountable but so you're saying that we're diving too deep in the applicability phase when when the applicant's in front of us right you feel that we're bringing up items that should be discussed at the next phase and not this one yes I think applicability is a pretty um broad blanket have we ever denied a project on applicability here I haven't WR don't remember recently no but I think that might be part of the issues that we Face later there were a couple K projects that we we heard where we ran into issues later because we didn't think it was a good fit cuz we went that's perfectly okay I mean the the the ultimate project is not a good fit is not it's not applicability no sorry I misspoke a good it wasn't it wasn't a good fit for that overlay because we had already found it was applicable but by then it was too late to change it because it was already there it was already it was already found to applicable for that overlay okay I don't remember exactly which project doesn't mean we can't deny the project or or limit it yeah you're giving aren't you giving the applicant false Impressions then if we're if we're not asking enough questions is kind of lead them on to a long process we're asking questionability is very broad I know but if we're not asking enough questions and if the issue is yes like oh we're going to use this Cod but then you're going later you're going to deny it because it doesn't meet it you kind of already are we denying it because it doesn't meet the ciod or are we denying it because it didn't meet specific criteria that we're looking at at the permitting phase I'm having a hard time with this discussion right now because there things that might come up later it might that Touch Too Close to the subject I mean we can we can take simp simple example of use if there are uses or combinations of uses that is being that in the plan presented is is being uh is is being suggested that that's what they want to do and if that's a use or uses or combination of uses that we do not feel is appropriate for that zoning then that's something that should be addressed at applicability not when the application is before you so so I think that in a recent case I think that would be I think a lot of there was discussion at least uh I think from Chris and and me with regards to that which I do feel is an applicability question as opposed to how certain things were going to be implemented that certainly is a is a is is for review and I can give you more specific examples at a later point but um which will come up tonight but but nonetheless I think that that sort of discussion does need to take place the applicability and I think people are hitting on is the board members should articulate concerns yeah deal breakers items of interest when the applicability is written it will identify those M um and some members in the past have identified serious concerns others have identified areas of interest but but the but the applicability was still issued as a positive applicability some some projects have come forward some projects have chosen not to come forward or they change their project uh based upon the applicability but it's really intended to provide an applicant with a quick and easy um opportunity to engage with the board and for the board at a high level to express their um their thoughts ideas concerns whatever it may be well what about question of of appropriateness of use because that would that would not be a sort of a general high level view what do I think of the project that's a I think this is incorrect to apply this zoning to this what is proposed is is not compatible with the Z I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to but use determinations are not made by the planning board and made by The Building Commissioner um well inter or okay we we we can get them more specifics L um but but I think that's fair I mean if a board member has concerns about mixing particular uses that aren't traditional it's fair and reasonable for a board member to articulate that playing that forward I'm not sure that in and of itself would be a reason for denying a a special permit um understand just talking about applicability yeah I think applicability it's a you know it's assumed that it that the uses are um are permitted they may be by R they may be by special permit um but the whole purpose of these overlays is to encourage specific uses in certain areas of town yes but the but the but the overlay the overlay was was is not drafted to be so prescriptive to predict those mixes the whole strategy of the overlays both the seid and 129 were intended to be open-ended to allow people to come forward to have a discussion with the planning board and if there was an interest by the board to engage in figuring out how to get to a yes the process would provide that opportunity and I agree with you to a point there are I mean it allows some flexibility but to a certain degree it's not going to allow infinite in agree because the use table the use table ultimately provides the Restriction yeah but the uh the 129 overlay provides a bit more flexibility based upon uses that aren't traditionally allowed mhm but it didn't it didn't go it didn't go to the detail of contemplating what was an appropriate mix of uses and what wasn't yeah I me I I think you there there's sort of an underlying feeling I think of a lot of folks that we don't want to find something applicable and then deny it but in fact I think we have to be prepared to do that I think I think in the case that I'm citing or in what I'm suggesting is that you don't want to be arguing is this appropriate zoning during the special permit you want to be arguing this is this appropriate zoning in the applicability and so so however the board ends up voting that's where that discussion should take place and that is where I think an earlier discussion was taking place uh was with regards to that question so agre I mean I think we're all saying the same thing at this point it's it's an appropriate for to express concerns ask questions put put applicant on notice but at the end of the day the spirit intent is to issue the a positive applicability unless as Council indicates it's it's so insurmountable um or the majority of the board just believes it's not the right you know the right fit for the right project the the only question I have is I mean for the majority of our applicability we've approved that night is it appropriate to continue it yeah absolutely yep do you see have you seen that a lot not at this board um not a lot but it's appropriate in the sense that it's still in the applicant's best interest to work with the board okay and if the board's continuing it that that would send a message to me that the board is interested in hearing more engaging yeah you have questions but you want to hear more okay um do you feel like we've killed that horse all right so we have our Pro I don't know what that noise is it sounds like it's coming from my pad but I don't know why somebody's entering the meeting right Siri I never use Siri so I don't know she's still talking to me Anita's on Zoom by the way oh sorry Anita um okay so we have our checklist I don't know where in my big pile of junk it is also on the screen she she's on Zoom developed it and then haven't really used it she is much I think as we hoped um and I feel like some of these long drawn out projects are kind of were all around and then coming circling back and then it's not clear have we adequately closed out on topic a or b or c so I I I personally would like us to adopt the use of the checklist um going forward when we're reviewing um projects and so we can kind of keep better track of where we are and um know what remains to be dispensed with in terms of our [Music] own um kind of work sheet um I don't know if everyone here was on the board when we develop this nope okay so I mean I I I think maybe what I would propose if people are interested or willing is that I mean I guess first of all do people think that's a good idea second of all um who's going to be the owner of the checklist and thir CL what's that the clerk that's what I thought but I didn't want to lay that on the clerk without um and then third of all maybe we could use it for a couple projects and then Circle back around and look at it and see if there's things that we think should be added or deleted and um I mean we could also kind of combine it with the the concerns checklist that we were thinking about doing before um where we could actually lay out the concerns next to the um items on the checklist like the concerns regarding applicability kind of thing what we were just discussing concerns potential um conditions in the future things that need to be addressed so maybe another column a place keeper can I ask what the three columns are to the right of the item so I think this was essentially a draft at one point I was asked to as you can see here it itemizes um a variety of special permits and um submission material topics or details that need to be submitted so I don't think the board ever um formally adopted it uh which is why the you know the columns aren't really labeled okay so so I think you know give that some more thought um individual members should give that some more thought um to figure out you know how this is actually going to be used well one thought I have is that maybe we should turn it on its side and have um and have maybe more a little bit more information for of the ability to have a little bit more information for the topics that we feel need more um elaboration and then maybe the The Columns could be the dates that we discussed and then like maybe a check when it's cleared or if you want now that I know what this check list is um I can take a stab at drafting something that would be fabulous because it would be nice at the applicability when we approve an project at the applicability we could say these are the following 15 items that we're going to be addressing with you over the next year the next couple of months long yeah so I can take a stab at drafting that'll help with the streamlining of our meetings and can you write an AI program that will take all that we talked about and automatically sign no can I ask that we add one item under letters just since since we're working on policies is um remember back several months ago we added we were talking about updating our policies and we said we would um I think I'm I think my my memory is Right a majority agreed to add the treasur collector's office so uh the treasur check tax compliance and I'll work out with Evan and Becky a form that's acceptable I thought we already did a form for that well we certainly approved it I feel like I've seen it on a project once yeah I don't I don't recall um okay that's a great idea all right and then n number three I don't know if we're going to get through this in 10 minutes but at least we can take a little stab at it um reviewing the intended purpose to determine I mean this was several years ago that it was started and then several years years later when it was kind of Revisited and presented as a PowerPoint um project and ultimately I guess in the bad did took out the Z Evan wasn't there a z in there b a z o in these no forms um one of the Powerpoints I said said um had Z for zoning in the middle but anyway um so I don't know if people had a chance to look through was quite a lot of um material um and I I guess to start out with I had a question if those numbers are still in the ballpark in terms of um well obviously the depreciation ones will have changed significantly but like vacancies and because it seems like there's a lot more occupants to me of a lot of those buildings than there was a few years ago yeah vacancy rates have come down um drastically um you know we think we're at a healthy 5% at this point 5% vacancy wow industry standard is 5% it's a healthy vacancy rate um you know the devils are in the details you know what what what what specifically is vacant why are they vacant how long are they vacant for um but um vacancies were well over a million square feet almost what million and a half and now they're likely down to you know 500,000 plus or minus so that's you know that's considered healthy uh the park seems uh more vacant than it is primarily because there's less cars in parking lots um and many spaces are actually leased but not necessarily occupied MH um all the other kind of um data points I think are still relevant High depreciation lack of investment um you know if you speak to the um the board of assessors uh they will tell you that um over the last year or so you've had Property Owners come in filing significant abatements uh which have been um uh been accepted reluctantly so um and then you're left with you know 6 million s f feet of the 8 million square feet of commercial industrial spaces down there and it continues to uh just deine in in app in values so you know I think 6 million of the 8 million total is currently available no it's it's it's Lo physically located down in the Route 129 area and much of that 6 million is within the overlay and how much is available 500,000 yeah plus or minus 500,000 Y and again those are primarily within some of the large Office Buildings is is that including that uh 300 yep it includes 300 is that considered vacant right now yes okay and how all right yeah so you know just at a high level I know we're not going to resolve this conversation tonight um but I would suggest that the board continue to revisit 129 as well as uh seid overlay but within the context of the Strategic plan um you know the way I look at it is because the the Strategic plan is an ongoing effort I think the intent was to try to figure out a way to look at all of these strategic issues uh collectively and while while planning boards historically never really looked at zoning as a financial tool clearly the presentations for 129 were attempting to draw the connection between the two of them right and while while the town hasn't hasn't needed to rely on development and economic development for purposes of financial stability there may be a point where that where that is more um more reliant on um and so you know I encourage you and I I encourage the Strategic plan process to truly look at you know how does the town value and what does the town expect of its CIP it's a simple question but it's it's it's a lot more involved because if if the town is relying on the CIP um for um uh residential tax stability or providing um providing a buffer to to to create stability we're going in the wrong direction and so the overlays were intended to provide maximum not use flexibility because the use table's never changed other than the 129 overlay but it was intended to provide zoning flexibility whereby zoning in and of itself was never a reason for a project not to move forward it allowed the planning board through the the seid in 129 the flexibility to figure out how to make a project work where you had an applicant who was willing to engage and where you had a board who was willing to engage but Evan what you just said right there is key because zoning is one piece of it there are many other pieces that that need to go into it in order for these areas to flourish um I was reading an article actually from 2018 um in the New Hampshire Municipal Association and they have a a statement in there that says successful communities use education incentives Partnerships and voluntary initiatives not just regulations regulations set the minimum but rarely bring out the best and it's true I mean we can we can remove hurdles to development and to the types of development we want but if we don't get those projects in here agreed agreed theart the article assumes and I haven't read the article but the I'm I'm going to um make the assumption that the article presumes that the town is doing everything else um in a business friendly Manner and has initiatives and you can call it whatever you want at the end of the day it's being business friendly and again we haven't had these conversations I hope they take place during strategic planning uh when the time is appropriate I will I'll say exactly when to say now the town has damaged its reputation and if you don't believe me go out and go out and ask go ask former planning board members go ask um in town developers go ask uh local banks uh or go ask out of town attorneys Engineers developers the word is out and the town's reputation has been damaged and so for a town to change or try to um fix fix its reputation that's a top to bottom bottom to top Soup To Nuts I thought it was more the sewer restriction damage in our reputation not what we do on the board no all interconnected but the S but the the what did you say Paul I'm Sor the sewer limitation the sewer limitation is very Li in and of itself uh applicants know that there are reasonable options to proceed what what are those options you buy the capacity which is which is which is what developers are doing so it's no it's not a hard that's not allowed for residential correct that's one of correct because correct I mean the the strategy was that the town wanted to reserve its capacity for traditional Economic Development and mixed use seem seems reasonable simultaneously there seemed to be at the time a sentiment of no more multif family seems reasonable but we just approved multi at UMass West sure there's there's that's a pretty good siiz project yeah a predated uh well that no the uh they're they're providing an on-site treatment plan those those are options for commercial of course okay y but you can't but you can't you can't build a treatment plan in zone too personally I disagree with the statement that this town is not business friendly we're all entitled to our opinion but I that's I'm I'm in the front line I hear it and see it every day I go to I go to out of town conferences and seminars you likely don't so you know these are difficult conversations so what towns are The Darlings of the developers I would I'd love to hear this well who who where are they going waltham's already built out some some towns some towns are more accommodating or more reasonable they have different structures it's it's a complicated it's a complicated conversation at the end of the day I'm not suggesting that Chum should look at other communities I think we need to look look at ourselves and do a self assessment if we could are clearly articulate the kinds of projects we want and Chris has articulated this if the zoning doesn't match what the planning board Community wants and change and go in and change it right now the zoning is sending one message and yet when applicants come to you uh with something they believe the zoning says it wants the plan board has changed over the last 2 three years um so there's a disconnect between what the zoning still says what PE how people are interpreting that and what the Caron planning board um is this all about warehous are we talking about warehousing could be anything we want warehouses then that's the only thing that's come in front of this board as far as I know we come back to this at the end if we have time um this is I'm a little confused on the statement that's philosophical well there's market demand and then there's what your zoning says and there's there's a there's a there's a distinct distinction in disconnect between what town voted on limiting the size of warehouses because that's what the town wants is that what we're talking about no no we're not that's I don't think that's what we're talking then what's the other development that we've scurried away from or scared I I don't get it okay it's 7 o'clock we'll come back to this later if we have time um [Music] first up we have public input and we will request from anyone in the audience or on Zoom um to contribute public input um on matters that are not currently uh that are under our jurisdiction but are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing um and for the record this is this conversation or this meeting is being recorded um and is also available on Zoom as a courtesy and Anita is on Zoom um is there anyone who wishes to speak in public input no one on Zoom I presume Evan uh no one expressing interest at this point so um next up we have administrative review we have a roadway acceptance from the DPW for Parkhurst Road yep Town engineer Tony Ruchi is online with us Tony yes hi can you hear me yes we can my video should just start up now uh yeah so I'm um I I'm here for the uh parkur Road acceptance uh this is kind of an administrative uh documentation that hasn't been done uh Park Hurst Road has never gone through town meeting for acceptance and so we worked with wsp uh uh surveyors to go out survey it uh with this road acceptance there are no takings everything is within what would be the town layout and so this is basically like an administrative so that we can add this to our chapter 90 Mass do and for the mileage that the town the town owns okay and Tony just for clarity are you are you looking for a vote of the board this evening and if so what is that vote yeah yes so we're looking for a vote from the board this evening to send it back to the select board for October 7th where there will be another open Town Mee sorry another open meeting for input if there's anything any other questions that have to go for that my understanding is that it goes from the select board which it was on September 23rd then comes to the planning board if you have any comments or questions I hopefully can answer those I would look for a vote to then move it back to the select board uh for October 7th to be on the October town meeting so we support to send it to the select board yes and if you don't mind my asking how come it never got accepted before I get questions like that all the time um so in the last any before two and a half years ago I don't have answers and so park Hurst Road wasn't named Park Hurst road back in 1920 when it was uh connecting over to where Drum Hill was called North Road and uh the town has always uh plowed it taking care of it things of that nature until route three went through and Master T owns that middle section this just seems like an administrative oversight and so we're just trying to put the pieces back together which is why there are no takings for this as uh everything is within uh outside of would be property lines or or plot lines would be where the the right of way is which why it's slightly variable in a few areas got it okay um yeah does anyone have any questions or comment for Tony I um I would move that we send it back to the select board I'll second that so we accept the roadway of purpose vote to support yeah inter to send to the select board yeah so the motion is that we yeah support send it back to the select board send it back to the select board yeah all right um all in favor hi andita so that's unanimous okay Bingo my thanks Tony great thank you thanks Tony so 270 Bill rer Road um we have to endorse the final myor plans does that just need to be sign yeah physically the plans are here so at the end of the meeting just need to sign them correct okay these plans reflect the um the final plans with all departmental revisions and then the um the supplemental data report is also included uh because there were a variety of customizations that the board was interested in okay so so no action required this this um this normally requires a a vote to endorse how we it and pass I'll take a motion I move that we endorse the final marar plans for 270 Bill R rad and second so first by Chris second by Mike risbeck and all in favor I and Anita hi it's unanimous okay 150 North Road um deliberations review draft decision document and conditions so at this point as you recall the public hearing is closed uh I believe the board uh asked staff to uh draft a decision um but I think your next step is deliberations you can deliberate either reviewing the draft decision or without reviewing the draft decision just a couple uh other kind of I guess logistical comments um I would suggest that as part of deliberations uh each board member be given an opportunity to you know State their position that where they are um at this point um voting requirements uh the site plan requires a simple majority so it needs at least um four votes um in the affirmative the special permit uh which has been submitted voluntarily normally requires a super majority which is five votes in the affirmative um in this particular case uh I would suggest that if if the board finds itself where there are majority of members who are expressing concerns uh that prior to voting the board may want to engage with councel uh just to um you know check and double check as to what what council's uh legal advice may be or guidance to the board if the board finds itself in in that situation is Town Council on yes okay yes I mean I might want to have us discuss with Town Council before we um go around and unless other people have I mean does anyone have any questions for Town Council that they want to get answered before they take it around for discussion and deliberation I do have one question that I asked I don't know if it was asked through you to the Town Council um can you state that a far where is it in writing that a far profit can use the Dover Amendment everything that we see in the dovment O do agreement it says nonprofit use and that I know you mentioned in a previous meeting that it was approved for nonprofit use but where is that in writing and can we get that in writing and I asked that formally through the chair yeah did not get asked so Mr attorney is there is is Mr C council is there anything in writing that says a far profit because everything that I seen it's for nonprofit use um through the through the chair can you hear me clearly yes so I believe this question came up earlier I think the answer went by fairly quickly but the the nonprofit distinction within section three of the zoning act applies to educational use um as I've indicated in my opinion to the board this is correctly classified at least in my opinion as a child care facility um there is no such distinction for child care facilities that are protected from application loc zoning bylaws so it would apply um to both profit and for profit um it's not limited to for profit excuse me to nonprofit I thought this was being proposed on educational facility no it's a child care okay so there's nothing in writing so there's nothing in state law there's no cases there's nothing in writing that says Child Care is for nonprofit and profit uh well I mean you look at it the other way it's it's a negative uh in other words it does not say that uh it does not apply for for-profits therefore presumably it does I think I think that's the the analysis that's correct thank you Mr attorney I'm not an attorney so Madam chair can I that's all I have can I say something I just want to offer up we uh in the last two weeks as we worked through the decision and the conditions we engaged councel ourselves they assisted in what you have tonight in front of you they're here uh bill prya is here to to assist us I just want to make that introduction uh isn't the public hearing closed yeah so can we take information from the applicant public hearing is closed no I can't speak at all I I think we would have to open the reopen we decided this at the end of the last meeting actually that if we were going to talk more with the applicant that we would have to reop I think that may have be a point of a point of order um but my suggestion is at this point I would just have you know keep it to the board deliberation yeah engage with councel um and if the applicant feels it's necessary to um engage um then we'll we'll we'll take that up as need be okay I mean General deliberation doesn't necessarily require the board to um look at the draft decision there may come a point where we are looking at the draft decision and the the board may need to or want to engage with the applicant for clarity yeah uh my understanding is that Clarity on previous testimony um isn't new testimony and wouldn't necessarily require reopening the hearing but if the board was looking for new information and the applicant needed to provide new information that likely would require reopening the public hearing but again council's here um I actually asked this question at the meeting last night about whether it would need to and that was the clarification that I was given that um when we were meeting with the attorneys the general committees in town um that if if new information was to be brought forward that it would need to be reopening the public hearing um that was my understanding of what was said in the presentation would you agree with you weren't I don't think you were were there last night but would you agree that that's the case Council yes I would I yeah I understand Council from my firm were there yes I I think that's a correct interpretation um I think the board now the public hearing's closed can discuss what's been presented to this point uh could even ask I believe if they were so inclined to have the opinions of anyone in the room including the applicant on what's been presented but if new information comes in during that discussion then it would be appropriate to open the public dur so did Madam chair um then on item number one the facts in the decision it says the proposed Early Childhood educational facility includes a 16,000 foot building I would recommend that if it's not an educational facility that we take out all references to education facility because it's been tossed around throughout this entire presentation both childh care and education so since we just heard from the attorney I would suggest that we remove all references to education did they read this did the did the Mr Mr chair uh everybody read this everybody got a copy of this it does say right there early childhood education facilities yeah I think that's a little misleading but everybody's good at everybody read it right everybody saw yeah it's the proponent s it yeah the draft decision's been been reviewed by okay the applicant uh the board as well as uh the board's councel okay great but we're agreeing to strike uh child hood education facility and rep we're going to we're going to amend it and then give it back to him as do I think we're I think we're talking it's part of deliberation right now yeah I just I was just saying to it as a child daycare child daycare you know what I didn't bring my or just a daycare facility got child daycare that's right it should be one there yeah actually I think it has to be early childhood too has to be early childhood learning a lot about the this more than you ever wanted [Applause] so Chris was kind enough to um submit not only some revisions but he was also very kind to fill in the applicable facts thank you CHR yeah thanks a lot can be a tedious little exercise works well when you have two computer screens yeah exactly like is that a new thing I don't ever remember that being something that we did is that new no no I've been been doing it for number of years at this point you mean two computer screens no but I don't think we didn't do it you did it no I always I always kind of forced the board to do it yeah yeah it made for some long meetings but it has to be done okay so I guess I would like to ask if um the board would like to reopen the public hearing at all I don't think we need to we have a bunch of letters that we C that we received it would be good to go around the board though okay um should we start with having a conversation about our thoughts you want to go first Paul um I can go first if you'd like I think you better so I do appreciate all the residents feedback the input the emails that we've received um a significant amount of them actually all of them um have been against this project um I don't like this project in this location I think it is a good project but it doesn't fit where it's being proposed in that neighborhood in terms of size and traffic I hope the applicant will hear the feedback all negative of the residents and reconsider the location however it's clear that this staycare does qualify under the do amendment in my opinion and that means we're limited in our jurisdiction to reasonable regulations on parking bulk and height relative to the lot it is on and not the surrounding properties unfort fortunately open space building coverage and lot again unfortunately traffic is not part of our jurisdiction with the do Amendment we've received decent conditions and concessions from the applicant none of these they're obligated to agree to but they have case laws weighted toward the applicant in this these cases so if this is denied and it goes to appeal the likely judgment will be against the town and without these conditions and concessions that we've received which means the town would be worse off in that case so unfortunately I believe that passing this project and approving this project with these conditions is the best we can help for for this town but again I encourage the applicant to hear the residents and to reconsider the location for this project even with the the permit if we Grant itk so unfortunately I will be voting for this project Mike so I know I said a lot last meeting and uh and I gave my my my opinion then and uh I honestly think that agree with Chris uh this is a wrong location and I'm not going to repeat everything at Chris but I agree with him 100% I mentioned last week that this is a wrong project for chumford I think it's the wrong location and uh but looking into the do act more and I wish I had a little bit of uh Law School in me so I can understand some of the facts but um it looks like there's not much we can fight on this and I don't think the town has the appetite to fight this um and uh I just hope the applicant listens to some of these concerns as his neighborhood and I hope this is something that we don't regret down the road in in the town and uh I believe uh you can sense my my comments that I'll probably be voting for this project to move forward tonight so um because I don't I don't think it I don't think it would do the town any good to fight this PA I'm absolutely against this project uh 16,000 Square ft in a residential neighborhood that limits 4,000 square ft for any other structure there that's close to four times the size of it it's the size that gets me on this the slope um that property there's no way to work around that slope to me it's a nightmare uh waiting to happen and I can't put my name on it and I won't put my name on it so that's how I feel okay Anita um so like um Chris and Mike and and Paul um I don't think this is the right um project for this neighborhood um I do hope that the applicant listens um as a financial executive who has looked at businesses acquired businesses look at profitability I hope you take our feedback back to headquarters and before you start break ground you really listen to what we have said we have said I think the sport has been um very vocal and saying that we would love this type of business and we have other locations that would be more beneficial for both chumir and the applicant my fear and again this is my experience as Financial executive is that this this will not be a profitable business for them and that they will end up closing and we're going to get stuck with this big building and it'll be added to our vacancy calculation so I for their own sake I hope the applicant reruns the numbers and really looks at the area and to the residents when we talk about traffic because as a parent who has put children in daycare I would never go on this road trying to get that like trying to drop off my kids and pick up like used daycare in chumford but they were on different in different areas and they worked wonderfully so for their own sake I hope they listen and they go back and kind of really look at this Mike yeah well first of all I'd really like to thank Chris uh you summarized it very very well and I was thinking about saying pretty much everything that you said uh I am perhaps not as against the location although I don't think it's optimal I certainly don't think it's optimal on the other hand I think we as a board need to recognize that when this something like this comes before us we are not considering other locations we are considering the location on the application and that's all that we should be seeing we can certainly think about whether uses like this would be more appropriate in other places but they're not appropriate those considerations aren't appropriate to our regulatory thinking when we have our regulatory haton so um I will I will vote for it with many of the concerns that everybody's raised um and uh we will see where it takes us but I do agree that uh This falls pretty clearly within uh the do Amendment and that uh it would not serve us or the town uh to make a big fight out of it John I also agree with uh many of the points that Chris raised and some of my other colleagues on the board um I think that uh my primary concern is traffic and safety where this is a child care center I think it will exacerbate other problems already on North Road I think it will be um create a lot of logistical problems trying to get into this location and exit from this location so traffic and safety being my primary concern for the people that would use this facility if it's approved um I'm leaning against it okay okay and I share John's concerns and I think everyone else is for traffic and safety and specifically not just for the people um who will be using this facility but for the people who will are innocent bystanders of this facility as in the neighbors um I think it is very un fortunately cited um proposal however I feel that our jurisdiction as Chris so eloquently stated is limited and doesn't include traffic or safety um and so I will be voting quite unhappily for this project to proceed um but I do appreciate the applicants um working with us and um making the concessions that have been made so just a summarize what I've heard just to refresh the board's memory um it sounds like there's four people who indicated um a vote of yes as I mentioned the site plan requires at least four votes in the affirmative the special permit requires at least five votes in the affirmative I heard five I heard five I heard five I heard uh we didn't take a formal vote yet but right I think the only the only member who didn't clearly articulate was Anita everyone else I think kind of I thought she did she I apologize she did Anita which way are you leaning on this one uh more toward no than yes so mathematically the the site plan would pass the special permit would not um I I would I guess I would ask the board to ask counil based upon the fact that the applicant voluntarily submitted the special permit for the steep slopes um you know what what if any advice he may guide idance he may have for the board is that a question from the board yes please sorry sorry thank you so yeah it's true that um for the do Amendment the board is not allowed to apply special permit discretionary criteria for this project so while the applicant has applied for that special permit in the board may act on that application but in doing so um it should be um considering the criteria in the same manner as it does the site plan I.E that it it should be allowed um with whatever conditions the board views be appropriate um and I haven't heard any distinction to this point between the site plan criteria and the special permit criteria perhaps that could be discussed just so board is clear on what it's voed on but I would agree that at this point it is not a discretionary decision for the board on special permit it's simply applying the standards in the bylaw yeah is there is there an option for the applicant to withdraw that requested special permit and is that something that the board makes thinks Mak sense or the applicant may make sense could I pop a comment in here let's let hear what he says I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you yeah typically the the rule is that at this point in the proceedings withdrawing an application would require if you want to withdraw without prejudice would require board approval um this is somewhat of unique situation because it is a overuse and different rules apply as to how the bylaws applied to the project so I think that the applicant certainly could withdraw it if it wanted to um but you know I don't think I would encourage the applicant to do so they've come to this F with that think would be the board simply to look at the criteria and address whether this project actually um meets those criteria okay I'd like to comment just a little bit on this if I may uh if the purpose for not approving the special permit is oh it's a way to stop the project I think that's a very bad mistake I think we need to separate this particular special permit from the rest of what's going on here from the site plan the the special permit I don't think has a whole heck of a lot to do either with the traffic or with with any of the other safety issues that we were deeply concerned about slope really does though well trying to enter that property from North Road up that slope is an issue my mind all right I I I guess that I don't see I I I see other things as being bigger factors but but I understand that your view may be a bit different anyway I would suggest that we not try to tie the uh the special permit consideration to the overall uh approval of the site plan here yeah just just as I I I would encourage you yeah we're going to do it then let's do the whole thing just as a point of information because I'm not participating in the deliberation I've heard one board member Paul Express concerns about the slope not heard other members Express concerns about slope I've heard them Express concerns about traffic and about things like that and I I think that Council and also uh board councel also uh has a very good recommendation which is that we should be voting on the special permit with regards to the criteria of that special permit and if it has to do with slopes then a board member that votes against it is going to have to have a concern about the slope yeah just let me let me read the um that particular section um special per from the planning board was shall be granted upon determination that adequate Provisions have been made to protect against erosion soil instability uncontrolled surface water runoff or other environmental degradation yeah and I think we're good there so it's related to the landscape and storm water it's not related to correct nebor it's within it's within section 19540 which titled erosion control okay so as a I don't know if the chair wants to wants to re repo the board with regards to the special permit in particular knowing now that you know what the criter okay that's a good idea thank you um Paul no Mike W yes yes yes yes and I'm a yes Anita yes okay so um should we actually take a vote and in so taking the vote um because that was just a poll correct um in so taking a vote would it would we be best served to take the vote separately or together the decision has them listed separately okay page five of seven so I'll take a motion you would like a mo motion to approve the site plan for the for the uh special permit are we're going to do the special permit first per first I would suggest the special permit first okay okay then I will make it the Special permit whatever whatever the will of the board is I don't really care I move to Grant the special permit do I have a second I'll second okay all in favor hi hi and Anita no no I'm sorry no you're a no okay special permit 5 to2 with Anita and Paul yeah as know and now I'll take a motion to uh approve the I guess this is a site plan approval effective and just say if you could just include in your motion uh based upon the the draft decision facts findings and special General special conditions based what he said yeah B based upon the the uh the findings and special conditions and the edit of the yeah yeah yeah it's in the in the edits as oh yes the education versus daycare y edit yes yeah I think that's important do we have a second second motion by Mike risb second by Chris um all in favor hi hi Anita oh and John okay so and Paul and John and soua right yeah okay okay I'll get that clocked in with the um the chair will have to sign it and then I'll get it clocked in with the town clerk are you available tomorrow tomorrow I'm available in the morning um I can come late morning I'm out of the office in the morning um going to come by Friday I can come by Friday around uh between 1200 and 1 I won't physically be in the office but it'll be on the counter for you okay okay that hurt yeah okay next up we have um administrative review for 300 Bill rer Road good evening George banan for feris development for 300 Bill rer Road uh as you may recall I don't know if you need to call the the top the agenda item or I could just go okay read the whole thing but it's basically a a request for seid applicability correct yes um and I'll just make a couple of notes um as you may recall we were in front of this board two weeks ago where uh the principal of Ferris Development David Ferris and the board members had had a discussion regarding 300 Bill Rick a road in our proposed uh second location for beehive MH um we discussed the company's Mission the application to this proposed site and possible changes we could Implement to better the uh to better serve the community after hearing your suggestions uh our team had made some minor changes which I'll point out momentarily uh but just as a quick refresher uh 300 Bill rer Road is a twostory roughly 110,000 ft office building that's been vacant for quite while it's currently in the limited industrial and uh B aod overlay District uh our concept excuse me our concept is to convert the first floor of the building into one retail space 25 small offices and 29 indoor contractor shops and to further to and to further convert the second floor into 35 residential units the residential units uh some of which will be allocated for affordable rate uh are intended to be leased to trades people the goal and the vision are to give trades people a place to conduct work and safely store their tools and materials and then head upstairs to their living quarters by doing this we hope to create a community of Trades people at one location allowing them to grow their respective businesses while uh surrounded by other like-minded entrepreneurs and uh picking up where we left off last week or two weeks ago rather uh we had presented a plan to you similar to the one you see on the screen right now but at the bottom left-and corner uh those are originally two trade spaces we've now converted it at the suggestion of uh Miss tanini uh to a retail space which we hope to uh incorporate maybe some sort of upsc upscale food restaurant um let's see seems like that's been a a pretty uh hot market for this area and the town's been pretty pleased with press which is right down the street uh We've also and if we um Evan I don't know if you're controlling it but if we go to the other slide which is the site plan we've included a uh patio area right outside that to adhere to the um provisions of the upscale food restaurant and that's just one idea any retail any retail uh use can go in there but that seems to be something that the town has really liked um another uh another issue that was brought up was questions about outdoor or not outdoor but amenities in general but specifically about outdoor amenities and uh we're here to or I'm here to tell the board that we are open to outdoor men something like a basketball court or um pickleball courts something like that low maintenance um and we'll probably include those on future site plans during a more appropriate time perhaps during the special in process so with that with those minor changes I'll open up to the board to ask any questions I love it I love it appreciate it so one thing didn't I didn't mention at the last meeting but I mean Evan there for a retail space that you have on the first floor there we did approve two other drive-throughs on this location that I don't know if they're aware of that they take meeting restricted the the overlay to no more than three upscale fast cas restaurants with with drive-thru right so we only have one used there only one this plan isn't contemplating a drivethru at this point no I know that because last week it was mentioned to it wasn't part of their plan at the last meeting but retail it should you should be aware that there is you are allowed to put there potential for that there's potential we are aware of that and we've looked into it I don't think in that particular section of the building we'd be able to accommodate a drive-thru we were um thinking of a separate building maybe a smaller building somewhere else on the the lot where we could have implemented a drive-thru for upscale but we decided that this is probably the better approach it's unfortunate we don't get to use the drive-thru but we think the patio area works very well yeah excellent that's good yeah okay hope it's a good place um do we have any other questions yeah or more of a comment I had expressed concern last time about situating essentially residential over Industrial R uh which was why I thought it was an appropriate question for applicability um and in particular uh that the residential included affordable and that the affordable you know the the um the owner or the operator doesn't have control over those are a separate set of rules as far as who it is that gets selected for affordable that sort of thing so I did uh talked to David Hedison of the chelsford Housing Authority uh and I asked him you know what his thoughts were he did review this he also uh Connie his um the the second in charge also looked at it and they were in favor of it and so I I asked some of the questions that I was concerned about for example families in an indoor Contractor Yard area so forth and so on and first of all they liked it very much because of the one bedroom uh and in fact if it could all be all one bedroom they would certainly enjoy that but you I'm sure you'll having conversations with David uh he also would have expressed interest in there being some sort of an outdoor amenity such as a pocket park or something like that for people to go to but in general they were very favorable to towards it and as we talked about it I I could see that they he also mentioned that in their process of of essentially you know Finding affordable places for people who are looking for affordable homes that there is a a spectrum of different people they can and a spectrum of resources they can direct in different areas uh and so he was pretty pretty much gave me an assurance that even though I think in general we would always give pause to locating residential above industrial I think in this particular case and with what is proposed I think is appropriate so I I don't have concerns about that now thank you yeah thanks for reaching out to David uh yeah I think I think this is a f fascinating experiment and uh and you know I guess the town has a little skin in this game too so we're part of the experiment with our approvals but it's a I'm I'm pretty happy with it John yeah when I when I read the um you know the the code about the community um enhanced and investment overlay District this fits to me I mean you're taking an building that's been vacant for several years and you're converting it to a new use um to me I think it's definitely applicable uh who am I missing Mike or Chris so at this point I'm not going to comment on the project and its appeal because we're just talking about applicability um but if we look at the ciod article 21 195 section 113 residential uses it states pretty explicitly within the this overlay the Cod overlay multif family residential units are permitted except in the IIA zoning District pretty clearly states yeah multif family is not permitted here under this overlay we'll have to determine the degree to which that's wable just to clarify this has come up before the they're coming in for the residential component they're coming in under the 129 bayod overlay procedurally procedurally the bayod uses the seid process and procedures to to administer the application but the use itself is explicitly permitted in the bayad actually encouraged and encouraged right so so but the agenda and the application before us is the SE overlay it's not that overlay so we have to be very clear about what we're talking about and what we're voting on coming it's coming in under this the 129 overlay but the one procedurally the 129 overlay requires applicability which is under under was within the seid bylaw as far as procedures as to how to administer applicability yeah our agenda item says SE applicability so yeah where is where's the description that uh it's not on the agenda here tonight agenda applicability of usually we have a description of what they're looking for at the applicability and just says CID applicability that's it all right so I apologize um if that is that if that is uh creating confusion it's applicability but it's it's procedurally it's applicability within seid but you're applying the 129 overlay purpose and int to put this into a motion it would be a motion to Grant a determination of applicability under the 129 correct that that's how it would have to be so then we should probably continue this discussion because we've been talking about one overlay and we're going to be voting on another overlays applicability I don't to be quite honest I would I would I apologize if I if the agenda created confusion um they're going to take it to the same place I just I just assume people understood that the only way you can do Residential within 129 is through the 129 overlay okay but then if we take that overlay it talks completely about office parks office space it does not talk at all in that overlay about industrial so again we have two different overlays trying to do two different things in the same place it's correct correct for maximum flexibility Yes except they're conf they're not conflicting the didn't change the co didn't change the use table it provided dimensional flexibility flexibility 129 overlay did change the use table because it added it added uses that the town deemed that it wanted to incentivize yeah yeah it says right here Chris the uh I agree with you I'm not gonna challenge you was 129 195 143a it talks about limited Industrial Area to have goods and services and housing remember Co covid is not just applicable to IIA zoning District it's applicable to all commercial zoning districts C ABC yeah and if you think about this as we talked about earlier tonight the the spirit of the overlay meaning to enhance zoning flexibility so that zoning won't prevent a project from advancing like this yeah like this project but I also think that these two uses are incompatible with each other okay I think yeah you can have that opinion so just a needle on that will you be as part of an application will you be looking for um specific input from uh fire prevention and building that it's code compliant or are you look are you just talking more General about um livability just in general about livability about the the intent of these overlays what businesses they're trying to attract the livability of that area in general I mean I'm not sure I'd want to sit on a patio where trucks are coming by me I know but it's that type of to me those two uses are incompatible in the same space and I disagree as a Tradesman I would love to have my shop um you com opinion no I I didn't I just commented about the drive-thru oh but do you didn't comment on the applicability no I think it's I think it's great for this area I think it's something we wanted to do in this area and it's someone that showing interest that's not a warehouse yeah I agree um Paul you I I love the project and I would give it a waiver if we had to Anita uh so I'm I am interested in the project uh but I have concerns and I appreciate um the applicant seems they're willing to work with us so we're just doing the applicability at this point I'm okay with moving forward with the applicability um but again I I I do have some concerns about what type of um businesses will be there right like um in my mind I have a certain like what I want there but in reality I've got some like it's you know I just don't want an unintended consequence I guess um so I'm going to be a little bit more cautious about it but okay would you like a motion like I would like a motion anybody else I don't want to or anyone else want to say anything stifle anybody's Thunder just before you do that I've heard two two areas of one of concern Chris has articulated uh potential for incompatible mixed uses and Anita has expressed an interest in learning more about the specific types of contractors that are going to be yeah and and also she had expressed an interest in increased amenities which they have provided in retail which I think is got yes I do I do have another um comment and and that it it doesn't so much have to do with applicability so you'll have to forgive me for that but uh neighboring sites have known contamination issues uh and so I just wanted to be sure that you were aware of that uh because that certainly will be an interest in terms of site plan review in terms of storm water and so forth like that uh and uh and so I just if we're identifying what are areas for you to consider before you come forward with a site plan that would be one of course and what was that thing called that they in installed at the other property right next to what was that special filtration jellyish jellyfish jellyfish you might want to look into a jellyfish well I I it sounds to me as if part of the scope of the project is to mess around with the ground as little as possible that's what that's what I exactly what it looks like and that's what I was assuming but I just wanted didn't want the I didn't want a bypass opportunity to explicitly state that so that you leave the dir the board is very much aware of what the conditions are there so and that's why you don't see outdoor amenities on the plan as of today we just need to do a little deeper dive if you will into where we can safely do those things good in the sight thank you yeah and that brings me to one other thought that I have which is looking through the overlay um for our earlier review it occurred to me that one of the one of the um factors that has been um brought forth as something that the overly was seeking to achieve was connect you know outdoor space like walking trails or sidewalks or bike trails or bike racks and like all those things I would like to see you know yeah that's every project yeah enhancements of those green type uh enhancements yeah greenish more green and I'd love it if you could work with your neighbors and connect to their paths or whatever we'll do our best one of the things that I I had a question on the plan sorry Chris go ahead is where where was the where is the restaurant was in the back or in the front it would be in the front and actually I'm glad you brought that up the reason why we picked that um it's the Northwestern corner of the property but on the plans it shows us the bottom left I think that's the old plan um it's on the other plan yeah we picked that that area specifically because there's a signalized uh traffic intersection right there so we figured if people are going to be stopped for a temporary moment in time they'd want to be looking at something like a retail space as opposed to the rest of the building which may or may not seem a little more industrial than that corner okay good good idea okay so that's the front correct okay okay all right and those are TR those are B like I see little trucks correct you have bays in those areas to in the front the concept for the first floor um it was brought up uh at the last hearing but it's to have roll up garage doors so that the contractors can back into them and um load materials and tools into their their Bay their their indoor contractor shop so those won't necessarily those aren't meant to be parked there that just shows that they can temporarily back in and unload and load whatever they need to okay okay one of the one of the things as we were talking about amenities um if this does go continue forward a lot of the the amenities that this project includes are internal amenities would be if those were external amenities for the neighborhood some of them for the neighborhood not not that there's a lot of housing there now but yeah there's some but I mean a lot of those amenities the the gym the movie theater would be amenities that would be good for that area yeah you'd have to consider parking but I mean that's amenties but internal amenities that the town cannot use that I I'm not ready to comment on that just yet they are meant to be private residents at the end of the day I don't know if you know a person living in the second floor would necessarily want the public to have access to their amenities but it's definitely something worth further discussing I wouldn't I wouldn't sweat it at this stage okay I'll take a motion if anyone has no if no one else has any other all right I will move that we make a determination of applicability uh under the 129 what's the appropriate term here the 129 overlay yes uh for this project I'll second that we have a a motion by Mike risbeck second by Paul all in favor I so we have are you a yes yes okay so 6 to one one Anita is a yes Chris is a no correct yep correct Bingo got it okay thank you thank you and thank you for bringing this to us all righty 10 hild Street requesting a six slot definitive subdivision approval and application applicable waivers under subdivision control law and the rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land in the town of chumford a special permit per article I'm not going to keep reading if that's okay with you guys we were we were going to start with the residents was that we're going to start with the residence yes but I was just say you guys don't mind if I don't read the whole thing right um okay so we promised because of my need to abort the meeting last time to to start with um the residents um and public hearing so if there are any residents wishing to speak if you would come forward I I would like to request that people keep their input to 3 minutes if possible and hopefully try not to repeat yep I can feel Mr Simon and tugging and saying five minutes mach five minutes I might shut shut you off after three that's okay okay uh Bruce McMaster six Hilder Street and a butter to all three of the duplexes proposed my wife and I recently sent a letter to the planning board regarding ten Hiller Street we raised what we thought were some valid points we also sent a video of a zba meeting from September 5th 2024 and we felt it indicated some contradictions in attorney hous stance on some issues we received an email from Michael lefa I was shocked we eagerly opened that surprise surprise it was actually from attorney husler he proceeded to address our issues septic systems widening Street sidewalks past traffic ownership waivers Etc he was upset that we did not copy the letter to him Michael Lea has never ever ever ever communicated with us we are a Butters to three duplexes he's proposing no contact whatsoever but something bothered me something was missing so I watched the video again and it hit me somewhere between minutes 51 and 53 it's a long meeting obviously I think it was 0 2 I'm not positive of that but I believe it was the attorney suggests that the height of the proposed unit at marose Avenue by Cobblestone 5 LLC could be an issue he proposes that a single story Cape would be a preferred solution in his client's privacy problem because they would be overlooking his PRI his client's building I completely agree with attorney housea and his client I propose a singl story Cape at 10 hildr opposite my house and my tenants living room I think that that would be a great solution and I appreciate attorney H proposing it the only other thing I have is and I appreciate uh them repeatedly referring to seven occupancies that's great but in looking at some of the documents that were submitted last time uh this one is titled application for a definitive subdivision and aquafer Protection District special permit at ten Hill dist Street sorry I talked so fast um dear members of the board under DPW engineering item two include updated cut and fill calculations as site is now four proposed duplexes instead of five you got to hold them to that four and one three three in one making seven units you got to do it somehow if not they're going to build for thank you very much I appreciate you and I hope everything went well with your having she got off very good she's in the South Seas oh nice Linda Carney we live at 19 Plum Street and 17 Hilder street diagonally across from the property and dear board members considering the project at 10 Hilder Street I'd like to draw your attention to the following concerns thank you for hearing me and for your continued respect for the members of our neighborhood according to the the mass code of Regulation 720 CRM 9.03 which covers parking restrictions on roadway it states that there is to be no parking within 10 ft of a fire hydrant on both public and private WS which causes me to inquire if it's legal to create the three designated parking spots at the end of this private way in the September 2024 V and Associates Transportation impact assessment they stated one of their recommendations on page four the fourth paragraph it reads to maintain adequate size distance and visibility at the project roadway will ensure safe access for project residents and other uses of Hilder street that sounds like a great recommendation for safety but yet on table nine on page four the proposed driveway site maintenance measurements on Hilder street at the site driveway tells us the recommended intersection site distance left turn from the site driveway looking North recommendation is 335 measured distance or the recommendation is 335 ft the measured distance is 253 ft and if they were to take down the stone wall and remove it it becomes 293 ft still short of the recommended on table four on page 17 Plum Street at Hilder street that intersection site distance left turn from Plum Street looking South recommends 335 ft and measures out at night 99 this turn is definitely deficient please note that they continue to ear the north south directions in reference to these turns this was brought to their attention when they presented their original study in January 2024 the board is owed the respect as are the neighbors of an accurate submission of information when you turn off the left turn from the site driveway you're not looking North you're looking South and the other is a reverse so either they can't tell North from south or they can't tell left from right we're still confused on that the highlighted turn deficiencies are bad enough on their own now they want to further reduce the visibility by adding three parking spaces at the exit Massachusetts law prohibits parking within 10 ft of a fire hydrant on both public and private ways these proposed parking spots although highly desirable are within the 10t range has the comprehensive fire apparatus access and maneuvering clamber requested by the fire department in their August 2724 letter to the board been received has there been a review to see if the four proposed parking spaces at the end of the tea be allowed all four house lots are Within part of the limit of natural heritage in endangered species program priority habitat of rare species area and part of lot four remains within the 100 foot Wetland buffer zone even though the contractor LED this board to believe that if one sidewalk variance were to be given they could get the property out of the buffer zone I request the board decline voting until natural heritage weighs in on these important issues given the townwide initiative to reduce the effects of night lighting have we given enough thoughtful consideration to light and noise pollution should live sound profing be discussed at the boundary between 6 and 10 Hilder Street attorney howler used property number n as his example in his description of the property Deeds seemingly implying that all the Deeds read the same way this is not true in examination of the Deeds for the houses north of Plum Street on hildr we find only two houses number seven and nine whose Deeds specifically mention properties set aside for the potential of Road widening properties number 13 11 and 13 say the property owners have a right to use the roadway and that two houses number 10 and 4 do not mention any roadway considerations respectfully submitted Linda Carney I zip through this really fast and I apologize but I really feel that it was unfair last meeting when they zipped through their proposal not giving you time to reflect on what they were saying or for considerations to be made thank you and I do have copy for everyone of Paul wood 16 Helder Street um I usually would have sent this in the email but due to the last minute submissions again um I'm just going to read it in to the record um planning board members I have uh need to address the last minute submissions of the Public Works letter from Anthony I don't want to say his last name 10 engineer I'm cons concerned that neighbor neighborhood again was left out of the loop with the road Improvement letter dated 9119 24 don't know what that is uh again with another example everyone telling us what's right for what is right and best for our neighborhood and and asking not you asking for no input I have several question concerns and statements uh nowhere in the letter does it state that this makes the road safe or uh adequate what are Ched standards of residential roads with curbing sidewalks requirements Town engineer States improvements that are currently that current exist Does He believe that the 18t road is adequate and safe for two cars to pass with pedestrians is there a minimal distance for retaining wall tree telephone pole and other permanent structures from the edge of the road for instance that pinch point we been talking about like 133 there's a tree right on the edge of the road so they want to push the road all the way to in the Nate's yard and then it basically is going to ruin his tree so you know but um the town engineer States the concerns for the stri Street widening is the loss of mature trees beyond the 18t and the character of the street to be lost first there will be loss tree loss because of root damage with only 18 foot and that is a fact I'm sure Nate can reply to that for hildr I agree the character of the neighborhood would be changed but due to the three massive duplexes in a residential neighborhood do not fit the characteristics of the street I cannot State more clearly the main concern was road safety and adequacy who's responsible for the drainage issues that occur from The increased Hardscape asphalt birming and retain walls causing increased flow of water down the street to my house where the problem already exists at 16 I added some pictures here a lot of times I'm not home with a good rainstorm you can see these pictures that's right on edge next to my driveway it then that's in my driveway I have that stone parking area on a good rainstorm that between Linda's house and my house that whole road is four or 5 Ines deep with water just from coming down the street cuz it's a downward slope the whole way and they want to increase The Hardscape it's going to it's going to impact my my yard even more um additionally concerns with increased D drainage down Hilder street is the vernal pools that exist behind my house at number 16 the vernal pools are very vulnerable to changes in water increase and decreases which can cause those become extinct I would bring these concerns up also with the Conservation Commission at the next meeting like I said I didn't realize when I you know Dave CS has been a big Advocate water changes in the water will drastically affect the vernal pools existence and you know that water is going to come down through my yard it's going to fill those veral pools more it's going to change the the hydrology um I don't know who's going to be respons the town be responsible fixing my problem or is the contractor be fix this problem of all this water rushing down the street I don't know the acceptance of Hiller street from bero road to Plum Road was not an oversight if you look at the Hilder Street to from Plum Street to B road all the all the utilities gas line water line sewer line nasal grid lines Cable phone lines all come from Plum Street and the accepted part of Hilder Street nothing comes off 129 down Hilder street because it doesn't exist it's never existed that there's no nothing comes off of 129 there's no utilities no power line no anything comes off on that you go look it all comes up because it it says that doesn't exist there that was an oversight um so if the town was except Hilder Street what would that mean it sounds like it from your the letter it would would nothing would change it would be no addition width of the road or sidewalks so what's the benefit to the Hiller Street residents it would be only negative with increased traffic at it to safety concerns and inadequacy of the street thank you just want to mention some of those points like I said it's frustrating when you get these letters from people that are posted literally half a day before they meeting you know you know so thanks Kevin Chelli 11 Hilder Street I'm just going to go through one of two points because I'm sure I'm going to be getting back up here after the applicant talks again um the applicant has uh said several times that the board could decide to you know make hildr a oneway street mhm which there's plenty of supporting data that I've read online that I've printed out oneway streets PE people typically drive faster on a oneway Street versus a two-way street and if you did make hild Street a one-way Street you're going to force more traffic on Plum Street and on Plum Street there's a minimum of 15 children constantly playing in the summertime which the people who did the traffic analysis didn't identify really any children and there's 15 children playing on that street within the first six houses and those are just children that can be playing out outside without parents being outside they're constantly going across the street playing with chalk on the street there's other there's inference in that neighborhood too that aren't grown up yet playing on the street so if the board ever considered and the applicant says you could consider making he with a one-way Street you're forcing a lot more traffic on Plum creates a major safety issue there's already a safety issue as it is but if you ever did consider that there's at least 15 children there the other point I want to just bring up and then I'm going to sit down is the uh Builder has said several times that he doesn't understand what the fuss is he's just trying to make the neighborhood better I don't understand how he thinks he's making the neighborhood better he's not a resident of Massachusetts he doesn't live in chumford Mass he's trying to build supposedly three duplexes and the single family is not going to be duplex well we all know that's going to be a duplex on hildr Street there are very small houses mine's a single uh level ranch style home the rest a very small capes you want wants to build these massive duplexes which are going to overlook people's houses infringing in their rights to be in their backyards being comfortable that driveway is directly across the street from my house so I'm going to have to live with headlights coming into my living room every single night going in and out of that complex you know I have a right to live in peace I bought a quality home in chumford and I thought that's what I was going to have so for this Builder to say he's going to improve the neighborhood he doesn't understand what the fuss is you know that's what the fuss is so thank you for hearing me Patrick morassi 15 Plum Street um so we've been talking for almost a year now uh about the adequacy of the access road and um we just got another update from vaness and Associates um despite that we still haven't met the requirements laid out by the impartial peer reviewer um so first of all I thank Linda for pointing out once again about the site distances um of those two intersections that are right next to each other facing towards each other uh but a couple of other things um is 18 ft the industry standard for a minor Road no um does 18 ft meet the chemsford regulations for Road no is 18 ft commensurate with the requirements of the proposed site roadway no it's clearly been defined in case law that the access road needs to be commensurate with the road that's being proposed to be built did the impartial peer of viwer believe 18 ft was sufficient no did the impartial peer reviewer believes sidewalks were unnecessary no they said that they were necessary um so with all these things being left un addressed at this point we just keep coming back Time After Time and um there's there's no plan to to fix this to make it meet regulations to make it meet industry standard to make it meet the requirements of the peer reviewer um I think it's pretty clear that if it's time for a vote then the vote would have to be no thank you good evening members of the board I sent an email to um Mr Silva who's not here and uh I believe I see SE it to each and every member I'd like to read it I didn't hear okay I'd like to read my email just in case it's not read into the record as I requested Dear Miss Silva thank you thank you for responding uh excuse me thank you for providing the attestation from the developer this asked us S estation I assume was drafted by Council of the developer and clearly and unequivocally does not answer the simplistic question that has been asked by the abots in the Chon planning board which is is this purchase and sale agreement currently in effect this attestation does not answer this question and simply states that there has been no revocation of the authorization given by the owner to the to property possible Inc this authorization is made part of the purchase and sale agreement the fact that the owner of ten hildra Street has not revoked this authorization by a written document is not required if the purchase and seal agreement has expired I believe in my opinion that the purchase and seal agreement has in fact expired based on the fact that the applicant or the applicant's council has refused at minimum to reveal the date of expiration for the purchase and sale agreement or state on public record that the purchase and sale agreement is in full force and effect how is this how is it that this question cannot be answered on public record by either the developer or Council for the developer who have direct knowledge of this information secondly I would also request to know if the planning board was notified or had knowledge that the time standards from making a decision on this project expired was about to expire or expire at the last meeting it seemed to me that the board was not made aware of the legal time standard until the until at the last moment uh when Council for the applicant was requested by a knowledgeable planning board member um to sign an authorization to extend time standards immediately preceding uh the conclusion of the hearing if this board was not made aware of the time standards this application would have been approved by operation of law which I believe in my opinion was the desire of the town that has advocated for the approval of the subdivision rather than be ethically neutral my reference to the town does not include the Chumps planning board I request the Town Council ikeman or chairperson connley instruct councel for the developer to State on record and as an officer of the court that the purchase and sale agreement is currently in effect which would be sufficient in my opinion to allow this board to continue hearing the subdivision proposal in render its decision respectfully William Harvey thank you second are we done with people from the public wanting to speak anyone online no one's indicating that they want to speak right now online I reserve my right to respond to any response to my presentation no yeah um I'm Judith gothier I live at 22 hildr street I'm at the dead end part of hildra Street and they've been talking about making Hilder Street a one way which is fine and dandy from Plum Street up I live on a dead end I have to get in I have to get out I have to have deliveries in and out if you make it a oneway street my delivery people and whatnot are going to assume they can't come down there um so I don't think making Hilder Street partway a one-way Street and my end two-way street is going to work out too well for me maybe for somebody else but definitely not for me so making it two way at my end and one way at the other end seems to be working against each other but that's just my opinion how you doing uh Justin Johnson 26 hildr Street um via butter at the other side of um the property towards the end of hildr uh one thing I reviewed the um video from the last meeting and it was talked about having uh they would Pro the developer would provide the plans for like a potential sidewalk or something like that uh kind of as like a gift to the town if they decided to use a sidewalk um however uh listening to what we've what we' has been said tonight and just over the past year or so of all of all of this I would be very hesitant to accept anything because if they can't figure out left and right and up and down that's a little I like how do you how can you guarantee those plans are actually workable without having somebody review them um the other kind of slap in the face that I would say to that is they had mentioned that they will not pay for any of it if there is a sidewalk needed to be added who pays for it the town and essentially we would have to because it's our taxpayer dollars so that to me just seems like a slap like across the face like oh hey you guys you get stuck with this and by the way your taxes have to pay for it too when nobody in the neighborhood is in favor of this um that's my two cents thank you excuse see I'll be very brief my name is Bob G here also at 22 in regards to what my wife had said a couple minutes ago there are 14 units of properties on Hilder Street seven above Plum Street seven in back of Plum Street down from Plum Street and talk about seven more eight on 10 Hildreth so talk about making a one-way Street right now without in including 10 Hill the street you're affecting half the street to say by the way oneway street going out terrific we can't come home only Street coming down to our house because we live live the end we can never leave again so it sounds kind of dumb that oneway street business but it completely affects half the street or half the residence in the street so just like you like you to know that come down H Stree sometime and see what uh see what's up and see how this might work and not work thank you very much okay looks like everyone's spoken from the public um so I have a clarification question regarding the time to act issue the time to act extension is through tonight does that mean that we need to vote tonight is my understanding it's um in the absence of getting another extension of time to act the current extension to act is uh to Friday this upcoming Friday I don't know if it's through Friday or two Friday we don't have a meeting after tonight what's that we have no meeting after tonight so in order to stay within that time frame if the if the board's desire or determination is that the public hearing needs to be continued we will need to request another um time um an extension of time from the applicant before they leave before the meeting is adjourned okay whether the applicants uh willing and and amendable to that remains to be seen sure but that's I just want to make that point clear and make sure I was on the understanding correctly um okay um with regards to the um well I mean I guess we could around and see if people have things that they want to discuss I don't know if it makes sense but one thing I would love to start doing is using our checklist but I don't know if it makes sense to do it in the middle of this okay um so we won't do that but that checklist was also specifically intended for site plan special permit per right are we closing public input at this point what's the can I just ask the the um the developer what what's the latest we've agreed to they they agreed to widen uh the new development road we right but H but what was the latest they want to discuss the widening of HTH again or is that not is that not an option I think they proposed a plan that they proposed a plan to do the engineering and that's it no they would do the um putting down the well I'm I'm not an engineer they would they proposed to do the actual work to widen it to their proposal 18 ft yeah and the town thought it was a good idea that D was on board with well DPW said that it's an improvement improvement but it does still doesn't bring it up to the standard but they were worried about the trees they were worried about what did you say Paul the uh the trees in the uh neighborhood you know what I mean the uh character of the neighborhood if you remove mature trees to put Evan one of the residents brought up a good point tonight have the Departments reviewed the latest plans do we have letters we should have letters um the latest letters they're backdated letters like some of them are still calling it six six the latest letters I see are for rev 3 and this is Rev four plans like specifically with regards to the fire department and the new parking spaces is one thing that I was wondering about I know those parking spaces have been on the plan for quite some time I believe the most recent revision was um showing the fire turning apparatus as it pertains to the Hammerhead turnaround as well as clarifying for the fire department that the visitor spaces within the Hammerhead would be completely outside the Turning movements and I thought we had a letter to that effect M just looking for it well there's one from August 27th that I see for R three see went from May 2023 do you happen to have that letter with me I know they've reviewed it because I've had this conversation with them but it may not it may not have made it on the agenda is there no Department letters from this latest revision I looking way back yeah I think the only the like I said the only revisions I think were pertaining to the um the fire department previous memo on the Hammerhead and I I guess I also don't know that the the increasing the pavement and increasing the roadway which we're you know theoretically asking for but in terms of how that's going to affect the hydrogeologic I don't think that's been weighed in on by the environmental yeah the the storm water the drainage I don't have any new letters at all and is there any estimation as to when the natural heritage letter may arrive I know that the conservation meeting last night was continued I think the Board of Health is also waiting um so for the rord branger than Associates with respect to natural heritage we did continue last night's conservation hearing to weeks so we're anticipating a letter before that two weeks if we don't receive it we'll continue conservation another two weeks but we did have a conference called natural heritage they're addressed there any outstanding concerns were addressed and they're actively drafting the letter so fingers crossed two weeks from yesterday actually one question I had was we in the very first meeting I think we requested an environmental information report and to my knowledge that has not been submitted so environmental environmental information report and also I think we provided a a high level list of things that we're interested in to be in that report and since that report has not been submitted then my question would be do you have intentions of submitting en an environmental information report so I thought we had addressed any and any outstanding comments regarding environmental um well the purpose of it was to bring the different things together into one place with the narrative as essentially that you're you know why you're not going to be impacting the environment which extends not just to the wetlands area but also the Upland area and then subsequently the environmental aspects as [Music] well I only bring it up because it was agreed to at the time did find this from the fire department says no parking shall be allowed within the fire appar access turning areas that was in August so they must have seen the new okay so so I got one last question ask so it's been going back and forth between eight residences potentially or seven I think is the applicant on record saying that he's not going to stay a seven right no he said he wouldn't commit to a single he would not commit family but I we would my expectation is that we would make that a condition okay potentially weren't we going to get Town council's recommendation on how that what the best mechanism for that would be I didn't remember that that was the case yeah they yeah at a prior meeting I thought they said they would not sign a covenant to that effect yeah that's what I thought they were pretty adment that they would not right but the discussion was that Town Council would be able to recommend what I had indicated was um previous definitive subdivisions where waivers were granted the board um would place a fact and condition indicating uh a restriction on the number of lots um and the units on those lots generally speaking those were all single family lots which are so I think you know I think the question for Council is does that does that um condition would that condition apply in this case would it be legal with the zoning that we have there now to do with the zoning with the uh with with the fact that several waivers are being requested for the road and is that justification enough to uh restrict restrict the um further build out of the subdivision based upon what the applicant is presenting as part of their application that's not true that's completely not true that's a complete lie you know what we're not taking question excuse me council is here this is not the time for your input thank you I'm telling I'm going to ask I'm going to speak to Town Council and I'm have to look at the zoning you know what excuse me sir I'm not asking for your input answering my question about the purchase and sale okay that's a different question but I'm not asking for your input so please keep it to yourself no I'm a member of the public it own this is not public yes it public um okay you know what actually we need to move to close the public hearing before you move to close the public hearing because as associate member I don't participate in deliberation then I would like to provide my input prior to your closing uh I also I thought you did would not recommend we close public hearing because we may have other questions of okay the applicant um okay well we could move to continue the public hearing to another time but I would love to hear your input Joel first the letter oh that means now okay is that okay sorry I don't see it that was a little subtle um no it's it's buried there's no plan as I mentioned we we originally asked for there were a number of issues that were expressed from the very first meeting meetings and have been true for just about a year now there are some things that were raised that I think have been resolved at least to my satisfaction that may have uh not been apparent to the board so I would like to specifically address them so that you know that that I think that they were addressed uh the first thing is that yes we did ask for an environmental information report the applicant agreed to that the applicant has not provided that um I think the applicant should provide that so you may want to keep the hearing open for that the applicant may not want to submit it in which case then the board will have to decide whether you uh feel that that there's going to be sufficient lack of information uh that that it renders that you can't vote on it I I don't think that's the case Joel what would that report give us the report would give us uh one it would pull together the the the different disparate but very pertinent um basically finding ings and reports on the different issues that that basically contribute to the environmental concerns which uh involves not just the rare species but also the habitat uh in general and then also the um the contamination uh question as well as also the um the um Hydro Geo etc etc so so it it it's something certainly that could be compiled by staff after the fact uh I requested it because I thought that we would want the applicant to to pull that together um so it's not something that can't be obtained but the additional thing would be that the applicant would provide a narrative and and from that perspective I think it would uh be useful for the board to see how it is that the applicant essentially summarizes that this proposal does not uh provide any environmental hazard and that is the Criterion there's two criter two criter that are essential to our decision with regards to subdivision one one has to do with environmental hazard the other has to do with traffic Hazard and so I'll get to the traffic hazard in just a minute but the with regards the two uh principal issues at least that we uh have expressed we're concerned about with regards to environmental aspects one was the existence of the pasas uh the if you if you look at the plan and where the propos and the concern there was as as we addressed in 270 b r and also 93 brick hiln was is the storm water infiltration system potentially going to cause uh because of the concentration of water and infiltration into the ground potential increase or dispersal of contamination that is in the uh in the groundwater um the the if if you look at the plants the one well uh that indicated past was essentially lateral to the infiltration area uh and and some distance away I think it's fairly reasonable to conclude that adding infiltration at that location is not going to significantly affect that because it's essentially in the same groundwater Contour um Downstream from that uh is is the other location where P was detected but it's some distance away and so for that reason you would expect that any infiltration that's coming through is going to essentially dissipate over that distance so that it's not going to significantly contribute to what's already existing there and keeping in mind that this is a Pia site and so it already has been experiencing infiltration throughout the site uh so what the applicant is proposing is not going to in my opinion not going to significantly increase that so so my I don't have concerns about what they're proposing in terms of exacerbating a known condition and whatever how that condition gets resolved that's through the means of the mCP and the Board of Health and so forth so on so I feel like our our responsibility there is is I think address uh the other one um has to do with the um uh the potential locations of of contaminated soil and that was particularly associated with where there were junk sites and so forth and so on we saw that at 93 ber hiln where there was a a location of a junk site and that was where past was detected uh in the soil uh in this particular case from the um natural actually the natural the the map the habitat map that they did uh for natural heritage identified where these areas were these junk piles were none of them are are in proximity to where the residences are being planned and so for that reason I also it it would it would be ideal that you could actually test soils in the locations of where the housing is going to go but in the absence of that at least from what is known uh it seems that um that that is not going to be an issue now there is an outstanding issue with the Board of Health which is that these these locations of of uh their piew where they've identified that they don't think that there are sites where there's contaminated soil that the peer review did not feel that that was sufficiently um identified or there wasn't sufficient evidence provided to make that conclusion and so that is still an open question for the Board of Health but I think at least given the information that we have been provided uh I think that we um that we can reasonably conclude that that will not be an issue for us uh there were further questions with with previous Town Council as to whether we even had a a re a right to look at that question question uh of course I did I disagreed with Town Council with regards to that but nonetheless I don't think that's an issue here at least presenting as an issue um the the the the traffic Hazard however is a different issue altogether we have identified from the very beginning that the concern was there was there was a number of concerns but one specific concern that we specifically discussed with the applicant with the peer review and with Town Council is that of pedestrian safety and the existence of access road so in other words talking about the condition of a road that is not in the subdivision but is providing access to that subdivision and we've identified in particular the section of road that is not a publicly accepted way and so it it is the the road that the applicant has proposed to and looked at widening 18 ft but has has not uh shown an interest in providing a sidewalk um there's a few things that I want to say about that first is that as things exist right now I think the general feeling of the board is that it is while it's not desirable it is not unsafe and so in the sense that that we we don't feel that this is a a as it exists right now that the town needs to take some sort of action because there exists a traffic Hazard okay with the addition of the additional units from this proposed subdivision then there was the perception it was my perception I believe perception of some other board members as well that that would create a situation in which there is a traffic Hazard particularly between vehicles and pedestrians because of the known use of that street for providing access to the school which by the way is the the the bus will not stop there because they're so close to it they're expected to be able you know travel in themselves so forth and so on um so they'll have older kids there yeah so so the so the um it's not just and it's not just school kids I mean I give kids as an example but just pedestrian use in general so the addition of these uh additional units would be a significant increase percentage wise to the number of residential units on that street Street and so it was because of that large percentage increase that caused me to be concerned about that so this was an issue that we raised and if you recall we specifically were wanting to assess that question and that was in part why we first brought up the issue of a road safety audit but the the uh what we were told was that and and I think appropriately that a road safety audit really is based on first and foremost crash data well there is no crash data because it's a very small Road and there there really isn't that much the volumes are not high and so you can't apply sort of your sort of averages and statistical means and so forth that you would normally apply in these kinds of situations um and that was a point that we specifically discussed um what my conclusion was and I think is I recall that the um uh the I think you're here tonight I think we agreed that there wasn't sufficient data to spe specifically determine what would be the likelihood of an accident occurring and so for that reason we went to more General uh in general when we do these kinds of things things become safer but it's there's no specific knowledge that we have to say that increasing the number of units whether it's by 12 whether it's by seven what that will be will it be safe or will it be unsafe safe and so in that sense I think the board has some latitude to use their own discretion that if they feel that this addition of units is going to create a traffic Hazard then that you have a con you you can essentially conclude that that's going to be an issue I would further say that the addition of a sidewalk would alleviate that concern and so because the existing condition is we would consider not unsafe there is no sidewalk there with a proposed units would in my opinion create an unsafe condition that then a sidewalk is needed because of the introduction of these units so it's something that the applicant because he is essentially creating the condition for this potential Hazard then he himself needs to alleviate that it is not the town's resp responsibility to do that so the at that point then I turned to Town Council and I said well what do we how do we assess this when we really don't have expert opinion telling us that it will be safe that way can quantifiably show that it will be safe and he said at that point what makes more sense is to bring up uh essentially things to minimum standards so I would think at least bring the road to a minimum standard some sort of width that we feel is acceptable we've been considering 18 ft but the addition of a sidewalk even just one sidewalk on one side in my opinion would be the minimum standard that we would look for the other thing that Town Council cautioned us about is that our subdivision rules and regulations don't have Specific Instructions for offsite improvements as there was in the case of uh the case that he signed with northlander versus Falmouth and in that case they do but in our case I would say is first of all and the purpose of it is to to give the applicant sufficient warning that this is going to be an issue they need to address so our our rules and regulations do one the Town Council pointed out one it has minimum standards in our subdivision rules and regulations so first there's an expectation that you will meet those and second that we also have the provision of that we would as a Criterion we have to establish is is there an unwarranted traffic Hazard and so those two in my opinion sufficiently warn an applicant that th this kind of issue will take place which is that you may have an offside Improvement you need to make the additional thing I would add is that if someone's going to say well see you your rules and regulations should have specif ified that I would say this is a unique situation so in our unique situ in other words if this were there could be other places where there is a road where there isn't a sidewalk in a neighborhood where someone's increasing units that we might conclude that you don't need to have a sidewalk add it so let's say that I would say by an anr they could probably put two duplexes in there would we consider that to be uh sufficient traffic Hazard or so forth maybe maybe not I don't know but that would be as right so that would certainly be uh you know one one thing that we could use as a sort of minimum standard for that as a minimum level what have you but the thing is that because it's you because of the percent increase related to the number of units on the road uh then I think that this is a unique situation where before it would not have needed a sidewalker now it does that that's not something you would have necessarily encoded you would not have put in your rules and regulations every Poss possible condition in which you would be asking for an offsite Improvement would you would not so that would be my other argument that it's a reasonable thing for this board one to conclude that there is an unwarranted traffic Hazard given the number of units that are being proposed and two that that can be mitigated by the offside Improvement of the road widening and sidewalk added and that that would be uh what the board uh would look for the last thing I want to say is that when I asked Town Council also about the fact of well in this situation you know do we need to prove that do we need to prove there will be a traffic Hazard and the answer was when there is an appeal the burden of proof is on the person who's appealing so in this case if we make a decision based on our conclusion that there's an unwarranted traffic Hazard that it can be mitigated by uh Road widening and sidewalk that if the applicant contends that that's not true then we have the presumption because we've decided that that that is what has to be rebutted by the applicant in an appeal so I feel that we are in a reasonable standing to make that conclusion because of the absence of a specific quantifiable that shows that it is safe and because the board has discretion in judging these matters then I think the Jud the board can decide and what I would recommend is the board request that that this first that the board identify that you feel this way that you indicate to the applicant that yes we feel this is an unwarranted traffic Hazard that it can be mitigated by the road Widing at sidewalk and that to not do so it will be an a traffic Hazard which we cannot approve uh and then you know see at what point what happens as a result of that but I think all of that should happen before the public hearing is closed uh so the Apple can respond um but that is that is my conclusion out of all of this uh this whole year is that I feel like that's the one thing that has not been resolved satisfactorily is pedestrian safety based on what's proposed that's it that was fantastic but the question I have is uh is there a plan because I'm confused about this Improvement on hild street I the letter that the DPW is referring to is September 19th there was a plan just a there just a letter there's no where's the can can we pull it up or where it is buried here I don't know where it is that shows the the 18 ft and what they're going to do on hildor and this the extent it I mean it doesn't have a sidewalk it's the um I knew last meeting there was highlighted section there was a red line and there was a red line on this side and a red line on that side but that was all I see where is that here in the documents uh it was in the documents for the last meeting because the town is referring to the width where is there a document that shows the width I got it right here which one's that so we can pull it up on our do you know the date of it 820 see it but it doesn't show what we're doing and then we got a letter here from so we got a letter from Hancock Associates it's on the 19th says propos Roseway roadway improvements plan as built plan Street application plan acceptance plan and meters and Bounds what does it say they're going to do the work and complete the scope is that I don't I don't I thought at the last meeting they said they would do the engineering and they would do it but it would be up to the town to actually do the improvements can you answer that Brian certainly uh So the plan that you see before you is the plan that we're committing to do doing so we will widen the road to 18 ft what we're providing to the town is the documents in intellectual property that will allow the town to accept that portion of hildra Street as a public way and that was upon the request of the Town engineer when we met and discussed this plan for the improvements that we propose the survey the survey it's meets and balance description I'm sorry I can't see it but is that just a highlight is there actual details of the width and and Curbing and MH there is on that okay it's on the plan so the the red that you see are the areas that we're widening yeah from what is less than 18 ft to you're going to include drainage in that too correct okay thank you do you know the date of that is Evans we can actually pull it up so we can look at it Clos Clos sir um on it's labeled as um oh I see it I got it exhibit 202 4826 thank you thank you yeah I'll just say while we're talking about this I I I'm sorry what exhibit I see it now 202 uh 2024 826 right after um opinion on ston walls yeah yeah I would what I would say is regardless of what agreement the board makes with the applicant on Hildreth there's likely going to be a condition that the final plans the final technical review will be done by DPW unless the board wants to retain ownership of you know working on Final construction plans with the applicant so what you're hearing Brian say tonight is if the board agrees to this there'll be a condition that they'll work directly with DPW yeah to make sure that the plan adequate um pavement specs curbing drainage at the discretion of DPW inform ising available Andi is online still no Tony's is not online with us ah this morning he said he would stay online until this was completed if I may this morning we spent over an hour with Mr Ruchi down at the DPW and he said that we can take that plan that they've drawn with their red arrows and curvings and whatnot and understand that that is just a conceptualized plan on their behalf that is not anything that DPW has agreed to they've agreed to wa looking at the engineering to widen the road to 18 ft that's all this is just a conceptual graft we do not want to put any stock in the fact that they're saying 6 feet from this slot 4T from over here here first we're taking from this side then we're going to the other side so I think that we're being extremely misled when he says they have drainage and Curbing and everything else figured out because according to Mr Ruchi this is a conceptualized drawing yet to be worked out after the bounds and means and all the other engineering is done so I am getting very irate at the games that I feel they're playing for us I'm sorry I had to say that Nate Montero for Hildreth I just have comments on the sidewalk that it just doesn't seem to add up to me yes the sidewalk would be tremendous for my kids walking to school trying to picture where it would be would it be on one side would it be on the other side would it be split meaning have you ever driven down there and seen the end of or the top of for uh Hilder Street at 95 barle Road it's a valley that goes down so would you put it all on that side and build a retaining wall into that yard and take away his fence or would you put it on the other side there's a tree that literally touches the road across my street so would you go up to the up to the tree and and then come over to my side and go down towards the site driveway where is the sidewalk going to go it just doesn't make sense there's a tree there the letter says that they don't want to remove mature trees but we're going to put a sidewalk without affecting a tree whichever way you put it on you're going to take down multiple trees and let alone 95 beler Road it doesn't make sense they're going to dump the burden on you on the town and say here we're going to engineer it you go figure it out how it doesn't it doesn't add up so please consider on Where the Sidewalk would go would it go on both half and half and would it go past the site all the way to Plum or would those kids just be trying to race to get onto that sidewalk walking up to Plum to school couple questions that just doesn't make sense so appreciate you would really ask those questions thanks no I don't know what it means Massy compto 24 Hilder Street um so as my neighbor Nate was just talking about with the sidewalks um if you want to even look further into that the crosswalk for the school is actually on the even side of the street so where number four is 610 and 93 95 Hill um the R rodar so technically you'd have to put the sidewalk on that side of the street and looking at this plants they also include putting the road on that side of the plan which means that anybody that lives on that side of the road is now losing all of their front yard pretty much so so just something to look at consider and think about as we look at again conceptual plans that have not been fully engineered out thank [Music] you it's my dad I can yell at them they're turn it on each other okay um we also have a tra an updated traffic report that has not been peer reviewed yet and I would have concern with that now being entered into the record without a peer review so I'm thinking that we still have several things under our jurisdiction that we have open questions about so I don't think that we're ready to make a fully informed vote tonight although I think it might be um in our interest to take a vote tonight um in terms of timing and also in terms of um I don't necessarily want to ask the applicant to do additional um engineering drawings Etc um if it if it's if we have other things that are settled in board members Minds that are going to preclude us getting to a yes vote um to other people have thoughts on that I mean common sense it just seems like detrimental to this neighborhood all around in my mind it's it's a what for this neighborhood it's very detrimental to this neighborhood everything we look at it just seems to snowball that's my take on the whole situation and your main concerns are pedestrian safety pedestrian safety is the main concern I think I think it has been since day one um do we want to take it around and see where people are standing or if people feel like their concerns are addressed Mike I I'm I'm still concerned about I agree with Paul I I concerned about the safety um on Hilder Street the kids the walk close to the school it is I would like the proponent to commit to seven three duplexes and one single family home if that's definitely not on the table then I'm definitely a no vote on this project but that needs to come up and uh I think we need to widen if we're going to go down looking at this plan I mean this is it's it's going to change Hilder Street no matter what and if you do these improvements which we're asking them to do it's just it's going to wreck that neighborhood that's all I have to say at this time right I mean I would want us yeah Chris so I think we're we're still missing a bunch of information from natural heritage the like Joel said the environmental information report um just probably a clerical error but the departmental letters um and then I'm quite disappointed that they submitted a updated traffic review at the last minute um when they had agreed back in January that we would only need to do one so that kind of wasted our time on that whole peer review process um I think based on the information that we're we still would need um I don't think any of it's going to address the biggest concern I have is The Pedestrian safety like Joel said um the the minimum that I would expect is not being um proposed so that would be my biggest biggest issue right now and I don't see it changing Mike all right I'll give you an opinion you what I'll give an opinion here uh very much at odds with almost every other opinion that I've heard uh now on the uh environmental side and those things I I'm very much in agreement with everybody but we keep coming back to this uh issue of pedestrian safety certainly widening the road to 18 ft would would give would improve things somewhat but the simple fact is this is a pretty small Road it is not all that heavily traveled even with the addition of the things that are being proposed I don't think it's going to be all that heavily traveled I do see some pedestrian dangers here I think the biggest Danger on this road is residents backing out of their driveways and hitting a kid in the street I don't think it is people tearing down that road at 40 mil an hour I don't know what maybe your car's got more motor than mine I don't think I could get to 40 m an hour from one end of the street to the other I think I think we're very much overplaying The Pedestrian safety issue here uh and while I don't want to poo poo it completely uh I think uh I think it's it's being used as a surrogate argument for we don't want it in our neighborhood I understand you don't want it in your neighborhood I probably wouldn't want it if I lived there either but that from the planning board point of view is not sound reasoning and you know as you pointed out Joel uh there's not enough traffic data here and probably never will be giving the frequency uh of of traffic on the street to ever come up with a definitive determination that's math mathematically justifiable for how much dangers are being increased or decreased by these various things that we're doing uh so to the extent that we consider it at all I think we can only consider on general principles that a maybe a cleaner slightly wider road with maybe slightly improved sight distance would be a help but I think that's about as far as we can take the argument so there you have it now I respect Mike's opinion but I will also say that my opinion and I think the opinion I can think speak for the other board members is out of a genuine concern for pedestrian safety not because we're aiming to kill the project just want to make that clear right and and I and I certainly don't want to question anybody's uh motivation here because pedestrian safety is key it's key everywhere around town but Mike to to get the widening of the road you're changing what that neighborhood is ah now that's a different matter that's that's all I'm saying okay that's your your argument is based much more on neighborhood character yes and and that I understand and that's I think what is really at the Crux of this okay not not pedestrian safety but neighborhood character and the degree to which we can well they're connect or or sure they are con there's some connection but the degree to which I'm inclined to uh tell somebody who's got a good chunk of land what they can can't do on that land uh is limits me in my you know that's got to be played against the neighborhood character thing it's not a it's not a single it's not a single uh uh item uh consideration here there are multiples but we had an issue with the the the width of the actual street that they're proposing right the fire apparatus turnaround they do not want people parking yeah I understand that they put the additional parking they do not want that and I think we have to get a letter from the fire department that has to come from the fire department thought I read it just just here no that was the old that was based on the older plan I believe no it was August 24th is that the old plan yes yeah August 24th was the old plan I mean whatever that situation is there I think it's for the fire department to tell us I don't think it's for us to try judge their comments yeah if their comment is don't don't do it then no we don't do it John my compin my opinion is completely different um I think that um pedestrian and traffic safety are uh major concerns I've visited that street at least two to three times I think it's apparent when you drive on down that street even if you're not going at a high rate of speed it's very difficult for two larger vehicles or average siiz vehicles to pass alongside each other so those are my my key issues is um pedestrian and and potential traffic hazards and safety Anita um if someone who has lived on um a street that is 17 feet wide um my concern is the the safety of the adjacent Road when we have this subdivision um and that hasn't been addressed making it 18 ft does not make it safer and my you know and I can tell you like I've lived on my street for over 35 years my family's lived on my street for over 70 years an additional housing an additional traffic to me this is you know a n decision like it's it's a no you can't 18 ft it does not make it safer 17 ft is not safe in my street 17 feet works because there are three houses on it and we and I can see when other people are coming in and out of their driveway and there only people have there's only two houses that have families in it and none of them are little kids that's why some ft works on my straet if you double that it wouldn't work on my straet okay well and then I do have a question for the attorney when I was reading the sub the Massachusetts subdivision law do we need to have the planning board's uh sorry the um Board of Health's approval prior to making our decision because I was reading the last sentence it is the intent of the subdivision control law that any subdivision plan filed with the plan board shall receive the approval of such board if said plan conforms to the recommendation of the Board of Health but do we need to have their approval first no it would be contingent upon I think we yeah I think we talked about it at one of the prior meetings that we would put a condition in the decision that the decision would be based on the approval of the Board of Health okay yeah the board of the Board of Health is we we do solicit their input but there's a time there's a time limit associated with that I'll let Town Council clarify if he wants to to Town Council is not on the call anymore right still still with us yes oh he is um I am thought you left a long time ago sorry uh no I did not no sorry do you want me to respond to that yes please Madam chair yes um yeah the subdivision control excuse me control requires that a plan be submitted to the Board of Health for its Review Board of Health does have 45 days to submit a report if the Board of Health recommends disapproval of the plan the planning board is bound to follow that disapproval if it does not recommend disapproval then the planning board may go ahead and approve the plan and just to be clear the standard for the planning board and following this is that if a plan complies with the subdivision control law and the rules and regulations of the planning board the planning board shall approve it um there is no discretion in that standard um the only discretion the planning board has and considering a subdivision plan is where waivers are required in that case the board does have discretion um so that's that's the standard for approval of the plan that's in section 81u of the subdivision control law um can I also clarify when now that now that I know you're still there um about the question from Mr Harvey about the purchase and sale agreement my understanding um from a previous correspondence that I thought was in the packet on a previous meeting that if if we had the um the notorized affidavit that we have here tonight that we were in that it was your expectation that um we could proceed as far as the ownership and the ability to negotiate on on behalf of the owner is that correct that is correct Madam chair um with respect to Mr Harvey's request to the Pur and sale agreement my opinion was that it's not a requirement of the subdivision application it's a private contract um the planning board does not have authority to demand it um the applicant certainly can submit it but at the same time they can withhold it the what the applicant has submitted which your regulations do require is that the applicant agree to the submission and what's been presented is a signed statement with an affidavit saying it's still in effect that the applicant has authorized excuse me the owner has authorize the applicant to submit this application and what's been submitted as of today is certification and an attestation under oath that that remains ineff and has not been modified I think that's sufficient uh in my opinion for the planning board to proceed on the understanding that the requirement that the owner approve of the application continues to be met would the would the owner of the property need to sign the attestation no okay in my opinion no I think what's presented is sufficient has Town Council seen what was submitted okay yes I have okay thank you the public still speak so the attestation does not state that the contract is still in effect what it states is that it has not been revoked the purchase and sale is the ass attestation that states um that the owner has the authority to sign excuse me that the uh applicant has the authority to sign on behalf of the owner doesn't State when this um Authority ends I'm satisfied with our advice from Council thank you very much for interrupting me I'm not done speaking sorry so let me let me say this as an attorney under oath before this board I can tell you that last Wednesday because nobody wants to answer the question of when this purchase and sale ends and I didn't ask for a copy of it all I ask for is when does it end so I had a conversation with the owner of the property Garrett Oben Houser at his house in Bedford New Hampshire last Wednesday and I presented to him the conversations that the board has had and also the abuts about whether or not this purchase and sale is still in effect and what he told me was that the developer requested him to sign an extend ion and he refused to sign an extension based on the fact that in his opinion the developer was not being honest with him so whether or not you want to listen to me or you want to listen to Town Council is up to you but if you want to know what the truth is it's very simple you ask the developer when this agreement ends that's it a date and that's not what the attestation States the owner does not have to State on a piece of paper that it's no longer in effect the purchase and seal controls that that's all I have to say if anybody wants to make a presentation that it's still in effect I would request that okay so everyone has spoken about their current thoughts are we going to continue to gather information what's your thought well if you're looking for continuance if the Board needs more time you think you need more then we need to get um a um signed extension of time to add without that as far as I can tell you I'm still trying to decide if people want that okay or if people want to take a vote i' take a vote so may I may I speak briefly who's that this is um this is Michael favor the applicant oh sure yes excellent so thank you uh Joel appreciate your your deep dive kind of and narrative I just wanted to really kind of touch base on a few things and get some clarity from the board uh regarding the environmental narrative so I think there there may have been some confusion on what was expected from the board um our understanding was the jurisdiction was outside of planning board which then escalated over to the Board of Health which required us to get a phase one study um cheler water department also had us do um Hydro GE Hydro studies on on the area uh in multiple multiple locations um all that all those reports have been made public um the presence of pasas although very slightly over the standard um was recognized um and that also has been reported to D um so I just want to make it clear to the board that the information on an environmental level has been sent to the accurate departments those departments are working on it and I can tell you that anything that's going to happen on that property we're going to need to go through the state and they're going to have to see what's going on with storm water where things are located um so there's not going to be some lack of oversight when it's involving any type of environmental or contamination on the site um um furthermore obviously if we redevelop the site that those junk piles will be removed so there will be a natural Improvement of the site and there will likely be continued monitoring of the site in in perpetuity since we all know p is a forever chemical um so I just wanted to address that so I'm not again I don't know what specific narrative that we're we're looking for but uh from my standpoint I believe with Board of Health and D being involved in the project now I think any environmental concern that we're going to run into is going to be addressed uh now regarding the road widening I know there's some comments that were made um regarding kind of changing the character of the neighborhood um I would just ask the board to really look at the plan uh the The Proposal that we're providing here I mean it's not a significant alteration of the plan um at at the um DP W's request you know we're avoiding cutting down trees we're avoiding you know taking up as much space as we can in some locations the road meets the standard so I mean we're talking about a very small impact to the existing road to get to that 18 foot width um in addition to that yes it's a concept plan that's where all ideas and things start um but we are committing to widen in the road we are going to spend our money our resources to do that and we're also planning on improving the the drainage that was on hildr right now which you go look at it it's it's that's currently clogged it's not in good condition um so we'd be improving the the draining of the road which you know apparently some of the neighbors seem to be complaining that they have you know puddling or flooding issues um so you know actually locating some of that to an area that can disperse the water correctly may be an improvement for the the entire area um when it comes to sidewalks you know obviously a sidewalk is going to be better than no sidewalk but that's that's not really the question here the the question is you know why and what's the jurisdiction of the board to require a sidewalk so we we were leaning on Town Council and they basically stated that the board does not have jurisdiction to have us do off-site improvements we are doing an off-site improvement to increase the road we're trying to appease the board trying to make the road a little bit safer and but doing an entire sidewalk across that entire length of the entire Street it it's excessive and we also first of all you don't want us a a private developer to be responsible for putting a permanent structure like that that should be something that the city gets involved in the city gets done correctly and the city has oversight on um which is why our proposal was Hey listen we're going to we're going to go widen the road for you we're going to hand over our plans to d uh DPW they're going to now take jurisdiction they're going to make it a public road so now you're going to get all the funding that will be allocated to it with the town and they can now make the proper decision to put what's right there for the street I I just don't think it's a reasonable request for the developer to do something that really should be in the town's hands um uh one one other thing and I don't know if the board could just make this clear as well so The Pedestrian safety was a major concern um from my understanding of what I've received from the traffic studies there's very little impact in terms of daily trips and demand that a um seven unit subdivision is going to bring onto the street um so I think the data is clear that there's a very low impact of what this development will bring to the street and to Joel's point that there's really no empirical data for anybody to draw from to show that there is a safety hazard on T Hilder or on Hilder street so what what I'm trying to get from the board here is that are we drawing the conclusion that this is a pedestrian safety issue on your opinion and theories or are we drawing that conclusion based on empirical facts and data that has been presented to the board um I just want to be very clear on that because I just want to we we really need to stick to the facts when it comes to these kinds of decisions so um now I know Chris brought up some things about receiving a traffic report kind of you know on on the final hour here I don't see that as being a a huge deal considering we're not increasing the unit count on our development we're decreasing the unit count so the traffic study that you had previously was for a uh six lot subdivision with 12 total units we have that we have almost half the size of that so we simply updated the plan to say listen we we've cut our density almost in half I don't see the how it would be necessary to go bring peer review in to review a plan that was now less traffic less of an impact less of a potential Hazard on on the site so um I I only see that as really an improvement and I don't see that there needs to be such a deep dive or investigation to a plan that was overdone uh the original to now just reflect the the updated density um so I just want to again I just want to make a couple of those things clear specifically on the outstanding environmental kicking those up to those the the the proper agencies that are responsible for that um I'd really implore you to dig deep into that road widening uh as it does not impact the neighborhood if you look at it I mean it's it's very minimal in terms of what we need to do to get to that 18t width um and it's it's within the right of way and um again just regarding the The Pedestrian safety whether we're basing our decision here on concrete facts and data or if we're simply making an opinion um based on feeling so those are just my thoughts I'll hand it back to you thank you very much thank you oh actually excuse me one one last thing we still are under contract I'll put that under record and uh hopefully that satisfies that condition again Bruce McMaster six Hilder Street um how do I know that's Michael Le favor I know it's Anita I know it's town counsil I knew it was Mike Walsh when he had to be away it's I opened an email that said Michael a favor and it was attorney hler didn't if he's in witness protection I'm okay I'm okay if and witness protection but other than that okay thank you I don't know if I may I'd like to respond to I'd like to respond a couple of those things um first of all I think a and this will be a a question for Town Council um we were Michael flavor said that we were advised by Town Council that we did not have the right to ask for offsite improvements previously our previous Town Council my understanding was that we said that we did and specifically cited uh northlanders versus um uh I forget the town and um so our understanding was that we could ask for offsite improvements what town our previous Town council's concern was that that because it wasn't explicitly stated in our rules and regulations that he said that at first first he said he'd have to look into it and then he came back and said that because we have standards and because we have the um the um Criterion of uh no unwarranted traffic Hazard which is in our rules uh that then we do have the jurisdiction we do have the right to ask for off-site improvements or at least to identify that without those S offsite improvements that there is an unwarranted traffic has according to our rules and regulations and I just I want to specifically point out that as you said that if it complies with subdivision control law and it complies with our rules and regulations we must approve so this is not a case of our of it complying our finding that it complies with both of those and yet we're disapproving it's that what we are finding is that it doesn't meet our rules and regulations because of the unwarranted traffic Hazard Criterion so my question to you is do we have the right to ask for off-site improvements uh according to case law that Jonathan may I respond through you yes please so thank you Joel for the question um when the developer referred to town council's opinion I don't believe he was referring to my opinion I believe that would have been the opinion of Prior Council so it sounds like perhaps there's a disagreement about what that opinion was um I recognize I have not seen But I recognize what you're saying about town council's prior opinion I've certainly looked at the subdivision regulations um I agree with prior Town Council that there is a good argument there that the board's regulations do address to some degree um where off-site improvements may be required to uh amarate hazards caused by the subdivision that's what uh the standard says the concern has always been and I think that's what caused town councils to look at this further and you reference the northlanders case the concern is always that the regulations must be specific enough so that the applicant will be aware of what is required so the concern is and it remains a legal point which we don't need to debate tonight is is the board's regulations specific enough to require offsite improvements and I think Town council's opinion was it is and I think there's a good argument that that's the case but again uh it's not absolutely definitive it's not as the same as some other requirements you see in your regulations where it's very specific okay thank you and that that's what that that is what I thought thank you um also what also was brought up that um that the about the Environmental information report that a number of these issues have been are being addressed by other agencies and I stated that myself and again the my I brought up the environmental information report was because we had asked for it in the beginning we we do have a provision to ask for an environmental information report uh it is it is automatic under certain conditions and other certain conditions we can conclude that we would would want it which I believe the board did uh and so that was expressed to the client I mean the applicant the applicant agreed to it we also provided to the applicant a high Lev list of items that we wanted included in that environmental information report one of those items was a phase 121e which got us off onto that whole phase 121e thing and so I can understand that perhaps in the midst of that it was forgotten but again consult the rules and regulations if you want to know what is to comprise The Narrative of the environmental information report that is documented we also clarified that our rules and regulations cite a number of things that are in according to the rules and regulations to be included in that report we identified that a number of those things did not to be included but we also identified at a high level and number of things that we felt should be included the applicant has had that now for all about at least 9 months possibly 10 months so I think the board certainly has clearly expressed uh what it wants and I think the applicant needs to decide whether they're going to actually do the thing that they agreed to so that's really the extent of it I'm not raising the issue again I I thought I was rather clear in saying that we actually as far as I'm concerned the board does not have further interests in Pas and so forth and so on we're not pro we're not just prec you know deciding on those matters uh but the documentation of an environmental information report per our rules and regulations uh was requested and was promised and so that is the something that I I would continue to look to the applicant to fulfill and and then the the last thing I wanted to mention about the um The Pedestrian safety in which uh Michael favor brought up uh the the very point that I anticipated in my remarks uh so I'll repeat those remarks uh for greater Clarity and that is that I I did specifically point out and I think we all agree that there is no quantitative empirical data to be able to say whether it is safe or whether it is unsafe so then the board is left at its discretion to determine based on its own knowledge and experience as it does in many matters uh what its conclusion is with regards to unwarranted traffic Hazard this was something that was discussed repeatedly throughout the the public hearing process so the board has the ability of its own in the absence of the empirical specific data to conclude that there is an unwarranted traffic Hazard and if the applicant appeals that then the burden on is on them to but that that is the state of things if the board finds that it sounds like that is what the board is finding uh for the most part and so I want to be clear that just because there's an absence of empirical data does not mean that the board has every right and reasonable action to conclude that there is an un unwarranted traffic Hazard that's the extent of it it for instance doubling the for example for example doubling the amount of residents in that one street at the reduced um number of units right now still doubling the amount of residents on that street you're a school 12 was ridiculous but okay is are we still open for public yeah but I would like it not to be much longer it's just it's I just want to bring one thing up um they're talking about you know the the traffic study the last traffic study they did was in November dece December we know and nobody walks their kids to school in December they talked about another one I have no idea when they did it um but if you walk up Hilder Street between the hours of 89 in the morning and 2:30 3:30 in the afternoon you got kids walking to and from school um so if they did a traffic study they didn't do it during those hours please don't take her out I didn't even see her coming that might have been hazardous anyway wherever you are she is you know what's the matter just joking goe Lois proverb 17 Turnpike Road um just want to State and I know you've been over it a million times but you know these people don't seem to care about poor little critters that are out there the turtles and all those things that should be saved but they don't care about the people either because if they did they wouldn't want to dump all that mess in the backyard and put those septic tanks there so they can run into my drinking water and everybody else's in the town of chumford but they don't care because you know what the problem is nowadays greed and that's what the whole thing is so if they want to put a project like this up dump it in their own backyard and enjoy it thank [Music] you okay I would like to close the public hearing I have three quick questions for Council okay I don't know if they need to be asked during public or not but we should probably hold on can I should ask please uh so uh Jonathan on the potential uh conditioning of seven units because there are waivers being um requested and likely granted what what is what are your thoughts on that thank you through you madam chair the the standard for limit for the planning board in terms of limiting lots and the number of buildings that may be erected is based on whether the way provides adequate access this is the interior subdivision way provides adequate access those particular Lots so the board does have authority to do that it would simply have to make a finding that limiting the Lots in that in whatever fashion it deems fit is required by the the fact that um the way is only adequate to support those number of lots and buildings you're mentioning Lots but what about units actually what the the law says is the number of buildings it does not say units um so I think can a reasonable analogy could be made to buildings as as to units based upon the applicant's proposal three three duplexes one single family correct those are buildings I mean it it would be not specifically it wouldn't be a building so-called if you limited a single family to a single family as opposed to another building that was a two family that's that's still one building but the point being still that the question is that will be a further use of the subdivision Road and extend or expansion of the use of subdivision Road there will be more use of the road therefore if the road is only adequate to support a certain use then that condition could be imposed okay and and in that condition would have inherit in it the limitation to one single family home that would be distinct from a duplex correct yeah if there if the um support was there for that yeah it could be explicit okay our next question is um revised plans have been submitted does that start a new 45 day clock for Board of Health um I that's a tough question I don't believe that it does necessarily it could it really depends on what how the plans were revised um and I guess the first question I would have is have they has the revised plan been submitted to board health I don't know that um but if it had then I would certainly be willing to take a look at that question um I don't think there's an obvious answer to me right now but I would take a look okay and then final question is can you just explain to my uh to me and the board and the public if it's an approval or denial what what level of detailed written decision is required well I think as I said before the standard is that the plan either meets or does not meet the recommendations of the Board of Health and the regul the subdivision control law regulations so any decision if it's a denial would have to provide findings and you know facts to support those findings as to why the plan did or did not comply with the regulations Andor the recommendations of Board of Health that's that's really all it is that's what required as to waivers if the board is granting waivers then the board should make findings as to why granting waivers would be appropriate in this instance okay thank [Music] you so can't remember what the waivers are anymore it's the size of sidewalk and um hammerhead okay sorry so as a board knows I mean there is no draft decision right um I don't know to what extent we'd be able to word Smith an articulated justifiable decision one way or the other um I I just mentioned that did did we say you mean now or ever well if we if we don't if the if the applicant doesn't Grant a um an extension and there's a vote this evening uhuh we'd have tomorrow and maybe part of Friday uh to draft a decision have it signed and submit it to the to the clerk so we don't have a duration after appr after approval or denial to submit uh the decision isn't there like isn't it like 45 for a special permit there is yeah definitive subdivision is treated differently Jonathan do you want to provide some clarity on this as well no that's AB that's that's correct it's just a um a hard timeline in terms of subdivision control no an add there is no additional time period to file the decision and Jonathan could we potentially enlist your assistance with the board and Evan in drafting a decision in the next 7 48 60 hours with Evan's assistance I know that he would have a template that he would use but I would certainly be assist him with that yeah yeah the template's not a problem I mean I think as Jonathan articulated any vote's going to require uh some specific findings m I think we've done a pretty good job discussing that level of detail this evening that that may need to be articulated as part of as part of motions what about fire department letter so on the new plan yeah it looks as though the revision of September 3rd um was it September 3rd the plan revision yep yeah the fire department letter is like August 20th yeah it looks as though August 24th sorry it's not clear to me whether that was submitted for departmental comment or not but regardless those those comment letters are not have not been provided to the board so you can I mean it can be conditioned um if if you if you choose to go that route but what would what would happen at that point because we kind of made that the parking right and if they're saying no to that well as I mentioned earlier I know from a conversation with with fire prevention if you recall over the last 30 days the fire prevention officer has changed um so I know I know that based upon a conversation I had with them they had reviewed the plan and found it acceptable based upon this revision with the new one or the old one this this one um I mean the new fire safety person or the old one that that I don't don't quote me on I think they were coordinating cuz they were trying to all right fine hand it off um but regardless we don't this this public hearing doesn't have physically have that letter so right and we won't have it by Friday no so if you if you choose to approve it will there will be a condition M that you know final review and approval all right do we want to take a vote or do we want to ask the applicant if they're willing to Grant an extension if they say no then we're going to take a vote well ideally with either way we vote it would be good to get an extension because we have all the information that we currently don't have well e either whether we approve it or not the decision needs to still be written right word Smith yeah ideally either way we vote it would be good to get an extension if they're willing to give one okay I mean I can assure the board that if you if you take a vote this evening and you articulate the necessary uh findings per councel I will be able to file a decision uh by end of day tomorrow or Friday and and obviously the chair would have to come in and sign but can we enumerate all of those findings tonight well I mean we've talked about very specific concerns deficiencies there weren't many but given how long it took me to go through that other decision that we had tonight to figure out not an ideal situation I mean that's why I'm saying either way the applicant would be willing to request a continuous because they wanted to provide additional information to the board based upon what the board is articulated this evening the fire department letter has me concerned and and it's the size of the road right that we've already granted a waiver we potentially could Grant a waiver for right but I mean if we can made it contingent upon if we were going to approve it if we made it contingent upon getting a clean letter from the fire department right that that that's not that may constitute redesigning the whole circle right potentially but unlikely they're will us a what was that an she wants to know if they're willing to give us an ex if they're willing to give give us a continuing are we willing are you willing to grant us a continuance um extens a message to my client he's still on the on the zoom meeting I know I understand that let me give it to you should we close give it to you anyway you can't get his opinion oh you can you want to take a five minute recess yeah yeah Doug if you want to give me a quick call during the recess that's fine that's what I plan on doing thank you yeah probably better e e e e e e e e e e e okay I think that's five minutes all right yeah we're going to call the meeting back to order bye um so request from from the board to see if you'll Grant a continuance okay um then we will can we can we ask councel procedural question I'm sorry what we should ask Council a procedural question okay which is uh based upon the fact that there's no extension we have until the end of Friday to um record the decision with the clerk is a proper procedure for the board to simply close the hearing and take a vote or does that vote the motion itself need to be word Smith on the fly or can it simply be a motion to approve or deny with with some basic basic findings and then it's the decision is crafted after this evening uh through you madam chair I think the more detail you can put into those findings the better at a minimum I would think that you would want to refer to the concerns raised earlier in the discussion this evening um and have those word Smith in the decision but would those be in the motion in the vote itself or would we vote to approve or deny and then work on those facts and findings immediately thereafter tonight oh I think I think you can do either I mean it would some make some sense to work I think in the other direction which would be to um you I think You' take a straw poll to see where you're at with the approve or deny then address the the findings and then take the final vote okay so so next first step is close the public hearing I'll take a motion delate STW motion by Mike rck to have a second I'll second that second by Paul um all in favor of closing the public hearing hi okay um Anita Anita thank you hi okay um so let's start with the stop hole um ironically um not St oh stle oh we're not discuss them all right um no it would be a no no it would be a no I'm going to be a yes and I'm going be a no I'm going to be a yes Anita I know I'm looking up oh Anita sorry I should have asked you first Anita no okay can you hear me now yes thank you that's for the um definitive subdivision there's also a a special permit for what it's worth okay so I'll take a motion or no was just straw p on the special um Paul no no no yes no yes no oh I did it again sorry um anyone want to articulate findings for the definitive for the definitive subdivision be we go around again um kind of if at least reiterate what was said earlier and maybe augmenting with in short sentences yeah in little little short bites and he's got at up also Joel well uh this is deliberation so I'm not participating in deliberation but if you have a question to for me to clarify something you could he doesn't I wasn't saying that I was just I hadn't finished my sentence which was that Joel's input from earlier I would presume is um a part of some people's rationale and that that isn't going to be able to be articulated by Joel exactly other than the fact that he already did in this meeting so um if you want to you know start with your thoughts and reasoning my reasoning would be um the doubling of the population of that road basically at first it was a lot more than that and ironically if they would have agreed that to limit that to a single family I was a yes and I we didn't get that and I was shocked shocked that I I just think that the density issue in the size of the street which is a small Street um it puts Public Safety at risk changes the character of the neighborhood and is a detriment to the neighborhood not in any any way adding to the neighborhood in that sense so that's the way I feel about it Michael I mean I'm not going to repeat everything that Paul said but I think my biggest concern was the uh pedestrian safety it was the number of units I did specifically ask tonight if they would guarantee the seven and um also it is detrimental to Hiller Street I mean yes subdivision subdivision but going into a street that you're going to you're going to destroy it and so it it doesn't make sense and I'm sorry why sorry no I'm just I'm just saying that just you there's a lot of been an effort in that's been put into this and for a no vote I mean it's not traditionally the way we'd wanted to go to it but Chris Chris so for me um there are a couple reasons now uh the first is the unwarranted Hazard to the safety of pedestrians um I don't think that uh that access way is um even given the proposed improvements uh rise to the level of the minimum standard we would want for the additional um pedestrians in that area um also uh given the fact that they were not willing to Grant an extension um the fact that we are missing uh the environmental information report um and additional information um that we've asked for regarding natural heritage um the submission is not complete at this point I guess you don't have to give a reason huh no no I mean I I I do have some sympathy for the arguments about changing the character of the neighborhood uh whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is very much in the mind of the individuals in the neighborhood and one could argue it both ways so I see some rationale there as you know I've I've expressed my disagreement or with the uh the Su of the uh Traffic Safety rationale um I certainly like everybody else would like to see the rest of the uh uh report s get completed but I don't think that they the lack of them is a strong enough reason to deny so that's why I took the position I did John my primary concerns with pedestrian and traffic safety and I believe another member said earlier tonight that um about the um proposed um development not meeting our our minimum standards um under the subdivision control law for roadway with and that nature Anita um so couple of things um in general I uh I'm mically not um I'm not a big f um fan of waivers and um I think I believe our zoning is our zoning and the fact that they're requesting you know two waivers on this I think they should be able to fit whatever development they're making within our zoning bylaws um I agree um what I think Chris and John mentioned about the street and itself in the proposed plan doesn't meet um I think it's too narrow and then you know like as I've said um I don't believe um it's a public safety for hildr um can't change what was done in the past but we shouldn't be adding um more vehicles on the road and you know we've been lucky thus far that you know this works with the number of houses on the street um I think it's too much of a um unknown doubling that volume and I personally don't want that responsibility if something happening to anyone whether it's a child someone who's elderly um just for the sake of putting more houses on it I couldn't live with myself so I am to me it's all about safety all right and I voted yes um I in spite of the fact that I share concerns um with the regarding the unwarranted traffic Hazard that this could create I feel like this the traffic study while it raised some questions about the adequacy of the road um I felt like those were appropriately mitigated by WI the road and that the applicant had significantly reduced the number of units so that in such a way that it would significantly lessen um the traffic and safety impacts um and I I feel like um I don't I don't necessarily feel comfortable um without letting people develop to some extent their properties and I think that this applicant was trying to do so in a way that um yielded a lot to our concerns Madam chair may I interject of course briefly of course uh I heard just so that we draft this decision appropriately I heard many concerns addressed to safety on the road way my understanding would be that when people mention roadway we're talking about hild is that correct both both hild is the one I was concerned about what I was concerned about is the amount of units on the proposed Road um I was getting close uh six units would have got me there with the width that we had agreed upon um so it it's the amount of units on an already reduced subdivision road we were granting a for that so you're you're talking about the internal roadway that both but but that's additionally in and no information from the fire department so you know what were you going to say my understanding was that did we re there were no waivers for reduction of the roadway width at this point correct on the side road on the the new subdivision Road correct to be built out to the standard would be [Music] what what's that this it's not being built out to the standard double sidewalks and a full culdesac yeah right and my my further comment is I would ask the board also vote on the waiver requests as well that were made there are two of them I think we did um you are we voting we did a straw poll last time we did a straw poll last time so we didn't do a formal vote on the waivers okay I'll take a motion should we do them individually well why don't you do there was four wasn't there there there are two waivers there was two that should be part of a that should that be a separate motion Jonathan or as part of the main motion 24 to 2 I think you can do those as separate motions first okay each separately or together the waivers I would do that separately okay so I'll take a motion I'll move to the just one moment if if if the majority of the board votes not to Grant those waivers do they need to articulate reasons similar uh to the the main motion yes that would be a good idea so we should do a straw poll with so I don't have the information now this what I'm saying is the grant the waiver of a smaller Road no the first waiver was not to build sidewalks on both sides second waiver was not to build out the cuac but allow the Hammerhead again we don't have the information from the from the fire department whether or not we're going to do that right it was the of it's very confusing to me you you do not have documentation that the fire department has has issued their final approval of the revised plan and two different kind of plans we're going with there's a bunch of different plans the Hammerhead was on that plan they approved I think but not theal we did that having the parking there so it changes my thought process on the whole Road you know you understand what I'm saying does anybody get where I'm going with that no but it was all tied together is what I'm trying to tell you yeah you were right it it may be simpler for the board to maybe replicate your straw pull on those waivers the Simplicity mhm okay I'm going to change my vote what I'm saying is I would change my vot on that what what we're trying you know what you're trying to accomplish here okay so let's just a drop p on the waivers um sidewalk paper first we'll do the sidewalk on the North side only first we do a motion a formal motion straw pole first straw pole first okay with reasoning okay so sidewalk sidewalk on the North side only I'm a yes Anita Anita had a question oh I just had a process question we're doing straw poll and then do we vote yep we will yeah we're going to do straw poll with reasoning and then we're going to vote so the first first STW is on the first one is side re sidewalk all right so I'm a no on waivers and I've already said it but I don't believe we should granting you know things should be built within our zoning period um so I'm going know okay right here although I do agree with her usually on that I like to keep it to the standard but um on in this instance the size of the road I thought one sidewalk was uh doable so I was I'm a yes okay sidewalk for one I'm a yes okay Chris sidewalk is yes for me yes I have those yes for me okay and I'm a yes that's right so that's 6 to one and that was the same being the no and that was same as the straw pole two weeks ago three weeks ago or three two meetings ago the next one's going to be different so we don't have to say reasoning if we're a yes right we're good okay so now the next straw pull is for the um hammerhead instead of the cult sack the with for the culdesac or not the culdesac Hammerhead instead um I don't know how we're going to say that as a motion but I'll leave that to somebody else well I just moved to uh oh yeah first he just wants out of here than Ian it's I changed my vote to a no he's a no reasoning uh not enough enough information from the fire department I just I can't sorry I'm a yes I'm a yes yes I yes oops yes no I thought it would be safer with the full stock does anina oh you I'm a no and I agree I believe it's safer within um you again my whole thing about it should be built within our zoning is one of them and then it's safer with the the CA and additionally you know we just don't know what how big the the apparatus our trucks will be in the future and I think it's dangerous to you know Grant these waivers um again you never know how big it okay and I'm a yes so that was one change Paul from the last two meetings ago should be and John John you were yes it was five two last time so it's now four to three yeah okay all right so then we have enough information on all of these yes for draft decision for the definitive I do but we're looking for real motions now all right so I will make a motion to approve the waiver for the Hammerhead second okay all in favor I I I that should have been a four to three vote yep that was four of us and the and opposed no is John Paul and Anita yes okay I make a motion that we approve the waiver for the um double sidewalks for a north side Sidewalk only I'll second oh you got it okay um that was motion by Chris second by Paul and all in favor I I and any opposed no Anita Anita is the only no okay now we need a main motion on the on the actual definitive subdivision and then the special permit first right we haven't even talked about the special permit yet other than a straw pole all right so the subdivision first yes all right I can you want to do it or I do it you got it I I move to Grant the um uh the subdivision a second do we have second I'll second all right and now raisbeck first uh made the motion Paul second did it um all in favor two I two that's myself and Mike risbeck and any oppos I mean all opposed I that's and that's based upon the the findings as articulated by um individual members right okay we already kind of so now let's just move on to the special permit just to clarify for the board even though you already took a straw poll that's based upon um Acer Protection District uh for related to impervious surface and as you may recall impervious surface uh is deemed to be compliant if it complies with storm water so I don't know if anyone wants to revisit their their votes on that we didn't vote on it yet right oh it was straw pole straw pole is that somebody differences the widening of the road the just so many differences have already happened is there how can we even consider that is there any applicability on the aquifer Protection District for the um environmental plan we didn't get that far other than Joel indicating during his uh testimony that um prior Council indicate that um uh was it that the title 5 systems were outside of or maybe that was current Council we outside of planning board uh jurisdiction that was current Council current Council um P wasn't specifically um there wasn't any official determination on the relevancy of contamination or pasas I think related to um um aquafer protection or storm water um there was a memo that we uploaded from Mass D indicating that they don't believe that the wetlands protection act regulates uh P um but we never really officially discussed it I mean I think what the record does show is that the peer review of the stor M did not identify any glaring deficiencies yeah so I I in that case I would change my um straw pole vote to a yes because I do think that the information provided is not um does not support a a negative vote on the special permit is not what does not the evidence that we've seen related to storm water all of the work related to pasas mitigation um based on the storm water design none of that is uh supportive of a negative vote on the special permit itself for the aquafer protection so with with that change the straw poll is uh three in favor four against is everyone still on this keeping their vote the same for AC for protection exactly what everybody if we approve the special permit and not the subdivision how does that work the sub the the special permits under zoning not under subdivision so it doesn't special permit would allow zoning well the project needs the project needs all approvals yeah so it wouldn't have any impact on the right how do we do it with it on the subdivision itself proposal but we still want to write a defensible can we have a motion okay I I will still straw I we're still in discussion in a straw po but I would highly recommend that people do support the special for Valle Ray beckin Connelly no we we haven't voted or even you have done a straw poll have you voted on a have you expressed your have you opined on the straw poll for I don't think I have I didn't think so either we have we did it very quickly but we did we did that was one of the first ones was it yes yeah right away it was quick okay well let just vote are we going to take a vote think everything's in line anyone have want to have further discussion on it if you're going to deny it you need to justify how it doesn't comply with storm water well I'm confused if you want if you want you can ask me to clarify what my comments were with regards to storm water I would love that I know what your comments were why don't you give AEF I because I defer to him on all this to be honest with you if you want Joel I can summarize sure just to keep it clean um so the the you guys want to all the meetings the aquafer protection district is somewhat Limited in what our scope is for that a lot of it is more related to Board of Health and concom a lot of what we were dealing with at the early part of the project um was more related to the aqu for protection the pasas um making sure that the pasas wasn't um uh ex exacerbated by the storm water those are all part of the aquafer Protection District Joel's summary was good earlier because he did indicate that there really are no more concerns from a planning board perspective and our jurisdiction on storm water being being an issue past being an issue um related to the storm water um so our jurisdiction is pretty clean in terms of this specific special permit okay so all right all right based on that evidence it should be um does does changing the the size of hildr change any of that no at all no it's not related Anita sorry what were you saying but isn't it on the because now the state's involved so isn't our special permit shouldn't our special permit be dependent like if we were say in the affirmative shouldn't it be dependent on what the state no no no no no okay no because any mitigation that they do is still related to outside of our jurisdiction unless their plans would change in which case they would have to come and adjust the plans again but that's not related to the special permit itself okay okay would you need a motion so I would move to approve the special permit uh for the aqua for protection I will second it okay movement motion by Chris seconded by Mike rebeck um all in favor I I I that's unanimous okay okay I think we're I think we're done with that agenda item thank you is it time to adjourn yet well I don't know still have a lot to do there's a lot to do but let's I think a bunch of this we should table unless huh I need to has to drop off okay your your voice is kind of shot huh yeah I'm little sick and I need to drivefort so I don't want to be up midnight okay drive safely okay try motor through this stuff I don't know that we want to do the the only item that's required tonight is the continuance for 313 Littleton Road so I move that we continue 3113 Littleton Road to next meeting yes second is that what we said she we told she was scheduled to be here but she asked for continu tonight to the next meeting y I'm sorry 10:13 say the um and then should we we need to vote uh all right I'm sorry um all in favor I I okay um before we adjourn I would like that we continue our discussion that we had started earlier about evans's remarks about how the board is being perceived out in the external Community yeah we need context and so I think it would be really good to have that discussion uh I'm not saying to have it now I just I don't know if we want to put it on the agenda or something like that okay should we put it on the agenda for work session next time I guess can do that could we do could we do it of a work session at 7 and start our meeting at 7:30 no and try and not M like no well what do we have for next agenda uh you have uh I'm two new public hearings for payet which is off of tingor road for a parking lot expansion on an apartment building uh and then there's one other which I can't with a continuation for 313 Littleton that may be it really then you go ahead did you say two new ones or one uh may maybe just be one one two agenda items one new one what do people think start at 7 do it half work session do s right do the community perception and maybe come back around to the um 129 serving intended purpose we didn't really get far on that tonight they're interrelated I mean I I right I'm I'm not going to be able to give you like definitive names data yeah I'm not yeah where are we going with this adus we're still waiting for the um State guidelines to come State they were supposed to come this month like this month and it's almost the end of the month that we don't have them that's the state for you so do we need to keep putting it on the agenda the Adu yeah can we not put it on until the well I thought it was interesting somebody sent was it the attorney who sent us all the other towns was it you that sent us somebody sent us every bunch of different towns Adu that was a like a data sheet that someone put together that I sent to you yeah it's like a resource but they were all from before the Adu law or some some towns have birght adus and they believe they're compliant and those but that's still we don't know because we don't know the have we had any applications can we just leave it off the agenda let's leave it off the agenda till we have the RS if we have the RS we'll put we continue to get applications for you to use all the time oh you do I thought I saw one saw put on the next one of the work at our but it wasn't detached it was detach was the first one I saw detached they wouldn't be able to it almost looked like construction trailer could have sworn they were moving into it was in what we want our standard to be not against this should we take a motion to adjourn I thought it was the first how about we take a mo do we do that already no not yet I'll do it motion to adjourn second going forward second all in favor I okay e e for