e it being 6:30 we're going to call this meeting of the Chums planning board to order um first up is public input which I'm going to wave the reading of the guidelines for that but um if anyone would like to speak if you come up and say your name and address I'm generally polite and defer to others but no one don't see any of those uh I'm Kelly BD I live at 117 Park Road and um this time last night I was just getting back from Texas to see the eclipse I hope you got to see it here um I uh it's hard to believe but in 2000 of the planning board um driven by Bob moris uh and I work together to create the first out outdoor lighting bylaw for the town and at the time it was one of the few towns in the state that had one now more than 50 towns have a a bylaw ours was updated in 2013 but basically what we have um has has technology has run forward we never envisioned LEDs and the pervasiveness of that so um I've had a couple conversations with Evan and uh I'm I'm prepared to bring forward I I realize you're pre occupied with Springtime meeting and I don't mean to to get in the way of that but afterward I'm prepared to bring forward to you the possibility of a new version of that bylaw that updates uh a lot of the technology I've worked with a lighting professional to create and and also with Evan and layering on what we have to update it and so my biggest reason for coming to you here tonight is that I'm actually a little conflicted as to whether this would continue to be a zoning bylaw as the current one is or to become a general bylaw and my reason for exploring that would be that um I would like to uh explore the idea of creating a sunset clause for non-conforming fixtures so that uh say within a period of I don't know 5 years 10 years whatever it might be that we can imagine all of the lighting in the town uh to be of a certain you know following certain prescriptions and and um and guidelines and so um I know you're preoccupied with town meeting I I don't mean to like pass out out anything now but if you're if you're willing to entertain this notion of could this should this be General versus zoning I'd love to hear it one of the things for example that is in the old bylaw is a lot of discussion about sign lighting and uh we the planning board adopted a new sign outdoor uh illuminated signs as a separate issue uh Mike you we worked on that and so this new version doesn't say anything about signs because that's being taken care of Elsewhere I'm trying to keep uh the lines of of uh clean so that's basically it the uh the new version would be a little bit more comprehensive it would talk about things not only the original version basically said lighting needs to be pointed down and uh and since that time you know we've had with the um introduction of LED lighting it's it's it's a complaint D driven bylaw as it stands and I could have brought forward to the to the building inspector hundreds of different uh installations that don't meet that basic standard so anyway that's that's my purpose for being here tonight is just sort of a heads up I I would love to find out if if possible to discuss tonight what your thoughts on vers zoning versus General if it were a general bylaw does it really even come under the planning board I don't know these things uh but um I'm I'm eager to work with you and maybe bring something forward at fall Town Meeting thank you thanks thank you very much is there anyone else who would like to speak in public input then there seeing none we'll Advance forward to administrative review we have a anr for creation of a parking lot for 15 to 21 and number 20 dunable Road and for 17 to 19 gron Road good evening Madam chair and board members my name is hman daar from Taj engineering here in town um the uh uh by virtue of this anr the applicant uh who owns uh the uh property located at 1719 gron Road and the property located at number 20 which is this property and that property and the property across the street uh and um as we can see on the plan which was submitted on the proposing anal plan the number 22 downable Road and number 1521 downst road across the street they do not have enough parking although uh they have several offices in in those buildings so the applicant is proposing to uh subdivide his property located at 1719 gron Road uh uh and create the two contiguous Lots uh as shown on the plan Lot 1 a and 1 B by vir of uh which uh 1B uh will be used uh for parking uh for these two uh other buildings um Lot B can accommodate uh 15 uh standard parking spaces uh it could be more but the northeasterly end of the new created lot 1B um is taken by a 20 foot access easement uh which will provide access for uh the owner owners applicants vehicle uh to maneuver and park as two existing parking spaces to the uh noral or northwesterly corner of the of number 22 down road which are these two St here which is currently being used uh so um having that said we request their approval okay um does anyone have any questions or thoughts for the applicant I can go first um to study curiosity why why do we need to subdivide this why not just allow the other properties to use the parking well the um it's a good question actually uh the um the applicant wants to make sure that once uh he has flown to the better places other kingdoms uh the trust the assigns and the ears um there will not be any issues or problems and anyone uh wants to sell any of these properties they will have their own parking get spaces okay looking at the plans on the top section it looks like there are two spaces that are marked on the lawn is that going to be eventually paved yes yes there will be a short retaining wall there's a little uh grade there there will be a very short decorative uh retaining wall there most likely Allen blocks um nice looking wall and uh and it will be uh it will be paved and the the uh the topography will match the rest of the okay so after so after the subdivision there's going to be a project to repave and Reign everything that's correct um this is all getting redone right so that's all the questions I have but I do have a concern um our zoning requires buffer between parking and the uh lot lines um and it looks like by subdividing it we're going to eliminate that buffer and make it nonconforming I know that's not in our perview under the anr but I'm a little concerned that by approving this we make it non-conforming it also requires planting between the parking and the lot line those buildings are non-conforming anyways right now no I know but the parking are is not conforming but the parking is way to make this area completely conforming corre but the parking is conforming to our the way it is right now if we subdivide it it's no longer conforming so we're making the situation even worse you understand that the parking is already there yeah but with the lot as one lot you've got all of that lawn area as a buffer between the parking in the lot line a hill mhm by subdividing it you're putting the lot line right at the parking and completely removing the buffer thus making it non-conforming I'm sorry sir I don't follow your question which buffer are you referring to so the so if you look from where you drive into the parking between where the front of the car would be and the far lot line that currently is the the buffer between the parking and the lot line if you subdivide it you're now putting the lot line right at the parking I'm sorry I had to so I can I really don't understand you and also then the endorsement of this uh plan by planning board should not be construed to be a determination of confirmance with the zoning regulations and also um we did talk to the Mr Lans Down planed before uh the requirement between the edge of the parking and the lot line is about 3 ft which we are observing that now going back to your question will you do you mind to repeat please so the buffer between the lot line and the parking it's my understanding if it's over 15 spaces it needs to be 15 ft and so Oh you mean this here yep from those if go up a little bit more right around where you have uh the yeah let me get up and show you yeah ex right here so this is the buffer right now if you subdivide it that's the buffer but this is an existing parking lot yes yep it's an existing parking lot with an existing buffer that conforms to our zoning by putting by moving a property line right at the parking it is no longer conforming to our zoning and I know that we don't have that as in our control in the anr but it is something that I feel we should condition as part of the anr I don't to be addressed in the future so it's a good point um they are essentially uh creating self-imposed hardships by creating new non-conformities so under anr as you said uh if it if it complies with the anr standards you're obligated to endorse the uh the safety valve is the the disclaimer that the boys is making no determinations as to zoner but you make it you're absolutely right they are creating self self-imposed hardships and they are creating new non-conformities but I would like to make it a little bit that disclaimer a little bit more specific so you can you can certainly the the the minutes will notate that yeah you can you can mention in your motion mhm um it happens more often than you would think particularly for existing existing built neighborhoods that's all I have anyone else I'll take a motion I move that we are um that we endorse the anr with the caveat that the planning board endorsement under the subdivision control law should not be construed as either an endorsement or an approval of zoning parking setback and planting requirements I'll second that that's fine all in favor I hi um thank you very much I'll have the anr signed tonight you can pick it up tomorrow morning next up we have the 41 Central Square which I will recuse for as I'm in a butter you want me to read this paragraph or we already we don't need to because we've already read it well I'm accused no but I mean yeah I mean I think it's probably appropriate yep 41 Central Square odfel 's project LLC request for a special permit for reduction in parking to a previously approved special permit this project requires a special permit per section 195-kd for an additional reduction of 12 parking spaces to accommodate an additional 30 seats within a restaurant the site is located in the CV Center Village district and is shown as parcel ID map 84 block 334 lot 11 it consists of approximately 30,40 Square ft thank you um before we get into the details um we received most of these documents on Monday I would just like to get a feel from the board if people have had enough time to go through them um or if people need more time thoughts I saw the site plan yeah the piece with the different layouts and the pictures there were other a lot of other documents what other documents were there the parking agreements comments from the DPW all these here in yell valet proposal Rudy's agreement pretty quick reads I went through the M agement you see okay the so if people are comfortable we can uh continue stuff there's a valley agreement okay all right bring up the layout sheet for me all right um good evening to the board uh my name is Casey Ferrer with Howard Stein Hudson on behalf of the applic and Oddfellows project LLC I do have Hanan and Ali with me as well um representing the actual restaurant um I do want to start off by saying the the plans that I have prepared for tonight are largely in the spirit of the original uh approvals that were uh granted for myars dated April 7th of 2021 and revised through July 12th of 2021 um it is my understanding that uman and Ali came in uh two meetings ago uh requesting this reduction or this further reduction and um one of the things that the board wanted to see was a site plan that kind of encompassed the current um projections of where the project is going to go um so what I've done is I've put together a a new site plan if you will that largely resembles what the the original plan was um but makes slight tweaks that are I guess what we would consider the modifications for the project um so as as was stated the the project internally is adding approximately 30 seats which is where the parking reduction request is coming from um the seats would require an additional 12 spaces where we were already seeking a reduction that reduction would now be expanded by the 12 spaces or to a total of 42% um we did see a comment from the chored police um the original approval included two uh Ada spaces um there is a chumford specific bylaw that goes in excess of the state requirements of ADA um so in doing so with a parking lot between 40 and 50 spaces we have added that extra Ada space so that we can now be in conformance with the town of chumford ADA parking bylaws for specifically the property that the oddfellow sits on which is just those 48 parking spaces it does not include the santon D it does not include the former parking that was associated with where the Fisk house is now um does not include the town uh the town's 72 spaces behind us um so I do want to just point out on the plan if I can just kind of what the the modifications are um and that'll help you visualize um so as I said we had to add one more Ada parking space so what that did was we had our original two uh right in these corner of spaces we just shifted them down one so that we can have one space which has regular 5-ft access aisle and then now we have two spaces which are van accessible they have the 8 ft in between the two spaces so now we have two van spaces with one typical Ada space um these all access the same curb cut that the previous approval used for access to the the handicapped ramps um which goes directly you go by these spaces you're into the curb cut at the corner of the curve line and then we've granted a new access path that goes directly towards the building where they have changed their main entrance from our original understanding which was going to be the front now the main entrance that they're going to utilize is going to be through the side and on the patio one of the ADA requirements that we do have to follow is that we have to have the closest reasonable path of access um so instead of making um the accessible path go all the way around the corner to Central Square and then back to the patio we've cut directly straight into where the patio is going and then lined it up with that um entry along the side so for the front that is the extent of changes that we've proposed um one thing the applicants had me look at was where can we add parking so that maybe we don't have to request as much um so what I've done is there is a little bit of inefficiency in the striping behind the parking lot I fixed and gained one space along those inefficiencies which is right along the brook um and and then also where there's right now just a swap of pavement that goes into the rear of the building they currently use that for loading I've maintained a loading area for them but then striped off one space additionally in the back to gain two Extra Spaces from the original um in doing so we had to modify the location of the dumpster just brief or just just barely before we had anticipated moving the dumpster just beyond where it is now now I've had to rotate it to allow a car to be able to verse out of this one head in spot that's in the rear um In The Same Spirit of the original approval whatever we've added in impervious we have reduced an impervious to maintain a balance between the two um that that basically maintains the the project in Redevelopment status um so no further storm water design is required as far as the brook is concerned um as far as changes to the plan I believe that encompasses everything that we're requ requesting a modification for um and uh with that I know that there has been um significant documentation regarding operations and agreements submitted by the applicants so if there are questions regarding that I can certainly turn it over to the applicants or if we want to talk about the site plan I'm certainly here to answer any questions regarding the site plan and the modifications proposed therein why don't we handle the site plan first since Casey's up there um does anyone have any questions on the site plan itself all right okay all right um so no site plan questions why don't we just open it up for general questions on the project or the agreements start with Mike I have no particular questions I think they've they've addressed what we brought up at the last meeting okay and you know it's it's a bit of an odd spot and it'll never be perfect but seems pretty good okay John so on the parking lot that's that's good news that we're able to gain three spots um and I trust what the the valet service agreement that I saw there that would also add that would be used to um have staff park off site or is that more for customers to want to use the restaurant I'll allow Hanan to address that question ello um at the last meeting um it was brought up uh in the case that the valet service was required or needed we'll be able to provide one so we've done that additionally there was a question about additional 30 seats require additional uh staff parking so we made that offsite agreement um with another entity that would provide that minimum of four spaces uh depending on is a mechanic shop so if if they have more cars overnight um they will only allowed four but if there aren't we can use them all if they're available was the valy for employees or for customers Valley was for customers and the offsite was for employees okay great thank you Anita Mike no the only I want to add is I missed the last meeting but I mulled in to watch it but I was part of the committee that when this first came through and the that was a request at that time for valet so it wasn't something new at last meeting we when we when we proposed when this was proposed with the larger project when the larger project got not voted down and then this came forward there was a discussion about parking all over the center of town including the uh church across the street and using that for valet correct at that time so I just wanted to clarify I thought it it seemed it seemed like last last meeting but that was a new request by the planning board and that was a request when we originally granted this three years ago so I just wanted to clarify that but I also think that we're not going to be able to solve this issue in the center of town and uh I think they've made a good very good effort to doing that right now if I may Mr Walsh um I do have the same company's email from two years ago yeah at much lower price but I submitted the most recent one well it's too bad we couldn't have done that yeah so I have that as well you're correct so thank you Paul I have no questions Joel no questions okay I have a few questions um specifically about the valet while the valet service would be good one question I have is where would they park the cars that would be part of their obligation to secure contract with off-site properties okay so it would be offsite it wouldn't be corre in the that loation okay um you also mentioned that send has spaces available after five in your documentation um the signs on send there actually don't indicate that they're open to the public after five uh it says that it's for C send a customers only um so it would be good if you could work with them to adjust those signs if we are using that as kind of a buffer um see if they might be willing to adjust those signs as part of this effort as well so I had a brief discussion with whan um prior to this I'd actually think that the the town parking that's right behind us is sufficient enough to um adequately take on the reduced parking that we're requesting um I asked him to actually take out the sandir section from that because there there was my understanding was there was an easement agreement originally when it originally got subdivided that got changed when we lost 10 spaces um so I think their understanding was that they had access to that I don't believe they do at this point um so I'd like to take out the sandir 10 um but still maintain that with the the parking reduction that we're we're requesting there is significant parking that is behind us in the town lot and then there's also parking across the street um at the bike path with 30 public spaces and the Gris Mill has 19 spaces dedicated to that retail Plaza so I do believe the area has sufficient parking without us requiring the use of the 10 sound air spaces okay and then um I'm sorry may I add um in the monitoring of that area uh pretty much every night the cars park there at 8 9:00 and no one has ever been towed and talking to a local branch manager is not going to really you know accomplish what we talking about in terms of any kind of agreement but then I go back to what Casey said as in terms of what really is needed that wouldn't be essential to our okay proposal and then another question I had is um with the situation of parking uh if people um come into that area it's not really clear what's public and what's not will you allow public parking in your spaces if you're also having your customers use the public 100% accepted eight assigned uh residential spaces that have signage on them cuz when the tenants come home they want to make sure they have a spot but other than the residential absolutely it's been the same since we purchased the property okay all right um any other questions from the board before we open it up to public comment any other questions I don't okay all right um we will now open it up to public comment anyone from the public wish to speak on this project this there may be someone on Zoom no one in the audience so nobody un Jo you did you want to speak no thanks I didn't want to waste the planning board's time I was just hearing anyone had any questions for me okay um so is there any discussion of board members any comments concerns before we take a vote I think we're as good as we're going to get yeah Mr Vice chair do you want me to uh do you want these two new letters read from the historic district yes please thank you y uh so we have a letter from um the historic district commission dated April 7th 2024 dear planning board members the historic district commission is writing to you with regard to the special permit application submitted by Oddfellows project LLC currently under review by your board the project is located the property is located within the chumford historic district Oddfellows project LLC has been working with the HDC for the past few years relative to the ongoing renovation project Oddfellows project LLC has fully complied with the review standards of the chumford historic district commission as well as the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness with regard to exterior Renovations completed to date Oddfellows project LLC has been dedicated to preserving the historic character of the building and has saved the structure from possible demolition in doing so they have shown a commitment to the continued revitalization of the Town Center the members of the historic district commission unanimously agreed to submit this letter of support for the special permanent application submitted by Oddfellows project LLC sincerely historic district commission Brenda lovering chair and it lists all the members and then from the Department of Public Works this is dated April 8th 2024 sewer capacity fee for 41 to 44 Central Square this office has reviewed your seating plan showing a total of 130 seats previously approved was 100 seats this increase of 30 seats is subject to the following fee and it goes through the calculation uh and it basically says it results in 1,50 gallons per day 41 to 44 Central Square was allowed an increase of 500 gallons per day um it then describes how the seore fee will be what it will be based on it says this fee is paid at a 2:1 ratio at a cost of $35 per gallon increase um another calculation is listed it says $38,500 to be paid prior to the certificate of occupancy if you have any questions please contact this office sincerely Anthony Ruchi Town engineer thank you and then we also we had one we had an email that was circulated to the board um from Lieutenant Jason p po of the chumon police department I do not have any additional concerns about this project okay thank you um and just for the record since drra has been recused from this uh hearing uh Joel you are a voting member for this project um so I will take a motion at this time well I think first motion will be to close public hearing yep second all in favor I and I'll give you one to uh Grant the special permit okay second all in favor I I unanimous no opposed thank you very much we thank you good luck thank you very much welcome back I also wanted to actually say I could stood up and said it I guess in public hearing but it didn't think it was appropriate but I raised a lot of questions about the parking and also Joan raised a lot of questions about the Ada and it seemed like to me they were adequately yeah yeah addressed and I appreciated that on the applicants part as in a butter all right so next up we have um again back to the MBTA um Oly District um there was a presentation made since our last meeting I believe to fincom as well as was fincom no that was before okay there was one to the select board um by Chris with some modifications from the prior um I don't know if you want to present the changes um um version six slides I think I think the last couple we got present didn't got presented to the select board but not I'm trying to remember if we went over these already in the this meeting um I don't think so because I think they came out of the um out of fincom out of fincom okay fincom we had we had a meeting after fincom yeah here yeah we did and and you I thought you presented these I'm losing track you did a great job I'm losing track of when I'm presenting yeah cuz we it doesn't maybe just maybe just jump maybe just jump to public input yeah the these slides have been presented multiple times um the only addition the only potential addition since the last um meeting that we had was the slides um on the development agreement um which I have since updated and edited the development agreement not developer agreement um on my computer at home but so this is the um additional slides that I presented to select board about the development agreement being uh very low risk um went through the uh rationale for why we felt it was low risk um the site is built out with the approved plans not adequate space to um Locate a building and the required parking um even if they did go through um they would have to rep permit refinance um and essentially uh change some of the construction that's already happening um and that's very unlikely to happen the next slide talks about the addition hurdles um that they would have to go through uh and then the next steps uh on the next slide after that so I think we did go through these now that I'm reading them again deja vu all over um the feedback that we did get from uh select board on the 10th or no on the 8th 8th um was that our messaging could be improved a little bit um they felt that we need to make sure especially when we present a town meeting and talk to town meeting reps um they went back to look at the old town meeting uh video and while the UMass overlay was designed using the draft of the MBTA zoning that was not really used as a selling point for um for the the overlay at town meeting it was really sold as a community- based zoning approach um and the development agreement um sometimes is being portrayed as the easiest path forward um so we have to make sure that we're careful with that wording uh it's not the easiest it's the best option for the town as a whole and least impactful um so that was some feedback that uh we got from the select board meeting um in addition to that the select board would feel a lot more comfortable um voting on this at their next meeting if we had letters from treml crow in choice that they're willing to modify the development agreement um so that way it is something a little bit more formalized um another suggestion is to even have the two parties come and speak at town meeting um potentially um verbally agreeing in person that they would do this after the town meeting vote I don't know if that's even possible um and then the other point that was brought up at the select board meeting this week was it would be nice to really get more definitive feedback from the state as to whether or not this will be the only um change these are the only changes that they'll be asking for um based on town council's uh discussion with them with the state there were potentially other areas that they might have concerns with uh with that development agreement um they were non-committal in that uh that call that he had with them so don't have definitive information on that yet so that was some of the feedback from select board didn't they take a um initial indication they did take a poll um a straw poll uh all of them uh were in favor of supporting this uh with some reservations um and a couple of them felt more comfortable if we had this additional um input from the two parties and the state if we can but the language has to be a certain way from them from tramble so we're not red flagging again basically yep so I'm in process of um scheduling that meeting for next week uh TR Crow reps Choice refs their attorneys Town attorney um treml Crow's initial uh response is in lie of having um specific amendments presented to them the best they will be able to do is the email that they've already provided if specific amendments are presented to them they will have legal review it they'll have their Financial Partners review it um but they are not at this point they're they're not they don't seem to be inclined to put put anything in formal writing uh committing to anything um so this kind of goes back to timing uh you know we'll again we'll have this meeting this meeting will take place before the select board meeting of the 22nd likely there'll be some um some um indication that can be provided to the board uh maybe between now and town meetings maybe it's a little bit more formalized maybe they are willing to appear at town meeting um but in L of um Town Council being able to engage with hlc's attorneys uh between now and town meeting there there really isn't going to be um any definitive indication from hlc uh related to any other kind of ancillary or accessory Provisions Beyond unit capacity age restriction can we do it so sometimes in business before we go into a formal contract we do a letter of intent which is very very high level that kind of says basically you know we agree that these would be the three points that we want to change and we enter into a formal Amendment which is really it's just a one pager I think that's the goal between now and the 22 we'll talk about that strategy and they could respond to that right they could sign off on that like will to look at it because it does involve legal like there's no letter that's the goal I just don't know to what extent um the TR Crow attorneys you know are willing to do that we'll find out it seemed to me the other thing is that since the hlc is at best it sounds like non-committal and the sense I got from I don't know if it was Paul H's words or one of the letters that I that he sent was that it it's not necessarily just us some of this is happening at a high level with regards to the finer points correct of the agreements like it's not that they're boring down on on our correct I mean the best way to uh explain this is I think um when MBTA zoning was first rolled out the state was far ahead of towns towns had to catch up now it's clear that as suburban towns are are queuing up for preliminary review and actually voting and submitting towns are now ahead of of hlc and this is exactly why I think we should keep moving forward with this process because the longer we wait the more town plans the state will review and the more they may start pushing back or just new questions more new questions and concerns and if they raise those concerns before we pass something a town meeting we're still Bound by that initial December deadline if we pass something a town meeting and it's accepted by the state as a new zoning bylaw then that should buy us some time to be able to respond to the state's changes because we would have to go through a full zoning bylaw change process again in order to to do that that and that's my be a good point to yeah add but if if we delay the longer we delay the more likely it is that the state may find new things that they've got concerns about and the other the other point on that is and I think Council mentioned this the town is proactively attempting to engage with hlc um so we've we've engaged we've told them that you know it's time sensitive uh We've we've talked talked about uh the the potential timeline zoning adoption and then um development agreement amendments the point being is that the town is actively and proactively trying to engage in a Cooperative manner with hlc to resolve it to make sure that we comply with the timelines so at the end of the day if they do have further issues it's not like we're in the situation of Milton where they're saying no we're we've submitted a plan we've correct we've worked with them made Amendment we' as hlc uh legal to prioritize us we've explained why the point being is that and I think Chris is articulating this if if the state identifies some other new deficiency they they at least know who to contact and they know that we're pro pro you know proactively engaged with them trying to find out more information about their review in theory that's true but we were also so very proactive as a town when this first came up um and the development agreement was being drafted and they still didn't reach back out to us with the changes and concerns they knew that this a little bit of a little bit of different context Council mentioned that he as part of the um UMass West overlay zoning did reach out uh and the regulations weren't in place right or finalized yeah my point my point now is is that you know there's active engagement uh they're aware of the time sensitivity and what the town is you know trying to accomplish um and that's you know that's the best we can do at this point um I personally think we could change the agreement right now you go by that job site they're not changing costs at all zero there it is but I think there's I think there's good reasons for the timeline that's been laid out in term no the July 1st is a good yeah you know and and can we have that agreement in place and not sign it before July 1st yeah absolutely yeah St the process we talked about maybe you know submitting it for to hlc November December right um okay I'll take a motion to continue the public hearing I think I think what you want to do tonight ideally you would be able to close your public hearing and vote a recommendation fincom meets tomorrow night finc is not meeting tomorrow night oh fincom is not meeting tomorrow night no this would be um they didn't schedule a meeting um they're meeting this we'll have to present right before town meeting doesn't fincom need to know what the the what the planning board proposal is in order to publish a book so this wouldn't be in the book last the deadline to get it into the book we would need to have it we need to have a meeting tomorrow night which they based off of what the select board meeting was Monday the chair decided there there's still enough things up in the air that he didn't schedule a meeting based off of the discussion of the select board so then meeting yes I guess you could keep your hearing open we can do the same for mon for Monday's 22nd meeting with the S board we can do a similar thing we did for the last meeting doesn't hurt would we keep it open have another meeting though we don't have another meeting we do not have another planning Bo meeting before Tom meeting I could we'd have to schedule a special meeting the the the planning board's legally required to close the hearing and vote its recommendation to town meeting can we do the same thing at a select board meeting just have a why don't we do it now nothing's going to change just do it now yeah the only thing that's going to change is slides that we present yeah that's what I I think that's probably the the best option should hear from the public one more time though okay um open that up to public comment hi Daren Das Rec n um rep uh I want to know why you haven't told these people about the Amendments the state has just asked those three new Amendment mend Ms on capacity affordability and age restriction that's what we were just discussing that's we discussed our last meting did discuss it last meeting okay um well I'd like to know what they're if they're saying age restricted which is what I've been saying all along they're not going to agree to this age restricted thing because that's not in the B that's not what the law is the as of right says no age restriction so you keep saying that these people's places are going to be counted as multi family housing for MBTA when they really aren't because those are age restricted so they cannot be counted as MBTA housing and if we vote this in if we say yes to this we are giving up our constitutional right for one for two they can do whatever they you guys as a right means that they can do what they want we don't have they don't have to go by what we say they don't have to ask our input they don't have to know that they can do what they want if this developer who is developing okay you say he's in good fate and he's doing what you know he said he was going to do and all that that's great but if he decides a little further down the line that oh wait a minute I want to put more units in and make more money he can do that because now it's MBTA zoned so he can build as of right no he can build as of right thank you it's zoned as a freight and he's building it as we speak she missed the last meeting yeah yeah she wasn't here last yeah so she may want to go back and watch last and also I also recommend watching the fincom meeting because that was explained in great detail at the fincon meeting as well in the select board meeting this week the select board meeting same same points okay anybody else from the I don't know what's going to come out but um because I'm still confused um so I'm not sure about like okay so I'll just stop my feelings and ask some questions if if this is zoned for the MBTA and I and so they're in process of building and I was told that they could not put any more but now I'm getting this feeling that we need what 77 more units no it has to be zoned it has to be zoned as a whole District to have the right amount of capacity and and the the way we wrote we wrote a development agreement or the select board did with the developer development agreement 13 per acre it needs to be 15 which is um but I thought it came back as they want more density and they're looking for more the development agreement is in conflict with the um MBTA zoning so we can't have the development agreement agement stipulate a lower density is available for zoning than the mbta's district zoning stipulates all along they could have done 15 units to be clear the developer doesn't want more units they're not asking for to build more units the town doesn't want more units we just have to Zone it and make sure that that agreement that we tied to the land matches the zoning but they don't want more units we don't want more units it costs them too much money and and there's no room for them to build the 12 the additional units but from a paper perspective it all has to tie and and abide by the law consistent at the moment it's not consistent okay but I can't believe I don't know I can't believe that this developer if he has a chance to put more units won't developers always leave a little room for squiggle room they they they had the opportunity what they had the opportunity the UMass West zoning overlay allows allows 15 units an acre they came why wouldn't he do that it's it's it's they proposed 13 units an acre so if he goes through MBTA why can't he put more if he could find a spot up there Evan can you pull up the I think he's so ahead of us this developer that he could find a spot they haven't poured the foundations for the buildings they've only poured foundations for the tow houses they've done the permitting on the sewer treatment already it took a very long time they have the money to to change all that and change all their plans that they're not inclined they really MoneyWise so we talked about earlier the next one is that uh we're we're we've had initial conversations with treml Crow and what you're hearing the planning board say is exactly what they've initially said but between now and the 22nd we're trying to uh schedule a me meeting so that we can get something more formal that can be presented to the community because they sound like they're kind of being a little cagy there to me well I can tell you definitively that it was the town who brought this to their attention they they weren't they weren't they're not tracking the MBTA zoning um because their their project is fully fully permitted and they're building I think they're so far ahead of us that they've already planned this out in the development no no no I mean they're at a point they to come back again so to me it'd be worth it for them it's just like they would stop the project right now was supposed to be building back in front of the planning board for another year and do site plan review there's many reasons that we went over them the last meeting if you watched the last meeting I've been watching them and I'm trying to understand but there there's no physical space to put 77 units and parking in that lot in that if there was if that Builder came back and said oh I guess I'll try to do it he can't would have to go up and we have a limit on that you can't add stories they're at the the limit they would have to move buildings around in their plans they'd have to do a complete redesign they would have to completely redesign and rep permit the wastewater treatment plant for the additional capacity that's a multi-year process and multi-millions of dollars they would have to go back before the Conservation Commission and plan board for more site reviews which is more additional years they would have to go back to the North chelsford Water District to add water capacity which is more time and money because they would have to pay additional fees for that and the energy stretch code the energy stretch code itself is another concern because right now they're permitted based on the older energy code if they pull if we if after July 1st when we amend that agreement if they pull new permits for additional buildings or changes to buildings they would have to redesign all of their buildings to meet those new more strict and more much more expensive energy codes and all of that would add additional time and significant cost to their development for only 77 units it's not feasible they would lose money on that and they also have an agreement with the abutters yes um that they would have to in order to find the space because they can't go up and they would have to redesign that they would have to have their agreement like they may have to go and renegotiate all of that in order to fit this all in so that's why they're not even when when they first came here and as Evan had said they have the ability to request 15 the density of 50 the same density and had we not done this developer agreement and tied it to the land we wouldn't even be having this discussion because they would just be this would have just gone over for zoning but because we did this ahead of time they're not looking for additional density we don't want additional density we just need that everything to tie and all match so where do we find these extra units that we don't we don't have to I don't mean they I mean didn't the didn't they turn down our our as long don't limit the density I mean the state didn't they turn down our proposal can't stipulate in the development agreement the lower density 13 units per acre we cannot have that have that on paper on paper that's we have to remove that they want us to remove that line in that agreement otherwise our development agreement and the Zoning for the same piece of land don't match so we need to have them match so so the state's going to say okay you guys can't find Spar for 177 more unit it's first of all it's 77 but second of all it's zoning not building 14 the the zoning bylaw in the two districts that the planning board presented I'm sorry what the zoning bylaw in the two districts that the planning board presented right the state has indicated those are compliant oh even though they're already built up so so for purposes of complying with MBTA regulations the planning bu proposals compant what has been flagged is Provisions within the development agreement as the board has articulated are not consistent with the MBTA regulations but this but the planning board's proposal is compliant the zoning bylaw and the zoning Maps the town meeting will vote on okay so I have a question about one of the things that's going on up there is that all right to ask that um know that we'll have an answer but I was under the impression that the wetlands especially one of the ponds where we had geese and ducks and everything was going to be kind of protected but there isn't a tree or anything around them that's wide open all dug up now what happened to that protection you're referring to the conservation restriction yeah yep so that's that's um in progress it takes some time but I can I can tell you while a lot of trees have been cut down it's fully it's fully compliant with the trees that were in tended to be cut down really mhm so how is that going to protect all that that pond with all our our um nature stuff and our ducks and geese and I thought this no re replanting right well they're going to do some some Landscaping um but the Conservation Commission um you know fully approved the protection of the of the Wetland area was all reviewed and approved right that's what I thought but when I saw every tree cut down also the a lot a lot of that vegetation High down there it's almost as high as the road yeah that was mentioned uh at theom last night yeah that was last night at the conservation that has nothing to do with flooding or erosion due to the project we've had a lot of rain and the water table's really high T right now every body of water is is is higher than it usually is okay we'll see what happens with that just to speak about the water situation that she was saying it was high I've lived there for 30 years never we've had flooding before never seen the water that high before I just want to put that out there I look out my window there's no catch there's nothing catching the rainwater it's just all coming down all that dirt and just flooding the whole area I just want to say that the Conservation Commission is going to take a look at that they're going to take a look what what jumped out of me last night just to close a loop on this I think someone asked if the if the water in the Wetland was murky or brown the answer I think that was provided was no I don't remember what the it might be if it were Brown that would that would be a clear indication of uh sediment coming off the site into the re into the resource area there's there's water in places in town in people's yards and basements that have never had water pumps that aren't shutting off the the water table is extremely high we've had tremendous amount of of precipitation we've had this much water before well it's cumulative never happened until all these trees were cut down I'm just going to say that the commission will look into it but as of right now I mean there's no there's no documented violations they are going to look into it right they said they were going to look into it I'll make a motion to close public in second all in favor I okay next up you want to take you takeing a motion to to recommend yeah make a I make a motion to recommend the NBTA zoning article as written I second all in favor I okay uh next up we have 270 B rer Road DH Holdings board will consider modifying or resending a me minor mod high five the bench Madam chair can I begin yes please okay Madam chair member of the board good evening uh Douglas Des Shane from finer and Nicholson here representing the applicant I'd like to introduce the um team that we have with us this evening I'm sure many of you are familiar with the players but uh Casey fera from Howard Stein Hudson our civil engineering company uh Ed Weagle our late Wile our LSP from Rue Associates and at the far end of the uh group uh Micha Bennett who is the head of development for DH Property Holdings um we're here this evening to uh continue our discussion of a modification um as you may know we did recently receive a uh peer review from the town's peer review beta uh and um in in providing that peer review beta touched on um our storm water uh proposed storm water system um our Ram plan and our soil management plan for the site um we were actually here uh last evening uh meeting with the Conservation Commission um I think we had a very positive meeting with the commission uh we went through the although uh some of the members and uh David had not had time to fully review uh the beta report um we did present our interpretation of the report as I'm going to allow um Casey and and Ed to do in just a moment but I do want to say that uh again we we felt very positive about last night's meeting um we had agreed um that there were nothing there was nothing in that peerreview uh report or requirements of that report that were uh problematic for us um and that we felt um we could meet all of the terms and conditions that Beta had proposed in fact um there was some debate whether the commission was going to close the hear last night but it sounded like they couldn't get an order conditions ready for the next meeting so they did agree to keep the meeting open so that they could do a better review of the of the peer review um we have committed to um submit the required changes uh that the peer review letter asked for um and we're going to get that to the Commission in the next couple of weeks with the hopes that they will in fact close and modify our permit uh at the next hearing so uh with that I would like to let um Casey and then Ed um go over the peer review letter with you in our interpretation and and what we're committed to do so thank you for your time and uh we'll answer any questions you have once they get done while Casey's going up to the podium uh the um LSP and the uh civil from beta are on Zoom for this evening Perfect all right good evening to the board Casey Ferrero with Howard Hudson um so I asked Evan to pull up this plan mostly because this is where the vast majority of changes occurred within our plan um we did split the plan in half just for readability so it's I'm going to focus mostly on this side but I'll describe what the changes are we're on the other side um so a general overview as part of the working group that we were in from sometime november-ish until a few months ago the the outcome for for my design wise was we need to remove our infiltration um that would provide a comfort level that any past would not be further spread and and mitigation could occur if we remove the infiltration from the site um in doing so um what we lose from that is not anything related to Peak discharges or volumes because we are still a Redevelopment so we can still meet our Peak discharges and Peak volumes without infiltration but what we do lose is phos phor treatment um phosphorous treatment is not regulated by the state but it is regulated by the town within the sto uh Town storm water regulations um so replacing the two infiltration systems that we had on this side of the site this right hand side with the loading docks um to create new phosphorus treatment we've taken all the catch basins that were that we previously proposed and fitted them with a product called the Fabco storm Basin what these are is they're inserts into a typical catch Basin they're not they're no special catch basins it's a typical catch Basin it's an insert that you drop right into the rim um and then you can fit cartridges within those inserts um they they have several different types of cartridges the one we need for phosphorous treatment is called a nutrients cartridge um these nutrients cartridges gain 60% removal if designed in conformance with the manufacturer's recommendations I worked very closely with the manufacturer who is again Ferguson who is also the manufacturer the the value added reseller for the focal point that you might recall that we've had significant conversation about um but so all of these storm basins and and flows to these catch basins is designed in conformance with their requirements to gain that 60% phosphorus removal um as a Redevelopment the town regulation states that we need to meet 50% phosphorous removal so we are in excess of that Additionally the roof also went to those um infiltration basins so we also have to treat the roof for phosphorus where the roof does not go into a catch Bas and we had to provide structural treatment for that phosphorus that is through a um a manuf facturer called cont they have a product called the jellyfish um that jellyfish is basically the same cartridges just in a structure that goes underground um and since the roof area is significantly larger there is much more cartridges underground um that jellyfish structure is rated for 55% so again that's greater than the required 50% um and that allows us to while we remove the infiltration and remove the phosphor removal from that infiltration we gain that back through proprietary devices um without the infiltration now the the storm water flow path is basically into these catch basins through trunk lines of drainage and out to the original discharge point which is at the top left of the building um on the left hand side I will just say the brief changes that we had on that left hand side or EV can pull it up so we're maintaining that focal point structure that's on the left hand side over um over in the middle of a parking area it's in an island um that that focal point basically takes in a bunch of uh sheet flow through rain Guardian pre-treatment units goes into the folk Point treats all of the water and then that discharges to a separate um area on the bank from that main trunk line from the other side um I will state that since the last time that I've done a technical presentation before you um I believe the focal point has received an EPA guidance um EPA Boston specifically that guidance basically listed out require requirements for this focal points design criteria and if you meet all of these which we do and we we lay that out within our supplemental data report how we meet them it actually gets 76% phosphorus so there was an original question about how do we assign a phosphorus value if DP does not um does not accept it um where DP does not accept any devices EPA has stepped in and said if you follow this guidance you're granted 76% or we believe that it will meet 76% um the last change that we made on this left-and side was we did have to add in a detention system so it's going to be fully lined it's not an infiltration system all it is is we we're offsetting enough flow to offset the peak discharge rate out to the Wetland so that we still maintain our Peak discharges from predevelopment to post-development to continue to meet the the storm water bylaws both from Mast D and the town storm water regulations um we did receive peer review from from beta um I assume you'll want to allow them to address that um but we'll just note that everything within that that peer review we can address and we will agree to um and we have we have no no further comments regarding that we can we'll have a submission that addresses everything within there and I can either turn it over to Ed or we can talk storm water let's go to Ed the storm water seems pretty straightforward good evening uh I'm Ed Weagle um I'm an LSP with Rue Associates and um I guess just to excuse me just to um start um we work we're working with the the work group that was formed um by the planning board and the Conservation Commission and and their LSP and um we we work together to develop um basically an additional um plan to sample soil you know as part of addressing some of the requirements that um the state D has with respect to how you manage soil um at a construction site soil in groundwater um so working with um beta um we came up with a a plan um which uh was um agreed to by the working group and we went out and we collected some additional soil data and uh most of that soil data shows that um you know there's there aren't too many places um on the site um where the soil is contaminated and where it contains um exceedances as per the state requirements um I think you all in total here the assessment that we've done out here um we analyzed 24 soil samples I think uh 21 of them were either clean or below standards um so that gives some perspective of sort of how much contamination is out here there's not really much um and it's you know not widespread at all most of the sampling that we've done um indicates that there's not much of a problem out here in the soil um that having been said um we are agreeing to um treat all the soil um in the Vos Zone basically the the area of um of the subsurface where the high groundwater or the the groundwater table meets the Vos Zone um as being the as as if all the soil in this area um was contaminated even though a lot of our sampling shows that it's not um so what we would do is we would manage the soil as if it was contaminated um during construction so if we pull soil out from structures or or foundations or drain lines um the soil would um be pulled aside U put in a pile um while construction goes on um and then um when we're done we test it and figure out um where we need it to um find a home for it probably a permitted facility um also um we um just sort of addressing some of beta's comments with respect to um the groundwater um we know that the groundwater is pretty uniformly um impacted across the site um so wherever excavations get down into groundwater we are going to need to manage that groundwater and what we um based on the comments that uh beta has provided what we can clarify uh in our soil and groundwater management plan um which and the ram plan which we have to submit to the state before we're allowed to do any construction out here um we can modify that plan uh amend it basically to just to describe in a little more detail um how we're going to manage the water that we have to pump out of the ground um while we're installing the various building elements and and subsurface utilities um what what we're proposing to do is to run that water through uh carbon a carbon filter um pretty standard uh treatment technology it's been widely used in a lot of applications and then to put that water back into the uh the ground at the location where it's been withdrawn um I think one of the other things that we um want to address is um Mass D um you know as you folks know um while we've been going through this process um the state reached out to me um and they um had some questions about um the filing that we had made with the state with respect to the downgrading property status um you know we discussed that um and um we told them that you know as part of the the working group and as part of planning for um managing soil and groundwater during Redevelopment um we had gone out and we had collected additional soil um data and U the state requested that we provided that to the state um for their review the other thing that um D asked for was another ground another round of groundwater samples um so we uh again we we collected those samples and provided that information to the state um and also to you and um based on these additional data um we don't feel or believe that um the status that we filed um with State D has changed at all and um the state um hasn't said anything yet although one thing that they have done is um based on the information that we provided them um they have asked an upgrading to butter uh to take a look at their ground water um to see if there's an issue there that they need to address um so that having been said I think you know one of the things that we wanted to be clear about was um you know should the state have further Communications um with myself or the applicant um we want you folks to know that we will advise you of those Communications promptly and um you know make sure that the the planning board has a full uh understanding of what the state is asking for and um sort of how we're going to respond to that um so we're you know the applicant is committing to that um to keep um the town appraised of any developments with the state DP um also with respect to the state um one of the things that D um does is they ask questions and they ask for more information or they'll issue correspondence that says you know we need this or we need that um the D doesn't typically if ever issue correspondence that says we're happy you know you can proceed um you know so while I can understand that there would be um some desire to have a letter like that from Mass D with respect to this project and the status of the site um I don't see a letter coming um if everything's okay if everything's okay they're going to go and look at somebody else um to find some issues out there um so um you know that having been said um you know I just want to thank um the working group particularly um and beta for working with us um to try to resolve um you know some of the the challenging technical issues um that are here here at the site um and um we're committed to continuing um to address uh concerns um that the state might have thank you does anyone have any questions for the LSP or comments I have a number of questions but I didn't know whether we wanted to hear from peer review May yeah let's hear from peer viiew first want to hear from civil or from LSP first um same order civil and then okay so uh Stephen I guess that's you first that's me hello this is Steven borgatti from beta um I I think I can keep this brief so this project has gone through many rounds of reviews by this point and the applicant has pretty thoroughly addressed most of our previous comments the ones that remain are mostly related to documentation operation and maintenance and I and the applicant as stated both now and at last night's Conservation Commission meeting that they have no issue with the remaining comments so um if they can address those comments either before the next hearing or possibly as a condition um I think they should be in pretty good shape one uh Stephen this is uh Joel Luna one question I have is could you elucidate on what some of those concerns about omm are uh since the number of questions I had were about the om&m as well yes so um just from the letter we have for a comment um we wanted some inspection and maintenance and I'm looking at common sw5 which I see you have up on the TV um we want inspection and maintenance for the oil booms and shut off valve this is uh it's this is a site where spill prevention and spill control is particularly important so we want to make sure that's covered in the inspect in the omm plan um sw6 is just a standard requirement from the Massachusetts storm water handbook we ask that at that these omm plans have a map showing the location of all storm water control measures so all the catch basins the focal point any other things like that which we expect would be given to the people doing operation and maintenance so that they know exactly where everything is and they don't accidentally miss a structure that needs to be inspected um sw7 is just a requirement to um submit an annual report just to keep the town aware of how operation and maintenance is going um and then f s sw8 is just to have the owner sign the OM andm plan to make sure that they're aware of what the applicant is proposing for inspection and maintenance and they are aware of what needs to happen to keep the facility operational so we don't expect any of these to be a particularly heavy lift it's just to make sure that the site is properly maintained um since it is a there are wetlands nearby there are a number of catch basins water quality units and other storm water control measures I was wondering if you could comment on the jellyfish inspection and maintenance cuz that one seemed to be a lot more complicated than a lot of the other ones they are complicated and it it will come down to the applicant um conveying the requirements to the owner um fortunately with a lot of these proprietary units the manufacturer has a detailed list of what tasks actually need to be done um so it is more complicated and hope and we would want the applicant to make sure the owner knows what what needs to be done they have a plan in place to actually have that inspection and maintenance be performed as as opposed to like say the focal point or the ring Guardian whose maintenance looks looks like it's designed to be performed by somebody of of uh you know Landscaping skill but not necessarily you know of a higher skill level in the case of the jellyfish do you feel that that is an adequate level of skill of at that same level or do you think that the jellyfish would require somebody of a higher skill level and and the reason I'm asking that is because there's number of places in there where it says be careful not to you know damage this or to damage that you lift it out with a special device etc etc and uh my question then is and it's related also to the cost estimate for the for the O andm uh do you think that there are special skills that are needed in particular for that uh maintenance yeah you ask very good questions and I it might be something that the applicant can perhaps illuminate us on um they are more complicated than simply mowing a lawn or cleaning out sediment um but we we see proprietary units installed on a lot of sites so and it's really up to the owner to make sure that's that they get qualified Personnel to um handle these things so it is more complex it might require a little extra training for operation and maintenance Personnel but um it's really up to the owner to make sure that they can handle it sure um and just as suggested I can just address that a little bit so the the property owner is going to is basically going to have to be required to hire out maintenance of catch basins jellyfish uh these Fabco systems um and as stated the the manufacturer of the proprietary system does issue guidance on how to maintain these it'll be up to the applicant to find a qualified party that can um maintain them responsibly and as well contact themselves will can help guide a a responsible party on how to maintain it properly without damaging the system yeah I mean I'm I'm just wondering how do we like how do we ensure that as much as possible from this side of things you know as opposed to once it's in place and in operation um well those you know I mean because to me there's a significant difference between the focal point and the jellyfish sure and and all those inspection reports are going to have to be issued to DPW so they're going to have to have a detailed listing of what they did and how they did it so or DPW can request that kind of information so if DPW feels that they're out of compliance with the provided guidance that we have in the um onm that goes to DPW and DPW or even the Conservation Commission will also have jurisdiction over it can basically ask those questions and make sure that they're within compliance uh also I since you're here sure uh this bill response procedures uh 2.17 um it makes reference to an infiltration Pond and also unified response manual and the rthm police you're talking about the the long-term pollution prevention plan yeah yeah so that is going to be that whole plan is going to be revamped um specifically for a comment from the Conservation Commission last night so we'll address um a lot more detail and more information to be within that okay good that's that's good uh in the case of the um the Fabco storm Basin filter cartridges and the Fabco oil boomx filters are those the same thing no so the storm basins are inserts that go within it the oil boom is an added um device that can go within the storm Basin um they are sold separately they can be installed together we if we haven't provided the details of them both I believe beta asked us to um so we'll provide the details on how those get installed with separate systems then also together okay so if you could also make sure that the naming and and so forth is consistent throughout because I was I didn't know which one was which when I think one is in the list at the very beginning and then there was one that was referenced in the details sure um the CDs treatment unit I don't think there's a log for that of the of on the operational maintenance yeah yeah we'll add that in okay um how did you arrive at the costs and in particular for the because I noticed they look to be about the same range um how did you arrive it the cost for say the jellyfish in particular I believe the jellyfish was taken in collaboration with the manufacturer um I know most of our costs we either take from D guidance or from known cost that we've had in the past so when there's ranges we've seen that some things can be as cheap as this or as expensive as this but I believe for the jellyfish we took that in uh from contact Representatives themselves okay okay so do you think that those are are good estimates or do you would you want to revisit some of them based on our conversation tonight well I can certainly re- reach out to contact and make sure that those are still accurate numbers okay if you'd like and we can update them as such okay um and then in general the um use of the the the store how many well first of all how many jellyfish are there two so there is two okay and then how many of the the storm Basin filter cartridges and oil boom things that's for every catch Basin so every catch Basin of the nine have the storm Basin some of them are double some of them are single um depending on the flow rates that go within them and then just the four catch basins within the loading docks have the oil booms okay okay so it gives us some ideas to what the scope of the the thing is so are those then providing how is the TSS being being provided and in particular because I the catch Basin insert providing TSS does that comply with the storm water standard so the the catch Bas and insert if I'm understanding your question correctly we got the TSS from that from the manufacturer okay um and I believe we provided the supplemental data of that within the supplemental data report um to say where we got those numbers from um and we basically Ed that within the treatment trains and the calculations in the supplemental data report to meet standard 4 okay and because I I wasn't it wasn't clear to me that that I mean I know you can use things within catch basins but my understanding that was pre-treatment not necessar are oh so are you asking the question um why are we including the 25% pre-treatment from a uh deep sunp puted catch Basin while we also have a pre-treatment at The Rim is that where you're going with that yeah I'm revising that and taking that out okay okay that was one of beta's comments as well okay and and just the question of can it be considered providing treatment if if using inserts and catch basins is is for pre-treatment the back the the just the old question of can you use pre-treatment as essentially treatment so you're referring to cb9 in the back left that then discharges yeah I must I must be so that so that what we've done is I've provided um that that catch Basin receives flow that would be considered di Minimus per the storm water standards um and I've address that as well and how it meets that criteria so that can be um treated to the maximum extent practicable and then discharged directly to the bank okay but you have that in the in your report I believe that's at the tail end of standard 4 okay I'll look there um and then um the in particular the the the frequency of the cleaning of the well at least in the jellyfish that it wasn't clear from what you it was in the detailed instructions but it wasn't clear up front that the frequency is to be four times in the first year and then to be reassessed after that point as to how frequently it should be done after that and so that would be one thing I would ask is that we can that frequency be made more more clear up front we can assign a definite number to that I think that was also going to be a a question of one of the commissioners okay in in the back washing After High Volume how is that going to be handled what is it it it it calls for backwash After High Volume uh a high volume storm event is that going to be so that'll be done that'll be done in coordination with the manufacturer the manufacturer have to provide guidance on how and when we have to do that um we can I can reach out to them and get a more detailed plan on how that can happen if you'd like sounds pretty costly the whole thing sounds very costly it is well any kind of subsurface phospherous treatment is fairly costly but it's a requirement of the town and where we can't have infiltration how many of these you going to have on site the the jellyfish two two one is a underground Vault and then one is just in a manhole I mean and I'll just make a comment in general we we went from a project where the OM andm was pretty straightforward to one where at least in my judgment it's become a lot more complicated and in cases like that at least historically I've always valued having a performance guarantee set aside to ensure that the maintenance will be performed at least for the first year first two years uh particularly in case in the case that it gets handed over uh to somebody else I want to be sure that that the funds are there to ensure that somebody isn't going to cut Corners in the maintenance when it appears that at least the maintenance right now is is is a higher higher issue every five years they have to replace the tentacles in it yeah yeah we can agree to that okay okay um and that that's that's it for yeah that's all those are the questions I have for storm water not okay anyone else it's kind of a major change what's that it's a major change to what we had originally seen it is substantial one of the things I wanted to point out to the um to the board from last night's uh commission meeting something that I don't think has been done on the projects to date um but there was an agreement that the omm and the long-term pollution pre PR prevention plan will be Standalone and given to the employees as as part of uh training um so that's it'll be on site yeah they'll be on site that makes sense so that's another um additional type thing that we haven't seen in a lot of other well just to clarify we kind of nixed the idea of a standalone document all we said was we could take the appendix that is essentially in itself a standalone document and we'll add that as a chapter to what they'd be trained on clarification sake who who in town is going to enforce this after this is this the DPW or is this who enforces this in a year from now in the maintenance and so what's I don't know I well that that was actually one of the things I was going to ask is that it because this this site is of particular concern or interest uh to the board that I was going to suggest that we also have the report sent to us and I would certainly be more than happy to review it um I think we we have a we have a real interest in ensuring that that this is operated and performs in a way that we think it should be operated and perform conservation I believe is requesting the same thing okay yeah and so was DPW so yeah I know DPW gets it but I'll I'll we were happy to provide addition it's all pretty standard as as being discussed um DPW under the new federal uh permit is required to ensure submission they're not necessarily uh obligated to physically uh inspect for compliance but they're they're obligated to ensure that the that the reports are submitted so that's a that's a step in the right direction to Joel's point I think that was used on 40b as the performance guarantee um I think that's a good idea and the other um technique that's been talked about um kind of in theory is to what extent and when is it appropriate to require a a third- party someone who's like a like a civil engineering firm someone that's a a professional firm to um do the third party inspections after the maintenance people do them so like an audit of the report or an audit of the of the physical of the physical inspections and maintenance um so there's a variety of techniques we can we can think about um because this site clearly is it's different than other than other sites yeah and in particular because we would be putting in in our conditions that they follow the omm so to have us get the at least have some sort of oversight into that helps us to ensure that our conditions are actually being complied with and in this particular case I think that is of of of real interest to us I didn't hear what you just said sorry I'm just the last so eloquently it's a good [Laughter] idea all right is there anyone else that has questions for either the well I think I think I'd like to go to the LSP next then if we're done with storm water any other questions yeah no on storm water yeah so I don't have any questions or comments on storm water but I do on site plans since this is the first time we've seen the site plan so we can do that after the LSP I guess okay okay um so who's that individual uh rob you want to walk through your review you guys are on you guys are on much earlier tonight than you were last night yeah that's appreciating so Robert here you were looking a little tired last night so Robert Smith LSP with beta group and um yeah just to go through our comments I I agree with Ed we's characterization overall we had Fairly minor comments on the on the ram plan and the the so ground water management plans the uh really the first six comments that I had were regarding the the infiltration of treated uh groundwater back to the subsurface um you know we didn't have any indication in the plan where that water would be discharged back to which could invoke some other requirements under the mCP uh during last night's meeting U that did provide some some clarification as as also discussed tonight going back to the excavation and um you know also agreed to you know provide some additional design parameters on their treatment system I I do think their treatment system that was fairly conservative as far as um wanting to sort of treat through carbon and and verify through testing prior to discharge I think that's a I think that's a positive um and so but it is good to have the up front within the within the ram plant just to be able to review those uh uh those parameters uh there was some some fairly minor sort of monitoring requirements uh you know comment number three that sort of goes away as far as uh dis discharging back to the to the excavation and uh you know really comment to um that's that's something that you know they've agreed to add of their plan um same thing for comment four uh the the last three comments um really pertaining to more to soil management and uh you know so the comment number seven uh we're just looking for information on where um contaminated soil would be plac back on the site they're going to be Excavating uh contaminated soil from the you know from the subsurface the n Zone where impacts are identified just wanted some details on where that would be placed um that was to be uh placed below impervious services and you know potentially uh disposed off site at a treatment facility comment number eight um you there was basically the plan did reference um erosion control around stock piles you know C specifically that would be contaminated stock piles so we're just looking for a little more detail with respect to that and specifically near Wetland features yeah my last comment was just pertaining to um really sort of defining exclusion zones so those are areas on a site basically delaying where do you have have contaminated soil versus potentially other clean soil or other materials that would be managed on the site and um you know also having a you know just some decontamination uh procedures if you're using equipment and it's becomes contaminated just want to see that there's a um good procedures just to make sure that contaminated soil isn't uh you know spread beyond the site boundaries or able to you know impact a resource area that's about all I have one question I have is do you do you have an an estimate or an idea of how much soil we're talking about uh let's say I think Ed can probably answer that better um we think it's roughly on the order of about 500 yards it's probably less than that but we want to give a conservative estimate um just because when we dig it's not an exact science and uh you know we wanted to have allowances um you know if it was more than 200 yards we there's no point in cutting it close um you know we're going to manage the soil um as required by uh um D so how um how large of a stock pile I'm just trying to think of like if you're Excavating soil that you're quarantining or whatever you know how much like what volumes are we talking about what's coming out of the ground versus what's being stockpiled so most of the soil that um is going to be excavated um is not considered to be contaminated that's basically the soil right um in areas where we've tested where it's been shown to be clean um you know that soil um I we're not counting in that 500 yards right um the the 500 yards is basically the soil that is within a twoot horizon right around the high groundwater table um in locations where the building Foundation goes that deep uh and also where utilities and and uh structures are placed so how would somebody know where it is that they're supposed to start quarantining soil that will be um based on um the soil management plan um you know which will say soil which says soil in this area um is treated this way and soil in this area is treated that way but it wasn't in the soil management well I think that was what Rob had asked us to clarify okay so so there's still to be a map identifying locations well the the map is the the Civil plan from from Casey because that what that map shows is where we need to do excavations uh in order to install various development features but I I'm trying to understand like if I'm the guy who's digging what am I using to tell me you know at what point do I do I stop treating it like it's clean soil and I start treating it like it's contaminated soil um visually the soil will start to get moist um but it's based on depth um from well I thought you were using the Vos zone so that High groundwater so that's not necessarily going to be moist well that at the top of the capillary Fringe it's still moist um and that's where the the groundwater meets the Vos Z just I thought there was some talk about you were willing even recommended having a third party construction monitoring right inspector that's that that's that's correct I'm not exactly sure what that person does or how often sounds the constructions LP expse on site or someone who knowledgeable about yeah I I apologize it was late last night and I'm a little frazzled tonight um so that that that was another thing I forgot to mention is that um the applicant will agree to um have a third party um come onto the site and observe construction activities to make sure that you know they're being I don't think was the same level of complexity as this I was just uh I I was not under the impression that seasonal High ground water was moist so it's I'm back to the question I would have thought that you would have said in these designated areas where I Circle areas on the map or what have you that when you go down X feet beyond x feet you are now going to treat that as contaminated soil that's what I would have would have thought that that's how how you'd be doing it so I guess I would I guess I would like to I guess either Rob or or Stephen I don't know if you have an opinion on on that one on on the question of is seeing if the soil is moist sufficient for determining that that's actually the point of seasonal High groundwater well I I think I can weigh in there so I would suggest I mean we did complete some uh or R completed uh so borings uh it was a pretty focused program within areas of disturbance where we've ident it's basically a vertical profile um you know with POS sampling so I think that's very helpful to establish s you know an actual depth below grade which I I think is much simpler than you know trying to identify potentially like where we have necessarily wet soil I I would suggest that using that approach I mean that's we have we have that area pretty well established as far as the again the vertical vertical profile for posos I I think um what we could do then is we could certainly um you know with some of the revisions that we'll be providing for the soil management plan and the ram plan we can include a little more detail about um where excavations will get down into this this area where we believe the contamination could be located um and then we'll specify that um in our revised plan yeah I think I think that would be good um and then what are you use what are you using as the estimate for the seasonal High groundwater um yeah basically it it varies throughout the site um what's the basis I mean are you using the test pit the test pit as a basis I guess depends what location looking Clos or that's that location okay uh and as you remember during the working group I raised the issue that there seemed to be some question about the variability of those levels because of what appeared to be a contradiction between the test pit seasonal High groundwaters and the groundwater uh gradients the groundwater um gradients which indicated that you would be going from a higher elevation to a lower elevation but when you look at the the test pits the one at the supposedly lower elevation actually has a higher seasonal High groundwater than the one that that you would have expected to be higher so conservative value so a a conservative value and that's why I raised that's why I was raising the question as I as I raised it at the very beginning of and this is where the question for the whole board comes into play is whether we would want there to to not have you go down you wanted to the whole this whole thing is predicated on wanting to drop the sight level from by 2 and a half feet or 3 feet depending and uh and so then the question is well do we want to not have you drop it down that far to account for this variability or this uncertainty or if you say okay yeah we'll we'll say that the seasonal High groundwater is higher then now back to the thing we were just talking about which is okay now the areas in which I'm going to be Excavating contaminated soil are larger there potentially larger volumes of contaminated soil that I want that I would have to deal with and so in in both cases to me that that raises the relevant question of do we not want to grant that far that level going down that far just to minimize the amount of contaminated soil it's actually encountered during construction well I can offer that in some scenarios the elevation of the site may not matter as much because we have to still avoid pipe conflix which sends pipes deeper than they would have to be even if the site was raised higher so for example the site of the or the all the drainage lines and the trunk lines that goes around the right hand side out to the um won system to the top left uh we have to dodge and get under or be over the drainage line that is in the existing easement that comes across the site so that's not a typical profile of a drain line it's a modified profile of the drain line that goes deeper because we have to avoid conflicts in the site so a lot of those sight features even if we raise the sight back up 2 feet is still going to be the same as they were the original proposal but they're potentially not as widespread so you're you're potentially localizing the amount that you're you're uh having to deal with sure you potentially but there's also the foundation is going to be a significant portion of impacts and we still have to get down to structural soil which is going to be at the same elevation regardless of where we put the finished floor okay well I mean I think to some degree this is going to hinge on on you know what what your plan shows what the elevations are and what the areas are sure and I I would offer up that you know we treat that estimated season High groundwater in the same manner we would treat it for storm water infiltration and that you're going to use the highest value that's in the area so that we can be as conservative as possible and knowing where the um estimate seasonal high would be mhm yeah I mean I would I would tend to add a foot but I I'd be interested to see that see see what you come up with certain elevation as well right yeah depending on soil type yeah um the other question is that I think that there there may may not necessarily be agreement on the conceptual site model and in particular and I'm and I'm only raising this not because I'm interested in whether you're a source or not but I'm interested in whether we would whether we consider the septic uh leech fields and the location of the septic system to be areas where we want to assume that's contaminated soil which is a different model than the one that you're using which is the Vos Zone uh and so I guess I that would be one question I would have for Rob is do you how do you think that the contaminated so soil should be addressed in the areas of the leech field and the and the former septic system if it's still there uh uh in terms of uh you know how how you treat uh where you think the contaminated soil isn't how it should be treated yes that's a good question you and um and so certainly yes in the area of the the leech field there was a we saw you know shallower soil impacts and uh and so I would agree you'd have to you'd have to raise sort of your where you're you're starting so your contaminated um excavation there and I so I would certainly try to uh use sort of the elevation you know of that of the leaching gallery that you know that was previously insted stalled I think you know from that point down would be uh maybe give yourself a little buffer certainly getting some some input from ad um you know again but that's only if there's certainly if there's construction in that area um given their current status you know with mass DP they're only required to manage materials that they encounter right so guess okay so that's a good point so I guess I should have prefaced with the question is are you expecting that you're going to encounter uh are you going to be going to the depths at which you would you would potentially encounter uh contaminated soil in the areas of the leech fields and the former septic system um I think part of the building does um impinge on one of the leech structures and to the extent um you know that we have to excavate um one of those leech structures then we would treat that as as entirely as contaminated soil okay okay so and then I would want to see that also designated on the plan because what I really want is that the person who's actually doing it is understanding and aware of what it is that they're supposed to be doing you know uh with respect to that okay that's that's all the questions I have I had a question on the third party oversight was there any discussion on who that third party might be not as part of this process okay I think um Joel didn't we do that with a 40b Mill Road during construction was it Judith nich uh that was that was a long time ago we'd have to look back uh maybe work with DPW would it make sense to have beta be that third party yeah absolutely um just I just I just don't have a good feel for like what is the what's the scope if it's just Trad this isn't traditional construction oversight related to steep slopes or retaining walls or something so we can start with beta um probably a good place to start but I think we need to collectively work on you know what is the what's the specialized yeah oversight that that is needed right a draft a scope scope right I'm a little confused um it says in the final sentence of your report that it's of your opinion that the data continues to suggest a potential onsite source is that a difference in opinion between the two of you still at this point I'd say yes there's a certainly there's a difference in opinion um you know between us there and uh and again really the the the regulatory Authority that decides that is mass D and they've been apprised at the situation they they've had some questions and interaction with the applicant house P so that's really uh and really the only the big difference there if if you have DPS you don't have to assess and remediate the entire site you just have to manage what you encounter and so they're doing that at this point if if something changes in the future um they could have a different status but again at this point you know that is their that is their current legal status of mass D so just yesterday the EPA dropped their uh requirement from 20 to four pots per trillion does that affect this project at all in your opinion uh uh no because um everywhere across the site the groundwater is over 20 so you're already in that so we're already we're already in the whole site not just well three or whatever correct theti now they're they're yeah the entire site every monitoring well on the site has greater than 20 uh in it um no matter where it is on the site um and then sort of just to sort of address the um you know the the differences of opinion between myself and Rob um you know what we do here here um we all have our opinions and they're sort of they're based on you know our our understanding of the science and the regulations um it's based on my understanding of how Mass D treats um septic systems um it's my opinion that uh the septic system doesn't actually qualify as a source under the regulations um Rob I know you have a different opinion um but data suggests it the the the data suggests that there is contamination there yes but um you know D has car outs um for some things because they recognize that not every scenario is perfect um and it's it's my opinion that the septic system at this facility meets one of those car bouts I mean how how it affects us is basically we're not assuming that there are other locations on the site that we haven't yet tested that could be contaminated we're assuming there aren't those locations the only thing that we're assuming is that we're we're going with the your conceptual site model that it's the groundwater um from wherever it originated that is not of as much concern to us as much as the fact that it's contaminated and that secondly the septic area we would consider which doesn't fit your conceptual site model is contaminated soil but we don't don't expect it to be outside of that which means that we're not motivated to do any additional testing or anything like that so I think that for the purposes of what we're trying to do that's sufficient in my mind and there just isn't enough evidence for us to to be able to go and and say that we think there are other locations that we also need to test or to mitigate or whatever so is that a fair summary uh of where we're at I would agree with that yes I think um you know one other thought or comment here that I will offer is that um you know we intend to keep the as I mentioned previously the the boards up to speed with our Communications with d and um you know D might ultimately agree with Rob's opinion that the septic system is a source you know in which case um we'll have to remove it and um if D issues a determination like that at some point in the future um we'll comply with that and it's not something that your current proposal would prohibit because the areas that potentially are contaminated they're related to the building you're essentially going to remove anyway right so it just be a matter of digging up the parking lot or what have you okay in the future correct yeah one thing I was going to ask was is it is it uh would it be a reasonable request to ask that when you do the map that shows the elevations and the the potential volumes of soil can you do that for the plan as you as your proposed plan and then can you also do it at with with one additional with the sight being one foot higher or the sight being two feet higher is that something that is reasonable to ask for it's just to to answer the question as to whether you know to answer the question as to whether there's any value in raising the site because it Casey's argument is so well you aren't going to get much value out of it uh potentially if we're not talking about any appreciable increase in volumes of contaminated soil then I don't necessarily see the value either my concern is is that we don't create large amounts of contaminated soil that have to be dealt with that's I just want to minimize the amount that we actually deal with that that's really what my objective would be so I think I'll say it here I can go up if you want me to but from a design perspective I think it's fine to create these can you I'm sorry can sorry good evening Michael Bennett with DH Property Holdings uh good to see you all again uh so what I was saying to Casey is I'm okay with that exhibit or two being created uh for Joel and the board um I think we will see what it determines I think Casey's point is uh well taken from the study we've done so far that the the depth of the footing and the depth of the pipes to make all the inverts work probably isn't going to make any difference because that's really where the excavation is but um happy to have him do that all right thank you and then since I'm up here there were a couple other things in a letter that I think got circulated to everybody uh was directed to Evan and David C maybe a month ago um one was our commitment to third party obviously as we heard earlier uh scope of what that means to be determined but um we're willing to do that we also committed to the continuing conversation with the D anything they bring to us we immediately bring to you uh and I'm trying to remember the the third thing it's alluding me at the time it's up here on the screen yeah think you covered them think I think we did cover them believe there was one other one but if it comes to me I'll come back up so thank you very much okay anyone else have any additional questions for any of the relevant parties I do have some site plan questions do you want to take those now sure okay um now that I've had a fresh look at the new site plans um I did have some questions about the snow storage sure um EV if you could go to the one on the other side of the building y so I noticed that there's uh snow storage on the top perimeter um to the left y right there um given where that location is it might be a good idea to move that snow storage out of that back Wetland area and move it more into the inner Islands in that area did you Happ to check the landscape plan to see if there was any you talking about yep that one we can move it but it does meet Wetland regulations in that location and that's also not going to go directly Downstream to the Wetland that's just simply within the buffer zone so even if it melted that area of grass is directed down to the pavement which would then drain out into the storm water system to be treated afterward okay just on on snow storage I wonder if we want the board wants to consider what you did with 93 brick Hill and allocate parking spaces for snow storage I think in most of the least on this site there's a lot more inside areas to put the snow storage than there was on brick hilm so I would be more comfortable as as long as it's inside the perimeter of the parking lot too much I mean whatever if you guys would like us to add some in some parking spaces we can determine which ones would be least likely to be used which I believe based on our original understanding of how the proper is going to work we're not going to use most of them up on the right side anyway but we believe that we've we have sufficient area within our landscaped areas or or green spaces utilize them maybe those five Spaces by themselves y right there so yeah so if that's something that's sufficient for the board we can certainly make that revision that's fine with me perfect and then extending the no storage uh no no storage signs all the way around the perimeter perimeter um I also noticed that the curbing along the perimeter is the Cape Cod BM [Music] um I believe it's a concrete curb oh is it okay I misre it Sor I was say I know I've done a lot of changes to the site plan but I was pretty sure it was concrete all right thanks and then the last one um I have to go back thinking back to some of our earlier discussions about the plantings along the um side right side of the building I thought and I could be wrong but I thought we had asked for the those trees to go all the way further back um to hide more of the something like that yeah more of the loading docks I think what we had done is we had used a burn that was going to start here because there is existing vegetation along this edge here where we're not um proposing grading along this side because this is kind of where we meet that uh butter so what we had done is we created a burm here that would then have also scattered Landscaping so from that view shed you see this um uh array of landscaping but then beyond that you then get into the that's right I do it actually shows some fa good okay those trees are already there yeah those were discussions were so long ago I I have to reog my memory too yeah that parkk that's all I had for for that so just to recap the one thing that we are changing as part of that is going to be the no snow storage along the perimeter expanding those signs to come around that right that top side and then just uh adding snow storage within those five spaces on the top okay thank you sure I'll stay up here in case anybody else has site plan comments as well anyone else okay I think the way the commission left it was they requested written written responses those would be peer reviewed and then uh that would bring us to May 8th I think would be is your next meeting what do we have on May uh there's a couple new hearings nothing nothing major like we're dealing with but there's a couple new hearings um hild correct a and a couple continuations so ain't going to be if you if you if you think it's worthwhile to begin working on a draft decision I can do that um it sounds like what we discussed this evening is the um construction inspection details need to be worked out maybe best to request maybe a initial draft from the applicant just so something gets generated for review and maybe I'll engage with beta see if that's something that um they're interested and capable of doing try to take that as far as I can between now and May 8th I think that sounds like a good question course um was there anyone from the public that wanted to speak on this okay take a motion I move that we continue the 270 Billa Road public hearing until May 8th all in favor okay thank you thank you very much thank you Rob and St good night thanks sorry oh do you want by I'm up next byebye yep have a okay 191 chumford Street znk Holdings LP proposing the construction of a new motor vehicle washing facility with Associated site improvements all right good evening to the board Casey Ferrer with Howard Stein Hudson so uh we left off this last meeting um with the understanding that I would be providing further information to the Conservation Commission regarding operations and maintenance uh specifically to address the concerns and comments of um one commissioner um we did have a meeting with that commissioner uh last Monday it was a significant meeting for a few hours um we discussed variety of topics and came to some good agreement ments on what should be within that operations and maintenance plan and the long-term pollution prevention plan and then also what is kind of outside the scope of what a civil engineer should be dictating um as part of their plans and processes um so that being said we did Issue or submit a a new long-term pollution prevention plan and operational maintenance plan for review um which which addressed more specifics to the site it basically gave specific timelines on some uh maintenance item items and inspection items it boiled down specifics to how the um operation of Maintenance will be included within the employee handbook and how the employee handbook will be annually taught to all employees or upon you know them being hired um in addition we did provide the BMP plan that was previously discussed this evening um that was something that was missing from that omm we did provide that as well um so that is currently under review from the Conservation Commission we were at conservation last night um they did continue the meeting just based on a will to um have more time to review that operation maintenance plan um I did reach out to David this afternoon um to offer a little bit more input um based on what conspired last night which was some questions about how dumpster or how any spills might get related to the dumpster which would then spill out of the dumpster um so we've committed that no liquid waste as it relates to spills would go into any dumpsters um to try and provide further protection um so that'll go into an additional submission of a long-term pollution prevention plan um I also offered if there were any further concerns from that commissioner um that they can reach out and we can try and address them prior to the next conservation meeting um we also did provide the Conservation Commission with a draft outline of what the employee handbook might look like sections that would be included um title so that the order of conditions can reference that employee handbook um as the commission was requesting so besides that that's basically an update on where we're at with conservation and um I'm happy to answer any questions here um on how that stands or if there's any other outstanding comments from the site civil that you might have should we take it around my nothing here I don't have any questions at this time uh no questions but I do have some conditions that I wanted to add into the uh the decision um also I did want to point out something that came up in the uh conservation meeting last night about this sight um that I hadn't realized yet um the Board of Health and chelsford water district process has not started on the site yet um which means any so the chelsford water district only reviewed this in terms of the water usage and not in terms of potential contamination and storm water and water protection um so it struck me as something we may want want to take a look at in our procedures in terms of The Ordering of this and it's something that came up in the conservation meeting last night as well that seems to be completely backwards seeing as how we rely on both of those groups for input into our process so um something we may want to keep in mind for future projects but I'm not sure how we can address that on this one I'll just give a quick update on that um Board of Health is working with uh DPW which we'll be working with planning conservation water district uh to hire a hydrogeologist to work with the town stakeholders uh to do a like a regulatory review um Gap analysis that will provide the information to have these conversations about proper sequencing where we need to uh either enhance regulation and in some cases for the Board of Health it may be um reducing the broad scope of Regulation but that would that process will provide the the the boards and the other stakeholders a good Baseline for having an intelligent conversation okay that that I believe is scheduled to go to the  board for um oper funding uh at their next meeting and then the the timeline will roll out from there absolutely in agreement with you I think all all boards are struggling with the same the same thing and it probably makes sense to have some iteration of the Board of Health process particularly site characterization be the first step yeah okay but I mean to some degree doesn't that depend on the applicant I mean the the applicant chooses when he decides to go to whomever now they do so well okay but we may collectively agree that stop that process step makes the most sense I just don't know what that may be for may be yet okay and then this hydr geologist would be um like working on a as a contractor doing this review would it be as needed after so the the the study that I just mentioned is a one time Board of Health is also um in the process of hiring their own peer rreview consultant for their particular process okay MH all right so in that case I don't have any questions we can we can add that as a condition yeah definitely do that they I mean essentially it's in the Board of Health letter and no different than 270 with d this project is they're proceeding at their own risk I mean they're choosing how to sequence um and if they find something at the Board of Health process they may end up having to come back I have no problem how how would that work how would it work that they would come back I mean because in the case of 270 we basically had to to um reopen in a commission basically I I think the lesson learned here is that um where it's in a Zone 2 if the Board of Health process identifies contamination the special condition could be that in of itself requires you to come back okay I mean I think that's how 270 played out yeah I will I can offer a additionally just for this project specifically um it came up at Conservation Commission last night I'm not sure that I provided it to this board but we did do a phase one analysis on the site which determined that there was no no found risks I forget the exact wording that LSPs used but there was no found concerns that would require furthering the investigation to a phase two so for this SP site specifically we're not concerned about subsurface contamination we've done that investigation so I I for one would like to request that that be a condition it's recognized environmental concern Rick that's the one anyone else should we open up the public or I see we have members of the public here who've been waiting patiently through all of our L Meers seven Pine Hill I don't think I don't know that had I have a ton of to offer um good news for you guys that I haven't already um we discuss traffic uh studies all of that I did notice in the draft that there were no hours of operation that special condition number three had blanks to be filled in yep yep so what are those what will those be I think the applicant proposed what during winter I did have a question is that seven days a week okay is that something you want to pencil in or does the board want to continue talking about that are we going over conditions now or I thought we're just hearing from that make that change um and then you know we're recognizing sort of the the process is a little backwards um but we're still allowing this to go forward recognizing backwards um the concerns I've had with potential pollution um for that area um a lot of it is on the Conservation Commission they still haven't come back yet um you know I think the responsible thing to do is postpone this until we hear from them or continue to move the process backwards the way we've been doing it and recognize that that's a problem so um I think given the area that you know we deserve we need to look look at all all aspects of this project including chemical storage handbooks how folks are going to be trained that's a concerning area um you know we we just heard from the folks from the prior projects who are dealing with some pretty significant issues and maybe six 70 years ago if folks took their time and did their due diligence we wouldn't be in the position we are so I'm just going to ask that we'd be respons responsible with this project given the area it's in um and the potential impact thanks thank you um I don't know that there was a actual question that I would be responding to but I do just want to reiterate that any chemicals that are within the facility are planned to be kept within the facility and then go out to to the sewer and not into theore warm water which would not interact with the aquafer um so as far as chemicals getting into the aquifer and into drinking water um just simply not the intention and not the case that's all let's face it we have cars coming into that property the way the way they're turning toward the back of the where the aquifer is where the wetlands are they're going to be sitting there there there there's we're talking about Oil we're talking about antifreeze closer to the wetlands you know how we're disposing of this and how we're handling this stuff matters and you know I I understand that he thinks that they're they're not going to be you know everything's going to be contained in the property they're bringing bottles out to throw into the dumpster they're having stuff delivered you know things happen so was okay how would we like to proceed one more one more it's way down oh sorry that's okay I'd like to make a comment if I could of course um Bob Meers 7 pin Hill Avenue um I heard at the last meeting that the storm water drainage in the sewer systems are not completely independent there's leakage and infiltration between the two is that uh still correct this week that that that pertains to older existing systems around town I wouldn't say that that would pertain to a newly built system and that's storm water going into the sewer system not the other way around right talking infiltration yeah my understanding 1980s I believe was the date of construction for a chelsford sewer when it began yeah yeah approximately in the 1980s 79 it was a thing we started around early ' 80s okay so there there won't be any cross-contamination between sewers sewer storm drains and uh normal what we call normal sewage I guess because it's a brand new system and there shouldn't be any well the the the pieces pertaining to this property of brand new obviously the rest of the system is old um so what what is the the lifespan of a of a pipe then before it starts leaking or getting cross-contaminated it I don't know I guess well I what I will say is I know that the townwide problem is more a problem of manhole uh of of leakage and cross contamination through the manholes and not from the pipes themselves and that's storm water leaking into sewer the way around storm water okay no thank you which of course gives us trouble in the sewer department but another set of headaches that becomes the Overflow yeah BEC keep up the demand okay yeah I think that ansers my concern because I was concerned about possible things that we think we're sending down the sewer working their way into the aquer I think so Noe okay thank you I'm not here to talk I'm just here to ready you I'm not here to talk I'm just here to be ready to receive any questions so another uh question that came up was the noise from the vacuums um did you find anything out with the um if there was an additional housing you could put over it to quiet it down or if you're willing to do that if there's noise complaints sure so um that was spoken about that's been the biggest issue I hear from people sure so what we did do was we provided that um I want to call it an operations not but I don't think that's what we labeled it but it had basically the noise attenuation calculation to the property line that showed that if we do do the um the condensers closer to the building and then put in that insulated housing around it uh we will meet all the noise uh requirements at the property line would you be willing to put a STI in there that you would readdress it if there were complaints I believe that was the original intention okay yeah also agreed we would test it yeah had I just didn't want that to get lost no yeah I believe and I'd be just thinking back in my memory but I believe that was the agreement was that we' you know we'd test it in the future and then if there was an issue there is I believe additional insulation that we could add or other measures that we could take lighting was another issue yeah the outdoor lighting yeah not 247 oh correct so answer on that whenever the facil I believe there's going to be cameras at the facility for whenever for security purposes so I believe whenever the the facility is not functioning or not open the light should be off so yeah the um one note I have from one of our prior meetings was that noise readings of the vacuums would be taken as part of the soft opening and submitted to the board and the a willing to address it but we should have that as a condition okay and maybe um I don't know how long we have them do those readings for a period of two to three weeks well I will offer that I don't believe car washes are super busy at their most time or at their sorry at their opening time so I would offer that we find the peak which is usually on a Saturday um and then maybe do readings for a period I don't know what the period would be but wouldn't think it would be a couple weeks until we hit that Peak I would say let's or if all the vacuums are being used perhaps that couple weeks is fine but I would say we could talk with the applicant and offer it back to Evan when he believes he should be up to speed on on like his actual days just when they flush all the to toilets at Foxboro you know you go over there run everything take your readings and sure you have to be open sure you're right yeah we can do it that way as well yeah that might EAS just run them yeah we could just go there run them and make sure it this is a a sound monitoring reading prior to opening for all Vacuums at the same time yeah yeah perfect yeah the sound is a concern because when you I'm not saying they have the exact same equipment but one of the things that gave me pause is when you stand over near with the 110 Grill is that's a different business I understand but you definitely hear the the noise when start we hear it you can hear noise we regate property at the property all right so the applicant's going to be responsible for hiring somebody who can do this sound testing okay and we did say that we would limit in the conditions the vacuums and lights to hours of operation yes which we haven't discussed be here about that special condition number three talks about both the car wash and the vacuums okay okay e did you agree that it was 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the winter and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the summer 9 if you give me 5 minutes I can confirm that not even five minutes just continue your discussion I'll get back I read nine somewhere no I don't believe it was 9 o' I'm 99% sure it's 7 to S and then 7 to8 but I'll verify if you guys want to keep disc 7 to seven winter 7 to s in the winter are shorter hours in the winter and then longer hours in the summer I think I said nine no I thought I I have nine in my notes so I read it somewhere why do can we why can't we just leave it the same hours all all year along it's lighter later in the summer I know but n's a little bit give the neighbors something yeah but well it's not going to be nine not it's be eight eight would be the yeah but I think the winter time you come home you're all I think I mean it's dark yeah it feels like it's eight I think 7 to a lot of carow washes are closed at after 6 okay you go around right now all they're all closed all right I'm okay with that and the vacuums are off too so to have them go past that time I mean I agree in the summer stand Ian you go 110 they're all closed once once traffic the only one that's open the 110 one that's 24 hours we down by where you just mentioned the grill what about to 7 be done with it all year okay yeah or 7 to6 in the winter time and then 7 to six in the winter sure sure people aren't home having dinner sometime people might be out at night cleaning their cars so to confirm the condition is going to reduce the intended hours of operation yes by an hour of each wi winter 7 to S Summer 7 to S Summer why six in the winter CU it's dark because people want to be eating dinner you don't want to be hearing that thing going because you're indoors eating dinner and the summer lot people leave town in the summer yeah people's windows are closed in the winter you know what is it for the other car washes in we we do we not regulate them town was anybody on the board when we did the last one and it's it's it's there for protection and which one was last it's been at least been more than 16 years oh it's been that long so I don't even know if we if the board had time it gets dark at 4 o'clock who's going to go through and and back up up your car in the dark my husband I'd like to ask if the facility is going to meet the noise regulations yeah how what's the basis for reducing the hours you know if the applicant doesn't get business at those hours that's on his Di lighting for me too that was the other thing wasn't necessarily all noise it was lighting and noise yeah in the summer the you know it's not dark sometimes until 9:00 so the lighting isn't going to be too abrasive at 8:00 I wouldn't say 8:00 in the summer would be too detrimental yeah it strikes me a reasonable set I was fine with 7 to seven and then seven eight yeah I was okay that too I think I think 8:00's late so what do you going to do so you guys decide what you want to do I mean it's anyway work The Bu if he could they would go 24 hours to make their money so I think we got to be reasonable with the neighbors this and there are 24 you can go somewhere at 247 we're we're not going to have that no but people could not at this point could go someplace else right right there's two other locations yeah okay so I guess before we go any further we need to figure out this hours issue just who would like can I have a motion I would move 7 to S and 7 to eight okay second second all in favor what's that four four three okay CHR is a Swing Vote since we're just so you know where to point your since we're noodling on conditions uh condition number two uh Needs Board attention special condition number two I also have other conditions too this this condition relates to the um the dollar contribution for parking spaces created so the applicant is um I guess interpreting for a lack of a better word that there are three new parking spaces and the we don't let's just count them all we don't Define we don't disting every unique situation where there's a space next to a vacuum the current the current policy doesn't get that to that level of detail we count them all can we count animal yeah what's the basis for the three new well the applicant is providing three technical parking spaces by standard size uh for employees only um whereas the vacuum spaces are strictly for parking and for vacuums so but there're still parking yeah I think generally speaking over the years the board has Tak a Bo has taken a broad approach to interpretate his question on this was strictly just to gauge the board's definition of what the parking space may be um he he was in under the interpretation that his parking spaces would be the three that he's been requested to add throughout this process for the employees um but it was open to what the board may think I think parking when you're vacuuming is the same as parking yeah Park Park good not it's okay it's the impervious service wait that's really the what what is the total number of spaces 17 there goes your bonus so what what's what's the inclination of the board 17 17 yep okay Chris you had a you had some yeah and before I add that um I don't remember what the discussion was but um multicolored LED lights were those in use inside and or out no the the flashing ones that you'll see down the street at at the Mobile station that's not the intention okay no are there steady multicolored lights I believe interior of the facility um the the systems themselves have lights but they're not flashing and they're not changing colors like multicolor okay green red okay [Applause] um will that be stipulated in the conditions what was that yeah we should probably stipulate that it's oh it's their design it's it's an enclosed system they have their control no flashing exterior lights yeah yeah inside the more interior lights that are visible from the outside because that's the other thing with the other car washes it it's a big glass wall so even the interior lights see strobe effect to the outside but this lights these this is not going to be working at night it's not going to be a problem in the winter time it will be till 7 at night gets dark at 4:30 so at night it would be 4: to 7: yeah yeah okay I mean this kind of car wash definitely has different colored lights inside the tunnel yeah right un there are but I don't believe they're flashing and as inyour face as what you're going to see down the street at least that's the description that I get from from the applicant that's right when you like do an add-on for a tire tire it will flash yeah yeah right but it's not like to draw people in and say this is a a car wash come I'm talking like the ones in the in the windows where it's open okay this okay um the other thing that I'd like to see added is that if there are any concerns or issues raised in the Board of Health jonesford water district process that may impact the aquafer protection or storm water that it comes back before the board for review MH so not just contamination you the way the way I jot it down initially was Board of Health process with it where it finds contamination planning board modification is required uh contamination or concerns where plan modification is required maintenance or any of that like different type maintenance or product like we just went through yeah it would have to go in front of us at that point so if he's changing it B of I don't know B of Health process would ever get that far yeah yeah so any concerns or or findings right I was going to like if you had to use a jellyfish or something correct yeah so any storm water change like that we're happy to say if there's a storm water change that comes out of the Board of Health process any kind of AA protection change then yeah it will'll come back all right and then the last condition I wanted to add was that the um kind of in line with what the Conservation Commission is doing with the um the uh long-term protection long-term pollution protection plan and onm into the employee handbook appendix with training for the employees um okay I know as a general philosophical matter or not necessarily pertaining to this particular thing I don't think we should be uh uh dict laying out that level of detail for a functioning business I think we should base our decision on the result not on the method in most cases I realize obviously you need an on andm plan in in in many situations if no one looks at the O M plan or nobody looks at the O M plan that's a problem and something goes wrong then and I wouldn't I wouldn't request this I don't like dictating that kind that level of process and in most places I wouldn't want to but in these sensitive areas like we're seeing this is a car wash not a in in a sensitive areum distilling plant it's in a sensitive area with chemicals and they're seeking a special permit in aquaa Protection District yeah well that's half the town okay well then you know I think so I just I just think we should but should tread very carefully yeah I wouldn't request it for a coffee shop but for a car wash that deal coffe unlikely to be in here on a special permit so okay so the the only other uh condition that that we may want to consider adding is uh light fix light fixtures not to exceed is it four 4,000 4,000 4,000 Kelvin Kelvin was it it yeah it's standard in your decisions the 4K is not a bright white light but a little little ton little sof yeah it's not blue that's for sure so there the way the decision is set up the facts and findings and then anywhere um under findings it contemplates uh the board itemizing applicable facts to support um support those uh those findings EV I had one other question if the Conservation Commission finds that they need to adjust the onm plan or any of that we don't have to put that in our conditions right they would automatically up update to yeah to meet their standards and then it would carry yeah we can capture that as part of um special [Applause] condition um number one prior to planning board endorsement of final plans all plan revisions and on andm and for that revision if you could just highlight what if any changes between now and then yeah what I can do is I can just add two copies one that's going to be the final document and then one that is basically a marked up version to show what's the difference that'd be great thanks that' be perfect so that will be your that would be your opportunity to um review the O M yep MH been a long time since we took a vote yeah right I'll take a motion did you did you want to uh this evening itemize the applicable facts can can can I suggest that's easy or done if each person just goes through it once we sum them all up and then bring them in and just read off the or you can or you can email them however you want to do it I I've started but I haven't got all the way through so is the goal is the goal tonight the board to vote and that this decision is signed and recorded recorded with the clerk within the next couple days or why don't we push it out why don't we do you want to itemize the facts tonight or do you want to take a vote with the condition that each member is yeah I think that submitting submitting uh their itemized facts which then authorizes the chair to I'd like to see it rev that's we've done it before right yeah draft with the conditions and so I the the decision as drafted is fully fully detailed the only item that I don't do on behalf of the board is identify applicable facts um that are that are associated with some of the findings yeah but I i' like to see like our like we submit our feedback then I like to see like a final version to we look at it you can we just you have that you you have that yeah but if we've changing the facts or people providing I see what you're saying I see I just like to see like a final so so may I suggest if you're inclined to take a vote based upon seeing a finalized version with the new special conditions and any additional facts individual members will email me their individual facts that will authorize the chair to be able to sign it so they can be clocked in yeah otherwise we're talking about either doing it tonight or May 8th yeah I yeah I'd be perfectly willing to go ahead tonight based on based on that is everyone in accord with that yeah okay so we have we have to close the hearing first close the public hearing second all in favor I okay no oh to close the to close the hearing yes all right take another motion I'm move that we approve the special permits two do we have to do those individual or yeah we do do we well you can say approve as as presented in the draft decision okay I move that we approve as presented in the draft decision um the approval for 191 chelsford Street project I second with with new special with new special conditions with the amended special conditions uh as discussed tonight and that we get to review it beforehand and and and board members provide itemize facts and findings and as board members itemize facts and findings I have a second a second all in favor I I no you're opposed opposed oh you raised your hand with the eyes that was confusing okay um so 621 and I'll make a motion Improvement minutes I didn't see the minutes oh and Lea on updates andais on updates and any new business which I have one thing see Casey um all right so we start with Le and updates sure um notes so last night's Conservation Commission meeting um I think beat our record for long meetings um went till 11:30 last night yeah sorry I talked so long they um did talk about most of the projects um in addition to T hrth and brick hiln um for Brick hiln they're keeping it open until next meeting when uh the conditions will be drafted so they are expecting to close uh next meeting um and then hildr had some discussion about natural heritage and uh vernal pools um so that will continue to uh go on um probably to probably after our meeting um the other thing that came up uh last night was uh conservation commission's going to have a work session on May 7th um when they're going to talk about their internal processes collaboration um talking about on andm plans and things like that uh getting their their policies and procedures starting to be in order similar to what we started to do um so I'll be participating uh in that as well to help them out with any lessons learned from our work and to see if there are any uh overlaps that we can help with um bring back here as well M so that's it anyone else so I just get a question on the the Conservation Commission um so is it our tent intent as a group to wait for them to close their hearings before we make a decision on our our should we postpone them from our hearing because they're going to be in front of us before they see make their decision so it in terms of which project any project or the two that you just mentioned so the question is are we going to wait till are we going to wait as a group to to close ours to until they close theirs because I think 903 brick Kill Road is pretty close so I think do we postpone that one out or do you want to continue to have it and you just we'll just continuing to so in my opinion it depends on the project and it depends on what the issues are okay um and I think that if there are no if it looks like there are going to be no significant issues are we going to bring up any issues with either one of these projects is what I'm thinking because that are we done bringing up our issues do you think or is it just I think the more important question is to what degree do the issues of the multiple boards overlap because if they don't overlap we should just press on forward and not I I think we're getting into a situation where there are so many moving Parts it's a three-body problem yeah and I can tell you you don't get we don't want to that's our time it doesn't exist they've already but I think in the bigger projects that we've encountered so far we are collaborating and coordinating in ways that but I think I think the applicant thinks they're coming in front of us to discuss the whole project where we may be all set and we're just waiting on for confirmation from or something you know what I mean I don't want to waste people's time that's I think in some projects I'm trying not to be specific about projects because we're not discussing the projects tonight yeah yeah just I'm just saying I think in one project going forward the groups are aligned we're looking at similar things and I think we're at very good similar stages there'll be better communication I think in other case in another project we're looking at two very different things right now and I think there are some dependencies and some things in play but I think we're at different stages there's been examples in the past where the board has plw has closed a hearing and voted a decision without the commission being complete but to Chris's point the commission wasn't focused on storm water they were focused on exactly something else yeah so it's it's all tied together we should wait and I am keeping an eye on that where if if it looks like they're looking at something that we might need to have in our decision I will raise that as a flag that we don't vote on anything that's fine so the sequence is that they close first there is no there is no predetermined no but it seems like this board in years past we've done a lot of that years past the planning board always would finish their hearings first part of our procedures that we're going to change right now we are we as a board want to set that sequence that we want them to close first with their fin I think it depends on what the LSP discussion or the the problem with that notion is that that just like the planning board has found uh a need to do additional peer reviews M so has the concom I know and the concom is more likely to do more peer reviews for a variety of issues than the planning board would because their jurisdiction is just you know um so it doesn't make sense to just say to have a procedure and protocol where it's predetermined it's really on a caseby Case basis we just got to be clear to the proponents the the applicants here that uh what the what the applicants what the applicants are looking for and this all goes back to the the Board of Health um coordination and concom and planning board coordin they want to know what are the rules of engagement as soon as possible right they don't want to find out six months into a process that a new issue arises and now requires a peer review yeah right some of that some of that's always on the applicant yeah and they know of an issue and they don't well they just try to skirt it but it's the boards it's the frustrating part for an applicant is where the where the boards are s um you know where they're not looking at the entire project uh collectively and they're focused on one particular item they want to resolve that one particular item before they move on to the next item right the applicant wants to be able to do multiple peer reviews at the same time yeah and B boards boards have a tendency to want to focus on one issue because they're very complicated in nature right I I think one of the applicants I'm sorry no you're good was looking at the last meeting or a couple meetings ago their last meeting for a decision from us and then we put we gave them one more homework assignment and then they were they're pushed off into May and I think we're heading now down the road that we're not we're going to push that so I think that applicant needs to be made aware that this Bo this part this board right here is not going to close that night and it's up for hildr I'm not for I'm not mentioning names I'm just okay f i close in a couple things that we're not I I don't I'm unaware that I'm feeling the need to wait for conservation I I'm just saying they were looking for a decision the last one you could tell by the attorney well we can give a decision it still doesn't mean the Project's going to go forward they have to get another per the one you're referring to Mike uh at the last meeting I agree with you there was a draft decision here uh but a a new issue arose that's right board took a vote to do a to do a peer review yes so they they're not the board didn't give the applicant any homework the board initiated uh a peer review because it felt as though there was a new issue that needed needed some attention that's right that is no that's not related to the Conservation Commission no I just I was just saying I that's what I'm just trying I'm trying to get an understanding of what the intent here is are we waiting for a sequence of Conservation Commission very Project Specific but it it sounds like we're going to wait for a Conservation Commission to close on that one no I don't what they decided they decided last night but your comment I but your comment I don't mean to be confusing your comment you made was that the comments won't be made until after our next meeting we're going to have another meeting and then they're not meeting till after oh no no I that's reversed so Conservation Commission has two more meetings before our next one okay they they voted last night to have a draft decision at their next meeting for a variety of hearings yeah okay so they're like but there are but there are people on the commission who would prefer to keep their hearing open until planning board is resolved just like there are likely people on the planning board who would like to keep no I can see that the software world we call it a fatal Embrace but it depends on the project we've had two two major projects in front of us that have never been like this these are these are unique projects unique and hopefully we'll never see this uniqueness again if we're going around I mean I I think um on con if we're considering projects that have serious Wetland issues and serious things then I want to know what conservation thinks and I want to see that because when we initially get a conceptor a plan we might think it looks good and then as we dig and dig and do our homework our issues arise so but what but what we've found with the concom is that we can actually work with them reasonably effectively and we can come to some good answers uh at least I think we've coming to good answers sure as hell's been interesting I'll give it that yeah yeah they have some interesting so annual goals and objectives um we've talked about in part of the um election campaign we've the three of us that were running anyway have talked about some of our goals and you know one is to look kind of go through through the zoning book and look at things that are clearly um out of date Kelly brought us the lighting tonight and I think that was a good idea and suggestion um I think you know we should probably make a um make a work session down the line maybe in May sometime where we can maybe pick pick off a couple areas if people would just kind of look through and prioritize we also have our zoning conflict areas that we already identified with ncog um and we also had talked about looking carefully at the overlay districts and seeing if we want to them so I think those are like three things to start we should probably pick one of those and then yeah we have a meeting tomorrow U with the center obviously Mike in neog's got some funding I guess yeah I would love it if you would bring back to us kind of an update I'm actually hoping now but we're having a meeting tomorrow so everything gets kicked off tomorrow great no I know but I'm hoping that that the way that you approach that with ncog okay and the way that that group presents a plan can maybe be a template for us for the other how much should we focus on parking right now you know what I mean parking like we're going to focus on parking in the center but now that we've been focusing on parking parking in the center for the last 30 years haven't yet I don't know I me I'm not going to tell you guys how to do your job you're going to have guidance from ncog um but I'd like your input that's all yes focus on Park is it the biggest issue I think you I think the board somewhat resolved the parking concerns when you modifi the you reduce the um the automatic reduction in the C how much more can we build in that area that's the other question you know what I mean cuz there's other businesses that are coming in that do not have to come Bobby wants to go second floor one that just opened up across the street that never came in those people are parking all over the area as well right right he still wants to go and they also have parking spaces that when they came to us with that project they did they have parking that they're not using yeah correct but there's also that parking doesn't handle the total amount of people that can get in that facility yeah it's getting pretty PR but they have a whole parking area behind them that's currently occupied by buses I do that know they own that they were presenting as parking for their business am I not not there's a little bit of a conflict with the uh this what we were talking about parking parking now should he focus on parking yeah I think pking still a Hot Topic OB I'm GNA I'm going to propose that we put off doing Le and assignments till after tell meeting and um and work session let's wait till we see what happens at the before we talk about like what our goals are because we'll see what happens after change that's a good point but I I agree with the yeah what you're saying about goals and then um we have minutes unless anyone has anything one other thing on that one other thing on that topic was that uh I think one thing that would be nice is to find a way to be able to get more community outreach for this board to be sort of in in more intimate communication with the public rather than us sitting behind these things and and the reason I say that is because when Chris and I were getting signatures went down to Maxwells you know for the for the market win a market yeah and you know people come up and they say hey what about this hey what about that and it was just really nice to stand around and talk about stuff yeah I mean I'd go down to Maxwells and I'd be talking for two hours yeah so I just um you know I don't know exactly how we could do that but I think just providing opportunities to for the for the public to access us I think here is prible you know what I mean we're all visible we could set something up for like the summer thing on the the common you know the uh dunk tanks with a we raise a lot of money that we'd raise a lot of money well the school board has done before coffees where they invite people to come and talk about their issues with if not the whole board a number of people I think that would be a good thing I found the same thing at the market I also would P would love to meet with neighborhoods yeah cuz like I feel like this Maxwell's issue you know it would be great to get them neighborhood's input of what do they Envision would be yeah because the someone from North jum is not going to think the same some as someone from the center you know what I mean it's going to be different everywhere you go hence the challenges with zoning in chord very neighborhood Centric y Village zoning could help with that maybe in both places and they're working on that going to the neighborhood is great idea we doing minutes move to approve second all I motion second all in favor I I thought we were going to get e e e for