I think you would have cleaned it up with all those eyes out there I saw it I I didn't like it okay it being 7 o'cl we're going to call to order this meeting of the Chums planning board on March 27th um this will be Contin um held live as well as on Zoom but should the zoom go down we will continue the meeting um and um we will start tonight with public input public input to be limited to statements relating to issues within the jurisdiction of the planning board that are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing before the board um public comment on any pending public hearing will only be heard during such public hearing is there anyone who wishes to speak in the public we talked to this please step to the microphone state your name and address John Harris I live in six Subway have um I've been here since 1996 and I brought three young boys with me and the subway Road was bad uh as far as people coming down and speeding and whatnot and we've tried to talk the town and everything at least to you know doing something about it and uh really it's just gotten a lot worse I see school buses I see uh these uh delivery trucks and they're going 30 to 40 mil an hour on subway AV there is no double yellow lines there are no sidewalks you have people with young children on that road and is a very popular Road for either walking or walking their dogs pets okay and you got people doing 30 to 40 m hour okay it's zoned right now for 25 and that still is way too much so my proposal sir we are not in jurisdiction of traffic and speeding and and even sidewalks um no they asked me to get up and state my case no so here I am he did come up and ask us if he should I we told him select vard is probably where he needs or sidewalk and pedestrian or I mean there's we don't have any jurisdiction I mean well maybe you'll understand my concern and back me up I totally understand your concern I used to live on Sunset but it's not in the jurisdiction of this committee fine well I I've got I've got it out there and I'll be back thank you sir am I incorrect no no select is probably who yeah they're the people that can do something about it okay is there anyone else who'd like to speak at Duffin 270 Princeton Street right right across the street from the disaster that's happening right now this never should have happened this town should have bought that property for later on development senior citizen or whatever they passed it up they did not buy the property and we got a disaster going there right now uh I don't know why all of a sudden we have property in this side of town just perfectly all right back in December to buy it for almost twice the price I don't know who has an answer to that why did why can we buy a farm here but we couldn't have bought a property over there that could have been used for I had recommended for senior citizen housing disabled veterans the people don't listen in this town I don't care who's sitting on these chairs up there you don't listen to the people you have your own agenda and that's it now that I'll go as far as that town sewage I thought we were restricted to tiin for Town storage is that correct we have we have restrictions on our town storage that's correct I thought we had a block when the Glen View project went in that they had to fight and cut back are you talking about the UMass project super now no I don't care about UMass that's they have their own system I'm talking about how come there's still so much other stuff being built if there's a sorage uh limit that they can't tie into the town now we have there's certain par parameters by which they can tie in those are determined between the DPW and the sewer department and the um proponents of plans and there have they have to meet certain restrictions based on the previous use of a property and how much sewer was used by them and how much is how much they can purchase what about on Walter Weed Street there's four tow houses how did how did they deter I believe they were permitted before M can ium please please thank I I just want to to remind the board that it should not engage in back and forth discussions during public input these are matters that are not listed on your agenda you're at risk of of backing into an open meeting law violation okay anytime you hear any information during a public input that you think is something that does need a discussion from the board it should be put on a future agenda and discuss it that time thank you thank you sorry I'm causing problems here but that's just the way it is overlay section can I talk about the overlay section here because it's for West Campus so we have an overlay that includes where they're building and they're going to include two condominium projects can whoever does this I assume there a bunch of people down in Beacon Hill whoever sets up these overlays do you know who sets the overlays up so you talking about this is the responding can we can't answer you you can you can tell us what your concerns are we can consider them next agenda the next agenda item we're going to be presenting about the MBTA and so you can ask about that then ask about that on that or you can watch the presentation and learn the answers to some of the questions oh I get I get more questions thank you so anyone else who' like to speak in open public session okay seeing no one um next up we have administrative review of which there is none and then we'll discuss the MBTA Community multif Family overlay District Two overlay districts are proposed one is located in the UMass West area including properties with parcel ID I'm not going to read it the purpose of this overlay is to allow multif family housing as of in right as of right in accordance with Section 3A of the zoning act Mass general laws chapter 4A so we have another draft of our um FAQs we also have an email from the town manager actually from um Town Council different Paul oh well there yeah there was one from Paul anyway um so why don't we start with the FAQs CU I haven't had a chance to look through the up most updated draft I do are we would you like to proceed with with giving it again so if people are okay with those edits I can clean it up and use it in the next Presentation tomorrow um and assuming we get more fa more questions from people that weren't in addition to the FAQs I can keep adding up until a few days before town meeting great it's looking good yeah I thought it looked good too for the board um Kelly and Mike from Nima here oh great uh obviously Paul hary Town Council is here as well uh in your uh posted agenda uh Nim Cog has uh at least one document and the email that's referenced um is uh an email from um Town Council these speak directly to uh hlc's signed um compliance review letter um so I don't know to what extent the board wants to um hear from Nim Cog on that or if you have questions I don't know how much time you want to spend before we get to that I just have a question on the town meeting warrant document that's linked in there does that include the edit does it only include the edits from our last meeting or Does it include all of the suggested edits all all of them okay so last meeting plus any of the ones suggested from tonight's discussion it it includes everything from last meeting that was dis discussed and agreed upon but what about the edits suggested in ncog it is not those correct you have to discuss those I just want to make sure that if the board if par C's memo if the board is interested in hearing and learning more in considering additional amendments that conversation would take place tonight I would like I think would like other that Council has suggested is not modifying the zoning and modifying something else okay right so so we have before us kind of two option two a for on the road modify the development agreement or can we just maybe be best if we State what the issue is that came back from okay start from there maybe we can summarize the issue we have either Kelly and Mike want to summarize the uh the memoral on that particular issue sure um I'm happy to do so or Mike please feel free to jump in if I miss anything sure okay um Kelly l a deputy director of northern middle sex Council of governments good evening everyone um so in um hlc final comment letter regarding the draft zoning that was submitted for 90-day review um in our prior meeting we had discussed the email comments that they had submitted but then since that time they have since submitted a separate letter which includes this additional Clause regarding um hlc's concern about the UMass multif family District uh the development agreement that is placed upon that and so M Mike AA are senior plan of Housing and land use um received a copy of the development agreement and then reviewed that development agreement to understand where it may be in conflict with the zoning this memo outlines areas where the um where the development agreement is in conflict with the zoning either and and I think that falls into three broad categories one is because there are areas where the development agreement limits the capacity um beyond the capacity that is required under Section 3 a m two is areas where the development agreement um puts restrictions on um who can live in the housing that is in conflict with Section 3A um which is and which is I would say is separate from a developer saying that they want to do something this is an this is the development agreement prevents presents a restriction that is sort of perpet with the land and the third is where the development agreement requires an affordability a level of affordability that exceeds the 10% maximum for inclusionary zoning is set forth under Section the guidelines for Section 3 a with those three things in mind I think the board what this memo outlines are areas where the board may need to make a decision between whether to amend the zoning the draft zoning or to make a recommendation to I believe the select board owns the development agreement um but may need to make a recommendation to the select board to amend the development agreement so that the zoning that is brought before town meeting may be considered by the hlc as compliant because right now the development agreement as it stands would render the um would mean that the zoning is not in compliant because the development agreement puts additional restrictions on that parcel beyond what would be compliant with Section 3 a m so what do you what what's the recommendation on the zoning how to change that it's in the memo uh that's on the screen here there potential actions to achieve compliance that Nim Cog has articulated for each of the three um challenges so I would say the first regarding capacity issues y um you could either amend the development agreement to remove the limit on unit capacity um under that situation if the zoning is approved by town meeting then the new development capacity would be what complies with Section 3A and what was included in our model or you could amend the density requirements in other subdistricts to compensate for the insufficient density so you could increase the dwelling unit per acre ratio in any of the other or in the um I believe it's at the Route 110 subdistrict in that Delta I believe is 77 unit 77 yeah y yep so the if we were to do the adjust the density in the Route 110 subdistrict um we would that would that would require going up to how many units per acre in that subd District an additional two per acre is that right um Mike do you know the answer to that question um I believe it was at least two um per um per acre H yeah did they not look at our agreement when we forwarded it this came in after the 90day response period am I can I not correct can I can I ask just some some very fundamental questions above this as I understand it that agreement predates the requirement for us to be passing uh something uh under the MBTA zoning is that correct I mean this smells so expost facto Our obligation as I understood it was to pass uh zoning that would comply with the uh the MBTA uh statute not to pass zoning that would guarantee that something would get built uh I'm confused here can perhaps Town Council explain to me why why the state here even has a leg to stand on thank you U sorry I didn't introduce myself earlier for the record we know Paul Hy Town Council um all I can say is that prior to the adoption of the West Campus zoning I actually had a conversation with Chris kutchman from then dhcd now eohc expressed what the town was looking to do because when the west campus development was approved it wasb done with with the intention of It ultimately complying with the NBTA community's requirements um I asked specifically if having a development agreement um would impact uh the ability for us to actually you know be in compliance she could not give me a definitive answer at that time she she basically hemmed and haw um and said that they did they weren't far enough into the process to really have looked at that question um she did tell me that she would get back to me which she never did however I I do think that they have a leg to stand on in in the sense that it doesn't matter whether or not the development agreement was adopted a year before the MBTA community unities um you know went into effect whether it was 10 years before whether it was 50 years before if there is a development agreement on the property that limits the development on that property eohc is taking the position that that is then not compliant with the statute so so how would this apply to private property and private rights on some of the other properties involved here I mean we're talking about a public a a document an agreement that was done by the town as one party but there are we've had a whole bunch of people come before this board say oh they're going to take my rights away and we've said no no no can the state or can't they yeah I I I don't have an answer to that question I mean I think that if you're talking about easement rights um and then there's a question as to whether or not that's a recorded easement you know record easement or whether it's prescriptive easement I I don't think that eohc is going to get that deep into the Weeds on those questions I sure hope not that this implies that they could I think that when you're talking about a development agreement that has been executed between a developer and a municipality that's probably a different level it's SE generous so to speak yeah you know a private agreement between two private parties um I think they're looking at this as municipalities trying to to do an end around the requ exactly what every municipality is trying to do correct and they're trying to prevent that yeah at the last hour at the last hour I don't know yes I mean Evan and I had a discussion um you know just before the meeting started it it would have been better if they had actually addressed this in the regulations the question as I stated was brought to them yeah prior to the adoption of the regul if they had a concern it should have been addressed in the regulations but it wasn't and now they are you know basically seeking to identify these you know on an ad hoc basis yeah and they're going to catch some and Miss others yeah so my understanding was that at the very beginning of this process when we were in negotiation with the developer we had requested that this um I thought it was the development agreement be sent to them to see if they felt it would be compliant or it would be the development agreement itself was not sent to them but I did describe the relevant portions to Chris kutchman so what was sent to them what you're referring to is was section five which is what the uh UMass West multif Family overlay District references right section five which is which was simply the state's um by right provision right so basically process requ zoning that was passed and that the state's process required um or offered towns to submit the sites for the state to determine whether this site was eligible whether it met the the standards to be considered for Section Five by right so that's what the ums West process was about as as Town Council mentioned when we were going through the ums West process section 3A which is MBTA zoning didn't exist but it was in the process of being derived and we it did exist statute had already regulations had not detailed right okay so what do you recommend Paul what would you do so my recommendation would be to try to find a way to add those 77 units into another District so that you do not have to change the development agreement to eliminate the total number of unit restriction because that was something that all of the ab budding Property Owners you know got behind um and and it it was a major reason why there was support for the adoption of that that that zoning at the time it passed and I I don't think that it would be wise to to revise that portion of the development agreement more fair furthermore I don't think we can can we unilaterally we can not unilaterally but I don't think that we would have difficulty getting the developer to agree to assist the time I don't know if we would or not but well I think we're going to have to likely as it relates to the over 55 restriction and the affordability restriction both of which have been brought up by uhlc as well as being concerns so what do we at 13% affordability on that project if I remember correctly it was um 12 12 or 15 all right 54 units and six so a total of 60 we got to drop that down to 10 is what we're saying so but I wait minute I thought we're we put in the request for for us to go up to 15% we did we need we still need to uh do the economic feasibility analysis are we doing that already is we do not have funding in place for that right now when do we think we might have that uh we either going to uh re-engage with mcog or we're going we going to do that I thought that was ongoing well it's it's not it has not commenced it is not commenced all right but I mean I I don't see any risk in eliminating the affordability restriction and eliminating the age restriction because the choice project it's subject to contracts between those private parties um that project is moving forward as approved uh so even what without the requirements in the development agreement they will still be able to to construct an age restricted affordable development on that property it's just that we can't have a development agreement that prohibits them from so um and everything's the permits have been pulled right and they've started the trimal crow has pulled their building permits for all of their units 350 units it's fully financed they're actively constructing okay so that's not change they're not going to change exactly okay and and choice is locked in as well the wastewater treatment pl's been approved by D they have meepa approval okay all right the the one thing is and this was discussed multiple times with this board with the select board as it was executed the development agreement ran with the land the property owner signed off on it as well as the developer so eliminating these requirements eliminates it from running with the land as well because once the requirements gone there's nothing to run with the land um so that's something that has to be taken into consideration did we which is why I don't think eliminating you know the number of units restriction is a wise choice right right did we um I can't recall did we specify or stipulate that the um age restricted housing would and the affordability housing would be maintained in perpetuity mhm okay so then we don't really have to worry about that correct once they execute a regulatory agreement which we're close to getting executed it's it's in the final stages correct that then it's affordable imp perpetuity okay when do we think that's going to happen the state indicated within two to three months is the review and and when was that today today well the select board voted on Monday to to sign and submit it to the state what's the likelihood of the state changing their minds on that one too it's their form document okay that there shouldn't be any pushback whatsoever it's just a fill-in the blanks document what's the next step well I brought up I brought up the slide for 110 so if we have to add 77 units is that based upon it's at 17 um it's at 17 units per acre developable density but you do the do you do the math based upon the developable acreage 28.1 that's pretty dense n Nim Cog yeah um I I just ran it through the um compliance model to for that subdistrict if it went to 18 um units per acre it would yield an additional 105 um 17 yields um an additional 63 63 so can you do so 17 can we do that 17.2 17.2 not give them anything and and with that with that modification within the Z zoning bylaw where would that modification be inserted if that's if that is the only modification necessary because we we right currently we treat both both overlays districts the same yes so we would need to specify a different subdistrict under 19517 density and dimensional requirements okay so table B would be modified to show um not table B it would be um it would be right there one subsection a and we would have to have an additional sentence we would we would need to amend one in order to specify the subdistrict that would have a density of 15 dwelling units per acre okay and then we would need to add a second that would specify a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre for the other subdistrict and that's the only modification that would be necessary for the zoning overlay let me just take a quick look at our memo again I'm sorry can I back up are we talking about subdividing the 110 into one portion that's 18 the entire the entire 110 District would allow up to 18 per acre the reason why it's different is because we had the same density across both no I get that I just was trying to two different densities and maybe get to 77 directly by subdividing the 110 into part 18 and part 17 come in right at the number or closer then what was it again is there for 18 units per acre it was yeah it was 105 105 and for 17 it was 67 63 63 so still a short 12 I think it's actually a little bit more I think we need to make up 120 numers growing we're back to UPS why no I'm kidding I'm kidding I'm kidding comp model capacity oh sorry go ahead Mike oh sorry the Restriction that's on the property um is a difference of 120 units so if we keep if we just use that figure for that parcel as it's capped um well we currently had but you were over the total number the number currently right we had 1520 we only required 1477 so the Delta that we need is 77 so the required capacity yeah but didn't the 1520 take into consideration that space the um um Mass West yeah yeah yeah yeah the um it's just it's when you where there's very little um room wiggle room with capacity um I've seen it kind of come back a couple times where there's been um a little bit more um review of the especially larger part um in districts for other communities um so if there's a little bit of a buffer and it's not right up at the capacity it it tends to to help the situation but if we need 77 and we get 105 that would give that buffer right that's at 18 yeah yeah or is that not enough of a buffer no that would be enough of a buffer and so then would you reduce the density on the west campus to 15 it already is is but it's already in at then why is there an issue because we're less than 15 because of the development agreement okay so we wouldn't have to adjust I think it is development agreement right no and the the state doesn't require that the UMass West District be revised they're okay the regulations allow for the other District to be revised to allow for increased capacity to offset a slate under I understand what we're doing but does that is that allowed by the regulation in light of in light of the development agreement the development agreement is I don't think you clear clearly FR that as a question I thought you were stating it as effect and it's a question development agreement is partial specific right and they've they' flagged that but it's not clear to me what the board is talking about is uh correcting the deficiency by increasing the uni capacity on this other district and I don't know to what extent that actually is going to resolve hlc's concern yeah and we note that on page two of our memo that adjusting the density requirement in the other subdistrict to um compensate for insufficient density um would be something that we would recommend reviewing with hlc okay particularly because that inflated subdistrict density um would be in a district where the density is unlikely to be developed ever as housing mhm but that was the case on the UMass site as well yeah it's all that's the case in the that's our whole strategy every Town's doing the same thing right yeah right not every town is doing the same thing enough where it's getting flagged enough of them so what if we had the density go up slightly in the same subunit but the other part of this subunit so the windir so if they went up to 18 or 17 well I think the issue with that is we run into the Wellhead issue that we had discussed earlier I'm sorry I don't Mike do you have a better answer to this um um I think it's still the same issue where you're inflating districts you're kind of artificially inflating the districts um to compensate um for a shortfall and another and that that's something that eohc has been um been clear about um all along that they were going to um they weren't going to allow that that kind of manipulation I think I think the the main issue here is that we can't answer whether that would satisfy hlc so because because it has already been stated by this board that the intent of putting the districts in these places is that there are locations where housing is unlikely to be produced further in inflating the the dimensional sorry the dimensional the fur further inflating the density in those districts which already have been acknowledged by the board is unlikely to produce housing is possibly a strategy that hlc would not consider as compliant so with that with that context if if the board wants to move this forward a Springtown meeting the you know hlc's indicated that the compliance model and the bylaw um are fine as long as the development agreement is revised so I think you're left with if you continue with the two districts what I'm hearing is that hlc is likely to uh flag a new issue where you're artificially increasing capacity where you already know that even at 15 units an acre it's unlikely that does not seem like a viable option the only viable option that's identified is the one right now of either amending the development agreement what we're going back to the drawing board but amending the development agreement is also artificially inflating because additional developments unlikely to occur there as well I'm just talking within the context of resolving resolving an issue that hlc has identified if you adjust the developer agreement doesn't it have to go in front of town meeting no it's select board only okay and I think I think we've already articulated this evening that exercise is not much different than this whole MBTA zoning exercise it's a paper exercise for for all intents and purposes the the notion that tro Crow Choice are going to modify their project at this point seems slim to none there there there's a chance though not won't be tremal crow in a developer world you're going to give them more units there's a chance they already have funding they already have permits I don't think it'll be trm or Crow I just think that it was that was went in front of town meeting I understand and that's I think that's the sensitivity that the Town Council housing out of it out of the increasing it increasing the density no that doesn't no no so but the developer agreement we take away the the age restriction right on that one section of choice well they would build age restricted but it wouldn't be per within within three months the the two regulatory agreements will be approved that will lock in the the affordability in the age restriction associated with the affordability so that closes that condition the only condition that would be open-ended is the the unit cap so why don't we wait till why don't we pull this from Spring Town Meeting by the time we present in Fall town meeting that development UMass West will be pretty much built um or pretty much it's phased over about 18 months yeah but it's going to be they're not going to be able to change it in we know that now well yes but think we'll all know we all feel a lot more comfortable yes I I get what you're saying a few months and then we'll change the development agreement when that's if they're amendable yeah like then we'll know about the affordability we'll know about the 10% affordability that thing will be pretty much or we could call maybe have a special time meeting for just this at some interval time before October like July so that we still have an opportunity to change well another couple of tens of thousands of dolls ready come in the only other question I'd ask is I know we looked at this before would it make sense to try to add an additional parcel or so to the Littleton Road District to try to so that you could increase the dens you could not increase the density substantially there you could do that but it wouldn't be part of this public hearing we'd have to read vertise right we switch G and go to UPS we have to go through the whole correct even just to change if you're if you're if you're inclined to keep the proposal as is and and wait till summer or fall the only thing we're talking about is the development agreement okay like the development agreement would need to be uh modified under that scenario anyway the only change will be as you said on the ground more of it's built more I think it' be more you know again to your point like you know development always something can always happen but I think when there's a lot of money sunk in the chances are of it being changed and and I'm also worried about State agreements not being yeah me too the affordability completed yet yeah yeah I'd rather have that done in hand in hand and then go and then go and change this you know if the state's going to play games with us I think we should play right back at them okay yep the fight indoor voice please sorry sorry you're right you're right indoor voice all right able just final comment you can label it whatever you want gam gamesmanship or what have you moving the gold poost we're not going to be able to control any of that the only thing the town can control at this point is modifying that development agreement or going back to the drawing board yeah so or increasing the going back to the drawing board going back to the drawing Bo or adding honestly if we if we were to increase density we should have another public Hearing in the people back we'd have we'd have to go we'd have to if you're going to go back to the drawing board and it's going to be anything significantly more than what John is suggesting we need to find additional money to continue our efforts with Nim Cog we need to do more Outreach or compliance modeling a new public new round of public hearings the only set a new warrant the only thing I could see us doing in in that case that's not completely picking a new area is is the 110 condos we've already essentially cut in half so we could add those other two buildings in that property and that may give us enough we'd have to model it correct and that wouldn't be a huge change yeah but wouldn't we have to take out all the numbers of the UMass West that would come out of the wouldn't that come out of the district or just that part of the district would have lower no we'd be starting where we are to where we are tonight yeah it would be expanding the 110 District okay to add capacity yeah and that's OB have a development agreement with part of it having too low of density I mean that problem wouldn't have been solved yet correct under any scenario unless you go back into UMass West or remove you Mass West we're going to have to we're gonna have to modify the development agreement y yeah or so so so my point is is the longer you wait we don't we don't know to what extent this whole approval process continues to evolve what we what we know is what we know right now and we know we have a clear path to approval based upon hlc's written comments we're in full control of that everything else we're not really in control of so can I make a suggestion the development agreement was executed by the select board it may be helpful for them to provide some input before you make a decision whether or not to table this yeah and then you'll left with what you want to do about tomorrow night and moving forward if you table I'm not sure it gets it gets a Springtown meeting if you choose to move forward with fincom and then begin your engagement with the select board SL board is scheduled to begin review of zoning articles on April 8th I believe after the election MH so we should probably do this should be a joint meeting with the select board like this shouldn't be like us going to them them coming to us like this should be we should schedule a joint meeting to discuss final comment on this yeah there's nothing preventing the zoning from going to Springtown meeting with the understanding that the that the agreement between the select board and planning board is to modify the the development agreement yeah the development agreement can be modified yeah after Spring Town meeting that I I think that's the path of lease resistance and that's probably what we ought to do on the other hand I think we need to drag some State reps in here and Grill them pretty hard I mean sit them down and cross-examine them shut them up when they start to B me CH are going to be otherwise they're going to vote this down I agree under the scenar we're talking about there wouldn't be any changes to the zoning no there no changes to the you're going to want to understand the whole plan understood I think we should wait I think we should meet with the select board to make a plan about the about the um development agreement because it sounds like that's given it's going to have to be changed and then we should give it a couple months hopefully for the other two issues to be resolved the affordability component and the age restriction special time meeting and have a special time you know have slot for a special time meeting like if we can in June before people all start departing for the summer hopefully that timetable works it's tight we're already on a tight timetable and we just made it tighter but I don't think town meeting is going to agree to unknown so confusing now we have a select board member here tonight I know but she can't speak for the select board I just ran into this the other night yeah um so just so I again I'm getting a little confused here do we have to change regardless do we have to change the capacity for you Mass West we the development agreement yes yes we're going to use this plan we do if we use if we present this our MBTA has that has 15 in it I don't think you have to change the density restriction in the development agreement if you find an alternative approach to getting to the requisite number of units so can have a subd district with less than 15 units per acre so our model in the Zoning for UMass area is 15 units per acre the development agreement brings it under that 13 13 so we if we get rid of the development agreement we wouldn't have to change the zoning we don't get rid of it we modify it or modify it but if we remove the density restriction from the agreement then we don't have to change our modeling and our zoning the MBTA zoning can go as is but we'd have to still come up with a few more units if no we don't no because the model for UMass campus is based on the 15 for the zoning that we're doing but the development agreement brings it under that so we remove the cap on the development agreement it goes to can you move the cap on 25 that's my point as soon as you go back into the model it it it warrants a new review by hlc what hlc has said at this point is or Nim Cog and and what council is and what we're discussing is if we leave everything in the model exactly as is and we modify the development agreement good we're good to go and exactly what do you have to modify in the development agement you got to take out the the the unit capacity for that which is right now at 13 which is which is at um voluntarily they proposed it at at at 13 so can we move that just to 15 it says 350 units or 394 is what it says in totality right so that need we wouldn't make it unrestricted altogether we would have need to remove the numbers so you can't make it to 15 to match the zoning bylaw would limit it to zoning would limit it to 15 okay so for MBTA the development agreement is more restrictive than the zoning bylaw okay then you'd have to remove the um Provisions related to age restriction and um affordability you'd have to reduce the affordability from 15 down to 10 unless we keep moving forward with the 15 in the zoning but that has to a financial correct so that would help that that would have required um a modific [Music] I mean if we wanted to keep the density in the agreement we would still have to find other areas and we still don't know if the state is okay with us keeping that agreement and I think that was evans's point is that we would still have to go back to the state to find out if that's going to be okay which would take yeah I think as of right now we have a path given to us by them to move and I think we ought to take it and we should take it but I would prefer personally if we waited to take it until we have the affordability and the and the age restriction um approved in place and so that as I said um is a minimum of two to three months minimum of or it should be in two to three months well I say minimum because um there are other there are other aspects to the choice project that may come into play with their review meaning building permits are not issued financing is not in place let's just do it so it's all remains to be determined but we've we've submitted the application today they've indicated two to three months due to their uh workload and they need more from Choice pertaining to the financing before they'll I don't know to what extent the state approves a regulatory agreement uh without building permits and financing being in place that's I think I think you've raised some of those concerns as well so again if your strategy if you're delaying because you hope that the state approves these two regulatory agreements which as Council said locks in the affordability and the age restriction that may may not happen within the next two or three months but I think the further along that is the more comfortable I know I would be and I think town meeting would be with removing those pieces from the development agreement and that's my but in any event again the development agreement is an agreement that was executed by the select board and they should be we have to address that separately but right now we're trying to make our plan and then we'll have to discuss it with the select board and see if they concur yeah I I think we should simply go forward as we are now uh let the adjustments to the development agreement take place as they can given the uh select board's SCH I'm not going to be any more comfortable waiting two months than I am say say we go to town manting this gets approved as is we just need to be compliant by the end of the year right so the select board theoretically doesn't need to change the development agreement not this until well it's a question of what what is hlc going to be yeah we requiring of us in order have to their approval or whatever we have till December to submit so we but for the hearing now if you choose to continue tomorrow night at fincom and then uh April 8th at selectboard and that could be the time where we where we begin this conversation with the selectboard with the assistance of coun let's put it on the agenda when we all meet them there the other the other option is you delayed a couple weeks and maybe we can call a special within the regular if it's just a 2 or 3 week um time period otherwise you're talking about not an April town meeting in a special town meeting or a fall town meeting but I'm looking at the likelihood of this passing a town meeting that is a concern that's a huge concern for me because if we are not comfortable with those agreements I know town meeting will be y and if they're not comfortable with those agreements being removed without more certainty behind it they're not going to pass it they pass it anyways right but there's less of a chance forward with it now because if they don't but if we do a special election they don't like the the zones that well the flip side of that is if they don't pass it I don't think we can bring it back in the same form can we we won't know why they didn't pass it hopefully there'll be discussion discussion if it's a location or just not complying I mean the way we went through the schedule was to get into the April town meeting so that if it got denied we could rework it for the fall so now if you're saying delay it to a special no then if we get denied there then you're still going the fall yeah so then you might have to do another special one if it gets denied again yeah that special may need to be used different way so I don't know if if it's wise to continue just right now or I think it's would I'm sorry what are we seeking from hlc at this point that that we've submitted something to them what is it that they're giving to us they they give us their init their um compliance their compliance review as well as the zoning review and is that binding is that and and what is that I mean is that based on us you know the answer saying that I don't think it is of course it's not is that based on us saying that we will modify the developer agreement or do need to see some evidence of our modifying the developer agreement I mean what is the standard that they're going to be apply there isn't any yet I would fully expect that there are going to want to see evidence that the development agreement has been modified I mean here's here's the thing when we presented you I'm sorry just to finish my point so the fact is that I I don't want to go into town meeting where we we don't have something from hlc because they're holding out on us because we haven't done enough on the developer agreement that to me is a is something that I would want to wait for that to to fir you know in other words I want to understand the timeline that's going to get us that that's going to get hlc to agree with us because otherwise me's going to say you know why you don't even I think it's wise to change the development agreement before you see if you're going to get this zoning passed by town meeting though that's got to happen afterwards correct that's and that was what was discussed with Kelly myself and Mike and the two staff members from hlc that a that time line wise town meeting could consider approving the uh MBTA zoning overlay and the development agreement would be modified after afterwards and they seemed um they that that seemed acceptable to them and as long as we have the agreement from everyone that the agreement will be changed we should be okay correct correct so I think I think if you if you stay the course have this conversation with the board beginning on April 8th between April 88th and May um May 2nd which this article comes up on continuation working with councel you've already indicated that um the applicant is amenable to modifying I I have not reached out to the applic but there there's no downside to them correct to to be amendable to modify don't anticip notion of everybody getting an increased level of comfort education and awareness to close close that those concerns we have time but see that's not where the concern lies the concern lies is that once that agreement has been modified and without those without those State um the state forms completed for affordability and I hear what you're say but if to meeting approves it in early May What's the statutory requirement for the town to submit to the AGS after after a voted town meeting is there a time limit it's 90 is it yeah it's 90 days I believe it's 90 days that they have 90 days to to review and approve but what's the time limit for the town to submit it I don't know off the top of my head but Evan that again that's not my point my point is is that if we go into town meeting and tell the town meeting reps that those State Agreements are not in place yet and the state has already done some shifting on us with this what's the chances of them pulling those agreements and not approving those agreements and now we have zero protections I hear what you're saying but if you if town meeting takes action in May and you have until December to achieve compliance that's more than six months where the town can we don't have to submit to the AG's office immediately definitely not immediately and we definitely don't need to submit immedi mediately to um hlc we have basically 6 months of waiting time to see what happens with those regulatory agreements and to a needed Point wait until the 11th hour to modify the development agreements but we won't get town meeting to agree to that I'm thinking about but here's the thing though like I'm thinking when you Mass West first came in front of town meeting right it was okay we have to comply with the MBT Zing this is what they're thinking of so this is what we approved right well that wasn't final and now the zoning their requirements changed so I'm thinking as a town meaning WAP all right so now we have to increase the capacity because we modeled this on the capacity that we originally thought we had and that's why we did the development agreement now we find out they changed the capacity on it so we're going to increase it so I'm okay I think I'm okay with that modification right yeah yeah um the BT zoning didn't have age restriction on it right that doesn't have it we put it in our development agreement but this developers said they're going to do the age restriction that's they want to do that they agreed to it they're going to apply for it and so we just need to take that off of our development agreement so I'm comfortable with that because again when we first went down this road we went down with best yeah exactly best um guidance from the state of what the final rule that's I I'm just trying to like and I hear what you're saying and the other thing is is I don't think they're going to I mean may call me naive but I mean they want more affordable housing yeah they want more age restricted housing but that's my that's exactly my point because if we do this and those agreements with the state are not in place yet the state is they that I'm referring to the state wants more affordable housing the state wants more housing senior housing and the state wants more housing and so if they don't but they also want higher volume and so they could say we don't like the density increase your density I'm just worried that if we take all of these protections out there is still a chance that the affordability and the senior restrictions completely go away well we don't have to submit it if they go away then we say okay fine we have to do something else yeah but Town meetings not town meeting does not trust the planning board so they're not going to trust us to pull it after they've voted for it yeah a good point I don't know do you think do you think there'd be an increased level of trust once it's explained to fincom and selectboard and it works through its process between now and town meeting I I think there's always a chance that those the current developers and current Choice housing could pull out without those State agreements in place and my I think no no not that's not happening not happen I don't I don't think it will either how long does it take to get a housing well we are not going to get certainty I mean this is our own town right that would going with and they won't Grant a housing permit until there's funding no so and is funding in the process of being sought or is funding going to be sought at some future date David is in David hederson has indicated that he's approximately 12 to 18 months away from receiving all the funding he needs to advance the project he's not going to submit for a building permit until he's fully financed so we won't get this approval for 12 to 18 months no the the regulatory agreement that council's referring to will be approved I thought you said it was contingent on housing permits and it's not clear it's not it's not clear at this point to what extent they they that they legally will prevent it from being approved without building permits and without financing I don't have enough experience with that I'm just saying that is a scenario so in my experience local action units are approved for inclusion on the town subsidized housing inventory once local action approval is granted um and that is that does not require that building permits be issued in fact it's quite possible that the LA units could be approved by eohc and then so they would count towards the town the town's Shi but 12 months after the initial approval of those units um they would fall back off the Shi until building permits are issued so that process makes it very clear that the lau can be approved prior to building permits being issued so we expect we expect those regulatory agreements to be approved for for Council in the two to three month correct or time frame so it's not best case scenario it's in the two to three month time frame that we initially talked about it should yes yeah we made this zoning change to that property to be part of this MBTA regulation the voted on it but I think until those regulatory Agreements are in place people are not going to feel comfortable with us removing all of the other restrictions no then that's my point I don't think we'll get the town meeting vote if if we do this before those Agreements are in place so those those agreements th so those have already been submitted the select board has submitted them they're in the process again now it kind of goes through to zoning and what's being built right so those have already been submitted we're modifying development agreement which in itself is not a very common thing that happens that you have a development agreement that follows land right we did because we were concerned we earmarked this two years ago as an MBTA Community like I mean that's what was presented to tan that's what yeah I mean that's what I thought it was that's how we sold it that's what why I voted how I bought it a little bit maddening that the state would turn around and do this right like and I get that and I get that you know that's how I bought it final regulations weren't there but our assumption that's how that's why I voted for it was that this would these units would count right now the zoning you know they've come back they finalized it's more dense we can't have age restriction we can't have this okay got it um we can't put that in our development agreement but they've already submitted the forms for it those forms have not been approved yet that's the concern well and And to clarify what we're talking about is with regard to the affordability that's choice right that's a that's part of the overseen by the chumford Housing Authority I I don't think that there should be too much concern that they're not going to move forward and do what they've proposed to do and I so I I think that there should be a level of comfort that we can trust David Hedison in the housing authority to move forward and build what they've proposed to build what they're a contract to build he has to now yeah I mean he has no choice can can can town meeting vote to approve with a condition that the that the approved zoning is not submitted to the state or hlc for a period of two or three more months until those regulatory agreements so I just took a quick look at the statute and it's supposed to be submitted to the AG's office within 30 days what was that 30 days the any town meeting I get you to the end of May any zoning change um under chapter 40 section 32 has to be submitted to the Attorney General's office for review and approval and the timing of that is within 30 days of the close of town meeting so pushing out to a special town meeting does that make sense I mean it's March yeah but April May so let trying and do it in the middle of June I still I think you're still left with having this conversation with fincom select board well I think we should have those Pro proceeding at the same time but not try to get it passed by anyone until middle of June when we have that in our pocket which we don't currently have I think it I agree with Chris I think it's too controversial to have all these little open-ended threads or loose threads and open-ended questions whatever the analogy is and to be clear I do think I do think it'll go forward I do think those will get approved but I honestly don't think we're going to get the support from town meeting if those aren't approved yet I I agree with you I also think that this board might have a little bit better position with regards to town meeting and Trust maybe than some prior compositions of this board so I don't know that that's I don't know what to respect with regards to that but and I think I mean and I think bringing you know we brought in even you know David Hedison he's you know very well known in town people trust him right like he's you know fine character you know I mean there's a certain amount of trust even well they're the chum Housing Authority yeah they are they're pretty good so you're talking about is continue tomorrow evening select board have this conversation worst case is you're either delaying it special town meeting or maybe or maybe it moves forward yeah if everyone if everyone is can articulate a strategy and as comfortable okay yep so we're on for the eth you're on for tomorrow evening and then starting with the slck vot on the 8th I think it's the first thing didn't he say it was the first thing check the agenda yet for who is the fifth item oh so what's that do you think when does finam fincom start 6:30 tomorrow 6:30 6:30 idea what time would be so you're leaving your hearing open hold on you want to continue it to um does it make S can we continue it to tomorrow evening and then the eth are we able to do that legally can't post it for tomorrow right yeah you wouldn't be able to post okay tomorrow well so we don't all has it already been posted I mean if they were going to be speaking with fincom posted a public hearing for their review but we didn't most so no more than two three of us can be in the room no we can be there well you can't be there and have members parate you wouldn't be able to have any members participate we've discussed this in enough detail where three members can speak on behalf of the board we learned the other night too that but I can post I can post a planning board meeting for the uh select select board uh meeting of the eth so the intent we should ask the chair if that's okay with I I'll reach out okay so the intent those tomorrow is to present this plan with the plan to modify the developers agreement with the yeah yep yeah so you going have to add that to your presentation and who's going I'll do that tonight when I get home at midnight okay time30 so I will take a motion move to continue to the eth which is our joint meeting y we don't have a joint meeting yet to the which our presumptive to the next meeting Jo meeting to be determined um do I have a second second second all in favor I okay um we have number two I think we're going to get rid of yeah do you need me for anything else tonight I think thank you Kelly you so much thank you for putting up you Mike thank ke thanks Kelly um I don't think we're going to do anything with site plan and special permit rules and regulations um if that's okay with people y um we have a request to continue 10 hildr Street do to somebody having a a conflict um to can I have a motion I move we continue 10 Hildreth until and what's the appropriate date here 410 410 Second okay all in favor I we not move everything one question oh I'm sorry no no no I just want to make sure like when we start like moving having meetings can we not push all everything to the next meeting can we try to so at the rate things have been continuing it may not matter but we still have to prep for it so so that's so that's a question I have pre now how is there on the bylaws how a opponent can cancel right up to the time of the public hearing well they're not canceling they're requesting a continuous yeah but we were ready to go people public was coming and then we got a notific we got a notification I see at least one person what time was it 5:00 or 4:00 today I mean is there is is there I'm just asking for is there a bylaw in the town of chumford that then then maybe but there is an amount of time by which they're supposed to have brought their plan forward Bo the board has to consider um and Grant each continuance okay but then it pushes their timeout if they have 90 days from the time the public hearing is open the continuance keeps pushing the the hearings are indefinite okay so so there's no rules on that there are where there are rules if they request a continuance they are voluntarily extending the bo time to act and then we don't necessarily have to take it up at the next meeting we have within 65 days right to take it up no we're well beyond any of those any of those I'm just trying to say you don't have to put it on the tent correct it correct prepared for the meeting correct you do not have to put it on for for the date and why don't we put them off four weeks yeah understand I just want I just want to get an understanding while I was driving when I got that notification all right yeah well then tell them they're on for the uh 27th it's not public right now it's not public well it has to be an agreement it's just not one-sided where one person could continue it at the last moment throw you out of here we agree thank you we we are agreeing um okay so I think we push it to the 20 4th is it the 20 20 10th 24th 24th you canceled because you want to attend pre-own meeting I thought we decided we were going to have stuff if we needed to well before or after minor stuff is what you said yeah not very minor okay I guess we continue it to the 10th how many on the 10th right now how many what's on the 10th right now uh everything that we continue this evening so everything again I'm not going to midnight like so we're not doing the 24 what's the next one after the 24th it'd be May 15th May 8th all right all right let's do it then May 8th okay I make a motion to continue to May 8 second second all in favor I I okay next we have 270 Bill wait two 270 I would strongly encourage you to continue to May I'm sorry uh uh April 10th okay okay what's the the sensitivity with with that is that the uh peer reviews are scheduled to be ready uh into to for presentation to the concom on the 9th and planning board on the 10th okay are we expecting anything more from d on this I wouldn't expect anything but okay you never know can drop out of this guy I'll take a motion I move to continue 270 Bill recer road to the 10th second all in favor I okay let's do some work 93 brick Hill Road request site plan approval for the construction of 49,000 ft industrial Warehouse building I'm going to wave the rest of the reading he objects fine good evening Madam and chair members of the board for the record Christine hung um attorney for the applicant D and D Holmes with me tonight I have Brian goodro our site civil engineer from hanok Associates and John Higgins of Higgins environmental at the last meeting um the board requested that we come back with an update from the chumford water district and the results of the Hy Hydro Geo analysis that was performed as you know a portion of the site is located within the chenford aqua for protection district um the Board of Health through its rules and regulations and the cheler water district requested that the applicant perform a hydro geological investigation and that the scope um was developed in conjunction with the Board of Health the chum for wer district and the applicant those parameters were agreed upon and testing was done groundwater and soil samples were collected and tested and a summary of those findings was prepared in a report by um geoh hydrocycle um John Higgins of Higgins environmental and LSP was engaged to review geoh hydr Cycles findings of soil and groundwater uh quality in accordance with mCP regulations um just to clarify for the board and LSP is a licensed site professional they're licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and are deemed experts in waste site cleanup they are governed by Professional Standards and really perform an independent analysis of the data collected as it relates to contamination on a site Mr Higgins applied the established methodologies of the L LSP and he rendered an opinion that the data found was not um at a level that required a you know it wasn't a reportable condition under the mCP he prepared a report which uh was provided to the board and he had discussions with uh Brandon Canada who is the chord water district superintendent they did a site visit um they went over the report together and since then uh Mr kada has issued a clean letter basically saying that he has no further concerns about the project um as it relates to the aaer and that um letter was provided to the board as well um so I'd like to turn it over now to Mr Higgins and he can walk you through his findings and then we'll be happy to answer any questions that the board may have thank you thank you good evening my name is John Higgins with Higgins environmental thank you very much Christine that was very good job made my job a lot easier so I am a Massachusetts licens he professional was engaged by D and D homes to review the work by um geohydro cycle as you've seen in the report um gee this that's a good job Christine I don't really have much El to say but uh I did not find a reportable concentration issue so you know in our world of the mCP the purpose of the mCP is to regulate things that are reportable because they they they reach a level that needs to be addressed we didn't reach that level here um and uh it's not reportable condition I don't know so you know this is an historical residential property uh there is no source of industrial commercial sources of the particular compound here I think most people are probably concerned about because they hear hear about is pasas this per and poly Flor alal substances um you know we found in one of the wells there at the top of the screen mw1 it's outside the zone 2 and the aqua Protection District it's in what we call an RC gw2 stands for reportable concentration gw2 area um it's it's it all depends on the environmental setting in terms of what the criteria is and you know when you're outside of a drinking water area the criteria just isn't a strength anymore um Pas are just so commonly used they're they're everywhere and uh residential septic systems it's just so um yeah so uh I don't you know I guess I'd like to entertain have questions here because there's a lot of topics to cover and I don't want to try to cover everyone's questions ahead of time so does does anyone have any questions from Rie reviewing the report well pertaining to PE f is that like typical you would find at one of these sites the amount that you saw that 80 whatever that was all right so or is that elevated I'd say it's on it depend well it for a non-commercial industrial site for like in a residential setting it's I would say it's a low end and so just to build upon you what Christine mentioned so this is in combination with the Board of Health and the original scope of work for geohydro cycle so we have a total of five monitoring Wells with soil and groundwater sampling those monitoring Wells were situated hydraulically dowr into the residence hydraulically downgrade of what they believe the septic system was um to look for like what could the impacts be and how bad could they be and where's the best place to look and those Wells were non detectable for past the only instance of past we had in groundwater of any concern well it's less than reportable was mw1 um which is a our hydraulically upgrading monitoring well um so there maybe and we also had the basic water chemistry in that well had higher sulfates and dissolve solids and road salt issues something else going on there I didn't see any any evidence of a source there we did a soil sample around some refuse there now the refu out there is you know I guess what you'd find or not be unexpected to find on an historically developed residential property that might included some farming there a lot of trailers and just stuff frames the trailers were gone um so but but the levels are consistent with what I've seen uh okay not just in Massachusetts but in Hampshire Maine Vermont okay I get no concerns yeah I have I have some questions if I could um so the so the mw1 that is not in a Zone 2 and and that's why if it were in a Zone 2 uh then would the Contra would the concentrations be reportable at that point if it was in the zone two the concentrations would be reportable okay and the the if you go to the next one Heaven that shows the gradients maybe it's the one above it there's a there's one that shows the the uh groundwater uh yeah this one oh that's in the G you have to you have q down into the GHC as an attachment it's it's PDF page 27 okay you got to keep going that's you're still admire you're still you're getting closer okay keep going there you go that's a good oh keep going that's a good figure right okay so we're talking about the one in the upper in this yeah the nor top Norther end so so the gradient shows that it's going towards the zone two the gradient is correct the hydraulic gradient as depicted shows it's going toward the Zone too right okay and so then the question that I have is is there concern about the fact that you have reportable levels that would be reportable in a zone two and and it looked to me like somewhere on the order of four or so times more because it's 20 nanograms right and you were you had something like 90 something and then 80 something the P 6 total and and so so is there concern about the fact that you have such high conditions for a Zone 2 with a strong gradient towards the zone two no okay and the reason being that outside the zone 2 the the criteria is significantly higher so instead of 20 nanograms per liter it's 40 million nanograms per liter right but just to give you an idea that you you can't so the criteria are based upon the environmental setting so you're either in it or out right now you could you could argue if you if it was a disposal site if it was a quote disposal site is what I work on under the mCP where you could really then use the term exacerbate so like if the condition if the concentrations were so Grievous that you started adding water in that or some other sub substance you could exacerbate that make it worse so if you look at the storm water handbook it talks about that for like sites that have activity Nu imitations because they're so bad they just covered the stuff over they don't allow infiltration if you it references landfills is another big source of impact uh it references sites that have been capped uh and certainly areas that have like uncontrolled sources of of oil or hazardous materials neither of those apply here so it it doesn't have and there is kind of a proof there about you know it has to be a really strong case that you would have like a significant impact if if that were to like get loose so to speak and so we don't have a source that's going to get loose but let's just say for the argument case that that impact like moved over without reducing its concentration in order for it to get to any place of concern it's going to be into that Wetland area which is a riverine wetland so there's also these sight specific factors that come into play as to like you know what's the likelihood okay of of being hit by something and depending upon where you stand so if water flows into that Wetland that stream water it shows it on the chart there too it flows to the South away from rear well which is 1,000 ft away um and the other thing about so I think part of this also comes down to what might change the land use that would maybe change the conditions that allow things to flow differently and you know sir there's going to be a development here but that center part of the property that mound is is a mount for a reason and you can see those red marks it's mostly Bedrock so it has has a high elevation the groundwater around the edge if you look at like which way is it flowing from what is it flowing from you know so it on one side it actually it's it comes up against this bed a high Bedrock that's dry so I think the groundwater flow you see is actually just related to the surface water moving up and down uh and the primary direction of groundwater flow there's some micro scale but the macro scale is to the South and you see that further down and it's also reflected in the Topography of the area um well I was concerned about that one because that one does show it looks to me like about as straight a path as possible towards the zone 2 assuming that the zone 2 designation is correct which I'm not even perfectly convinced that it is if you think about a Zone 2 but nonetheless let's just say that it is well my concern is that is that that is the place where you have high high concentrations relative to Zone 2 of pasas which are also comparable concentrations to what we have on another side in town that we are also having addressed and the additional concern of there being one of the two large infiltration beds slightly upstream or uphill of that groundwater Contour wise and so that to me raises the question of should do we want to have that large infiltration bed there as opposed to somewhere else where it's not going to be potentially pushing you know whatever p is existing currently at at somewhere in that area where mw1 because again you know you only have one point there we don't know where that what to what extent that you have you have that level of concentration of Pats in that area and so to me that is a concern for me at least the concern enough that I would want to see if we could have an LSP peer review to comment as to whether that makes sense to have that infiltration bed there or not all right so under the storm water rigs which is kind of I think the matter before is because this is not a reportable condition uh the the part that relates to this is you for a Zone 2 recharge area which is a critical area um you need to basically you need to demonstrate that there's a strong likelihood of a significant impact occurring to set area taking into account sight specific factors and so the sight specific factors that I've given in addition to the low concentration that is not a disposal site or reportable says this is not a strong likelihood of significant impact occurring that's my interpretation as an LSP and and in in the case of this other site in town we also had that peer-reviewed by LSP and I thought that was very constructive for us so that that's I guess that's my concern and that's my request of this board is is one thing I could add to will to request that so um there's also some infiltration on the property itself is required for any development and it is to my knowledge equally dispersed at five different areas across the property so you we're not looking at like one area of large loading so I think that's a good distribution two very large am I not right Brian there are two larger beds and then there are four smaller beds and one of those two larger beds is nearby mw1 and also not Downstream of it but Upstream of it so you would expect that what the existing conditions now are is that you're probably infiltrating spread over that area but what you're doing with your storm water is you're Gathering a lot of that water and then you're infiltrating it into that one specific location so you're increasing I would think by considerable amount the amount of water that is would flow when the development is in place than what's there now and that therefore that's my concern that will that increased water flow groundwater flow cause there to be migration of the what amount of pasas is in around mw1 we don't know because again it's just one point in that area uh would then cause that to migrate into a Zone 2 area and potentially cause issues for drinking Wat so that that's that's my concern and that's something that I would like the board to consider asking for peer review of that so that they may come back and say you're absolutely right there's no concern go for it or they may say you might want to move some of that infiltration whatever but that's something I think I'd like to get up here on and one other thing I if I could add so the pasts are actually soluble in water as well as being persistent and so if you were to add treated storm water into that area in a diffusive manner without a Source you know any significant concentrations of impact you'll be deluding it which is you know it's not a disposal site so that's okay so you're not looking at like just advectively moving a slug a th000 feet away where it would ultimately be the consequence yeah but we don't know to what extent there is Pas in the groundwater there well we do it's not at those other locations yeah but in that area where which would be basically where the water from that large infiltration bed would be going is a place where we've identified one point in that area that has all right I think that's about I think that that infiltration area is about within 50 ft of this area so you know if you have significant amounts of impact you tend to find significant areas of impact around them and we don't have that here oh okay but this is very close to the east jumps water yes extremely close like really really close cuz I drove by there the other day after the stor and I was like whoa I almost didn't I went and looked to see where this development was going because it looked like it was all underwater when I saw right after that big storm um yeah it's really really close to East hord water but I mean there's criteria correct for determining the monitoring the the sites that you test and monitor it's performance-based so so the LSP program is unique really in the country and that we we've moved from a prescriptive base if you take five samples and you get results you're all sad we actually have to think about this environmental setting the site history you know where to sample to to what resolution so it's a pretty involved process and it's it's been a great advantage to resolve in a lot of diff difficult sites um so I mean I think the the the way it's set up right now is that if you're in his Zone 2 that what would be ha what if if his well was one foot inside of the outside of the zone two then it would not be considered reportable if it was one foot on the other side of Zone 2 it would be considered reportable it's black and white there is no gray there is no you know range or slide or whatever Zone it do have an edge right well there again I'm just saying the way it's defined right now is is you have one level for zone two and you have another level outside z z is this it's about 100 ft so Evan can you pull that back up but if you look at the water the water itself is outside of Zone 2 right which doesn't make sense what what zone two is a contributing area what you talking surface water yeah what do you mean by outside the zone 2 oh the surface water yeah well it's surface waterers outside the zone 2 Zone 2 is the groundwater resource area but um so so the zone 2 is based upon um basically the maximum amount of pumping you could do at a location in the most extreme area of recharge that would contribute to that that's how it sets the limit and there's some hyl that comes into into Zone 2 is mapped right so a Zone 2 is oh sorry it always sounds like someone's talking behind me sorry yeah so Zone 2 is mapped so that based on a very highlevel you know in review that was done by West and Samson I believe I think ours were done by West and Samson but that's why we have a provision in our act for protection district that if you feel like you are not within a Zone 2 then you can have a hydro study done to show that you are not contributing you were not part of that contribution to the aquifer okay so that suggests to you that they anticipate that the zone as it is is going to be imperfect and that it's when you do a specific analysis in the area then you can determine yes we are contributing or no we aren't contributing I would suggest to you that based on what you saw in terms of the the uh the way the water is Flowing that it very well could be contributing I wouldn't be surprised at all that one might say well this area is zone two because of that they aren't making that designation because they aren't making that finding they're not looking to make that determination what did the water department water water Department Brandon went there looked at apparently thought it was fine and that's that's perfectly fine for him to do but the only thing I'll say is that we don't have the Personnel at the water district that we used to in terms of their expertise and their knowledge so this this process is broken as I've told you before and I've implored both the concom and planning board to put this on your agenda take a vote to write a letter on letterhead to the Board of Health copy the board the town manager and the water district to convene a meeting the notion that the notion that concom and planning board have your own jurisdiction and you want to pursue your own jurisdiction and yet the town also has this Board of Health process it's not leading in a good a good path regulatorily it's it's it's it's just not it's not viable it's not sustainable what was the uh determination by comc con last night how did they they had they had no they they did not require peer review no I heard that I I was I heard that pop but I I just well and they they left it where they continued it I think they wanted to see Brandon's letter because we had referenced it but we hadn't seen that yet Peter was up Peter was the most vocal and I think he was Peter he was I don't want to because Paul Joel and Chris were there watched it mine is standing was Peter um uh seem to seem to find your methodology and conclusions reasonable the building's over here yeah yes and I think any would is there a way is there a way to change the larger beds away from that one effected well this can't be under water no no it's too high up I mean just just if I could if I could so you know we're talking regulated areas you know there it's like speed limits you know you're driving 50 you a 55 well maybe you're going to be thinking about speeding up okay but the speed limit is 55 and they set that for safety reasons you know setbacks some roadways visibility and it's a similar kind of setup with hydrologic boundaries there soil types there's gradients there's the pumping depth you know the gradient that it can induce before it dries out the aquifer and all those come into play in terms of how they Define their Zone 2 boundary which is consistent with with ch Ro's acord Protection District boundary that's how we have to move forward we have to say here's someone that put their best foot forward independent of me is the state maybe their Consultants is set these boundaries for a reason that's accepted across the Commonwealth we have to make decisions based upon how those lay out on our place and I the other property I am familiar with it because I looked into it out of curiosity which is the science part of me they're strongly within your Aqua Protection District in the zone 2 we have some wells that are in the zone too and they were non-detectable Dow gradient Wells the way I would interpret that beyond the does anyone else have any other questions I have a question for Joel just about look you're talking about the P fast and the level of P fast being high I'm under the impression town is past not just this area the level of P 6 for groundwater is is high if it were a Zone 2 yeah it's technically not in a Zone 2 so it is not too high in that sense the way it is now and I and I and I'm raising I was only raising the question that is the fact that we're introducing a change to the site and given its proximity to the designated Zone 2 area would we want to have it peer-reviewed by another LSP to confirm confirm that putting the infiltration leaving or having the infiltration there is something that will not result as as as as uh right as the applicant is claiming will not have a negative impact on the water that's that's really all I'm asking is does anyone else have anything El my comment would be I think given that we are okay the way the zones are laid out I understand Joel's Point uh but I don't think this is a situation that calls for us uh getting a peer of viiew on this I think that you know I think we have to have some consideration for not delaying things and and I think in this case I see rather differently than I see the 270 Cas well I also for the reasons mentioned I this closer to our drinking water than 270 to be quite honest yeah but then the level is I also feel like the chord water district and conservation who also have jurisdiction are comfortable with these parameters and the and the consultant isord District does not have purview over storm water no they don't have purview over but their opinions are they have over the fact that we are going to okay that design right near this Source or the the high level to me I it would warrant a peer review for that specific well it's not a high source because it's not in the zone two doesn't meet the requirement and that's why comc con did not ask for a peer review it if we were leaving that site alone we wouldn't need a peer review but because we might be putting an infiltration area directly Upstream from it it's the same case as 270 so they don't take that into consideration in comc con no at all they don't they don't no the disconect the given the massive amount of wetlands behind that site if you go by there I would support Joel's U idea a concept for for a peer review well I got to if I can so the Conservation Commission also works within the storm water handbook in terms of their regulations so I know you had a relationship with Peter I heard that and you guys I haven't worked with Peter for I know but you guys have been in the business a long time no but I have not talked to him in 30 years you guys have been doing it a long time from what I understand okay not to call you old but you've been doing it a while does anyone else have anything else besides that and then we can kind of circle back around to this particular question I mean like I said there's a water is right there and we're changing the use of that area right now it's just you know trees and shrubs and stuff like that and the fact that putting a building is going to change with the storm water the direction I think this merits a peer review we already went through the to you all right all right well we might as well just vote on it yeah okay should we I'll take a motion I move that we submit this specific um focus of the I submit this to a peer review with the specific focus of that monitoring well um and potential impact of the infiltration on that result I second it okay all in favor okay what was it voted four to three opposed four to three in favor four four in favor three opposed okay I will attempt to find a peer review consultant um beta has informed us that they don't have the capacity to continue to provide services to the town so um if you have any suggestions forward them to me I'll work with the applicant to make sure there are uh no conflicts uh my other suggestion is it may take an extended period of time based upon those challenges in the meantime you may want to you may want to initiate some meetings with the water districts then the Board of Health and the concom because nobody knows what anybody's reviewing and to take the position that we just we have the legal authority to be independent that's that's not how the town is presumably operating right now does beta have any recommend if they're not going to be I can I can ask them yeah please do but that that delay in of itself will likely be well over a month just to find somebody never mind get them under contract to do this work but I'll I'll initiate that okay can you also initiate a letter to the requisite boards to try and find a find a date that we could have after the election um some a couple joint meetings to kind of figure out what our lanes are I'll send an email out and indicating that the planning board seems to be interested in convening a a work session or a discussion of some sort okay any other questions for me thank you very much no thank you thank you you have to uh move to continue this move to continue the meeting yes April no that's not even going to be closed so we got to kick it out what' you say at least a month May May at least a month May what was it May 23rd no May 23rd May 8th May 8th May 8th okay I make a he doesn't think he's going to be able to find anyone for a month and they're going to have to do the work right well we'll see I mean I never know I suspect that the amount of work here isn't overwhelming okay motion to continue 93 bricken road to May 8th second all in favor okay 191 where are we now Chumps Street car wash so closing the construction sorry beta uh your traffic peer review consultant uh should be with us on Zoom Dennis Flynn is with us and I believe is the is your okay they're online yet okay proposing the construction of a new motor vehicle washing facility with Associated site improvements the site is located in the CB zoning district and consists of approximately 1.97 Acres as shown on assessor map 63 block 5 256 lot one the applicant requests approval for special permits per section 1955 use regulations D15 for motor vehicle washing facility section 19573 do5 to operate a car wash in the aquifer Protection District section 19574 and site plan review per section um there was a comment from the board about potentially planting larger caliper trees to try and um mitigate a growth period uh to filling in um in some discussions with the landscape architect this is um not advisable um as the more the mature the tree is when you go to plant it the harder it is for it to take to the area so it'll actually end up stunting its growth over time um so if you plant a smaller tree it'll grow much faster and fill in quicker than maybe the big tree will be bigger for a year but then it'll stunt its growth and it you know it'll be surpassed by the smaller tree um so while that is an option we don't believe it would be the best option um at least for a few years down the road from now um I believe that was beyond um traffic that was the one outstanding item that I went home with homework for so um I don't know if we want to turn it over to the peer reviewer to have a little discussion on what they found and then we can uh answer any questions or have a discussion from there that' be great excellent Dennis you want to walk the board through your your memo yes uh good evening uh Dennis Flynn with with beta as previously uh mentioned so oh yes we were uh retained by the town the planing board to perform a peer review of the traffic impact study that was prepared by Howard Stein p um we uh performed that review and issued a comment uh comment letter on on March 22nd um and that was submitted to uh to the town and then I believe you know that was forwarded to Howard Stein Hudson and then uh I believe it was yesterday uh or I believe the date was March 25th excuse me there was a um a response to our comments prepared by Howards side Hudson and that was uh forwarded to us so uh I wanted to you know of first start out by saying uh you know from a traffic and the Transportation uh perspective uh there was nothing really significant or or critical uh that that we were concerned with uh however we did have you know a handful of comments uh which Howard Stein Hudson did uh provide responses to and you know overall you know I felt that their responses were were appropriate and and by and large satisfied our our our concerns uh so really I you know we only had about five comments uh um but I really just wanted to highlight for the sake of this discussion uh just about three of them uh one of them and I'll just start with U sort of in the order that they come in our our letter and uh the first one I just uh requested some clarification uh as to to why the nearby signalized intersection at uh stemman and golden Cove Road was not included as part of the study area uh the response uh to that comment was was more or less that there was there was sort of discussion uh amongst the the planning board and planning staff to to develop uh this study area which was felt at that time not to include the signalized intersection uh so looking you know as a result of that looking a little bit closer uh back at the expected trips that will be generated you know from the car wash it it does appear that this really is going to be you know a minimal amount of traffic expected to go towards that intersection uh you know I think in the the afternoon peak hour be about one car every three minutes uh during during the Saturday uh about one car every 2 minutes um so you know sort of the feeling there with you know with that type of a a trip um or traffic generation it really would be a very minimal impact to the signalized operations with with that low of a uh low of an additional demand so because of that um not you know I don't really have great concerns that there would be any operational uh safety issues associated with uh you know at that intersection associated with this development um the next comment I wanted to highlight was that uh Car Wash so the data obviously that's that's utilized to determine the number of trips comes from the it trip generation manual um for whatever reason uh the the car wash really does not have a lot of uh a lot of studies that were conducted in in the manual so I did uh ask if you're you know you consider looking at some some empirical data from from sites uh nearby other car washes sort of similar facilities um haride Hudson was able to provide a couple locations uh one actually in uh I believe it was Framingham uh which includes some good actual uh accounts and information uh from from sites in Marboro I believe was one in truberry and you know reviewing that and looking uh closer at those those trips and those numbers uh what they provided does does look to be consistent with what this type of site will will generate so no no concerns there uh and then just finally the last comment I had was really more related to the that I want to highlight here was really more related to the site plan um you know just given the location right now the proposed driveway uh I did ask them to consider if there was any feasibility to you know trying to shift uh the access driveway to be you know line with one of the uh one of the driveways uh lined up you know directly across one the driveways on the other side of the street that that serves the daycare center um you know recognizing that there there certainly are some some constraints and restrictions which they did highlight uh just just reading through back through their their their comment that the proposed driveway location or their response I should say to the comment you know basically has been optimized based on you know internal site circulation concerns uh you know the the commercial use of budding you know it's budding an existing residential facility this does require you know 30 foot landscape buffer that is highlighted on the site plan that was included in the study um and the driveways basic located you know has to be located uh or is located just outside this this required landscape buffer um you know and Shifting the driveway to the South to the southernly driveway is also not optimal uh as reduces the available distance to meet the evaluation you know differential across the site uh unless you know and then you know complete site mirror as they say is Impractical as it preferred that the facility be closer you know to the gas station which is understandable than the residential facility uh so looking a little bit closer at it uh obviously you know anytime we can create a scenario where driveways are on opposite sides of the road are lined up you know that is ideal preferred um the one situation here that mitigates any sort of safety concern is that the driveways on the other side of the road for the daycare facility uh are not full service each one of them is an exit only uh one of them is an entrance only so that does mitigate any um you know sort of driver expectation concerns or any safety issues the fact that you know they're not having all movements excuse me served it at both driveways uh sort of having like a oneway circulation I believe uh so you you'll have limited amount of traffic uh going either into in the case of one driveway or exiting uh so that that in in my opinion your estimation really mitigates any sort of safety concern there uh site distance is is more than adequate so that's that's not a concern so you know based on that you know we don't have any uh any significant concerns or critical concerns with with the location in the driveway uh so that was really it those were just the the the handful just really three comments uh I wanted to highlight here and uh give my reaction to uh based on their responses for the board's consideration okay does anyone have any questions for is it Brian Dennis Dennis Dennis sorry Dennis I I got one question Dennis just in your opinion um with this facility being on this this heavily trafficked existing traffic Road how many more trips can you just clarify how many trips would this facility generate more than that's there already right now in your opinion more than so what's more than what's coming out of the existing site no no no more than what's tra traveling down the street right now I mean we know the existing site is a single family residence right um do you think that a facility like this how how much how much trip generation will attract going so B you know in the afternoon yeah so in the in the afternoon based on you know what we see with the the it trip generation uh what was was what was provided in the traffic impact study which also matches up very closely with the empirical data shared this site's only going to generate about you know 51 new trips in you know the afternoon peak hours or basically 26 Vehicles turning in and 26 turning out um that you know does not rise to a level of significant concern on my end uh frankly you know that's that's less than one car a minute uh really is what that equates to um you know Saturday will be a little bit more but uh the the situation on Saturday we also have to keep in mind is the the you know the overall traffic demand is is lower so the the adjacent roadway um vehicle you know demand and operations uh I should say is is less uh less critical so yeah it's really not a significantly amount you know high amount of traffic it does have high turnover uh vehicles are not there um you know very long similar to kind of like a drive-thru operation so you know given those numbers and again checking against uh which was good that um they're able to provide a little bit more backup there uh just just due to the limited amount of studies that have been done it really looks like consistently within the region in the area you know about that amount of traffic should be expected which again is not in in my estimation a significant increase thank you I had a couple questions on comments four and five um for Howard Stein Hudson did you look at the empirical data from the the other car wash there are two car washes in the area one's at a Mobile station which is slightly different traffic pattern um but did you look at the the traffic patterns of the other car wash down further Christa so Christa Lucas with Howard Stein Hudson um we did not so when we got the scope for the traffic study we had done the trip gen but then we were asked to do counts uh at the daycare driveway and um and and get an idea of what the roadway counts are but we were not asked to get local that that was not suggested um and so we we did do the the industry standard that we had already done we had provided that uh within the trip gen memo the first time uh and so uh we we absolutely can we can go count more things um there were three sites um of existing um local car washes um car washes are weather dependent so there is there is that um and we do always try to count on a good day um that it's it's not raining because that's not the day you go to the car wash so um so we're happy to do additional counts um again there are three sites within the ones that that we provided um in the response to comments and so in in Shrewsbury and in Marboro so they are Suburban they are they're typical they're about the same size um so uh so no we did not count the mobile okay I'm confused because the ones in the the response say Framingham in Middletown Rhode Island right and so actually the the data is in the appendex of that um and so there are two counts yeah let's see hold on now I'm got to pull forward um so if you go to the appendix and you'll the data there is on PDF page 57 uh and so there are sites in Marboro and Shrewsbury actually it's Marvel of Shrewsbury and Framingham so this is based on uh an MDM study okay I didn't see the I didn't see the maror and Shrewsbury but I saw the references to Middletown and Framingham and yes so Middletown is the I think the the beta study um and then the Framingham used this is the Framingham appendix so the Framingham they asked the same question is hey what do what do other car washes look like uh and the nice thing for scrub a dub in Framingham is they have other scrubing of car washes so they already they already have a service that they provide and so these are comparable sites for them um both seasonally by by month of the year as well as days of the week okay so both weekend and weekday um you give it by time of day as well as how many kind of like you can see what the PE mons are um it was some of these were during covid although we were home so we could go get our cars washed so uh so I think the the data itself that the time of day may be a little bit different during covid because I but your work hours still remotely were still 9 to5 so I think um I think car washes were not impacted in the same way that other things would have been so much during Co all right I would have to go look at the Shrewsbury and maror ones but I'm a little concerned with comparing to Framingham because Framingham right so the Framingham study is used this supporting data from Marboro and Shrewsbury but if so it's not using the Framingham site it's using the marblo and shrewbury sites which are giving just a a litmus of is this does this data from it seem accurate for for similar car washes I get that but my concern is that if it's similar to Framingham it's likely dissimilar to ours because Framingham is on Route 9 which is a divided highway and so my concern with use if if and that's why I'd have to go back to marbor and shrewbury shrewbury is also route n is it yeah so my concern is that you I would question the comparison of data between a car wash on a divided Route 9 highway and the traffic going to hours in Chelmsford on a two-lane non-divided road right although Road nine is two lines in each direction is so the volume going past even one way is still going to be is going to be there's still going to be the the the passing by the access is still going to be similar in terms of volumes of vehicles yeah um it was going to be a right in right out but the demand anyway the the roadway volumes should be okay I I don't I anyway I don't know that route n given that it's divided means it's half as much traffic going to go there if if it's twice as many in the direction that's of travel and that's an interesting it's an interesting theoretical to check but um again and we're we're happy to to count other ones um but mostly I think what beta was asking is is the data is are empirical sites consistent with what is being shown in it is it a good basis for this uh and what we were trying to say is yes there are empirical sites that are consistent with it and we do believe the the fitness of it data for this okay and then on comment five and Dennis can can jump in and say whether or not the concern is the roadway itself of whether or not um Chelmsford road is so different or whether or not it's our car wash is so different right um if I may yeah that uh I certainly understand the comment uh being raised there about the the the functionality or the the composition of of the roadways um you know the one thing to keep in mind uh in some cases I think the the either the Maro or the Shrewsberry site may have even been a little bit higher um than than what it uh is show not significantly but so you know s thereby sort of saying that you know taking out the the left turn access is not diminishing the demand to uh to to the site um and and again it was it was really uh because uh for whatever reason the it manual which we rely on to to help um develop these these numbers uh does does not really have a lot of of data uh for whatever reason on car wash is just a handful of studies so it was really a okay can we just see if we can check against actual sites to see if what it is is telling us is is still uh reliable you know we're not looking for an exact match just something that is in a reasonable range uh if nearby sites or Jason sites we showing this you know to be generating three four or five times more then there maybe be a bit of a concern there we want to re visit that or incorporate that into the evaluation um since we're not seeing that um you know with these other sites that that were provided and uh you know raised a good point about the weather and that was certainly a concern when we made this comment was if they were going to try to get the empirical data now um they could be like well there's only like you know four cars going to the car wash right you know because it's you know not quite ideal season so it was it was a good piece of information to provide from a previous study uh that had empirical uh data uh that was that was provided or collected during a sort of a peak season if you will for for car washes okay thanks the question I had for you Dennis on comment five um if the driveway if the the site was mirrored would that improve the safety of that intersection with the uh daycare so it would safety-wise it's it's it's it's challenging to assess it would just um you know our feeling is it would it would reduce what you know I think you know what we call sort of conflict points and it would just enhance uh sort of the driver expectation because it would be directly aligned um from uh from you know from the driveway direct you know across from them as opposed to a little bit offset uh you know for you know driveway of this low demand as well as the ones across the street uh and the fact that those driveways you know one's an exit only one's an entrance only uh so any concerns of you know drivers turning and and being you know sort of what we call caught off guard or not expecting a movement coming out of the other driveway or someone to be stopping uh to make a maneuver um is mitigated by that so the ideal safest condition uh would be to have them aligned however I would not say that what's being proposed is is unsafe um it's just anytime we can can get a more ideal situation we do you know requested that be considered and looked at um but in this particular case uh you know given all the factors I sort of just describe uh we we don't have concerns that this is going to be you know leading to an unsafe or uh you know the presence of this driveway is is going to create an unsafe condition okay and Casey I know you mentioned in the response that if you flip it then you're kind of putting the build the car wash closer to the residen MH one of the things I was noticing as I was reading through this though is that if the site were mirrored and flipped the building might also potentially act as a sound buffer from the vacuum components between the the res residence and so I started with the building on the top side um when I first Drew up a concept for this client and when they went back through their um operations and like an operational review of how the facility would function they didn't like that an entrance on the southern side would be or sorry the page southern side uh would be required to then take a leftand turn into basically get into a parking lot area and then up and around um to where the vacuums would be whereas essentially the drive-thru would go straight but if for some reason here it's kind of easier too yeah so the current current operation would be anybody coming in can take this immediate right-hand turn right if for some reason um it were flipped they would have to take a leftand turn which could be blocked off by outgoing traffic causing traffic jams at the entrance meaning that the operation circulation wouldn't work efficiently um so while I did start with that after operational review they basically requested that we find any other way to make the entr entrance movements be right-hand turn okay okay is there a is there a fence at all like a there's an existing fence yeah um what kind of fence Stockade sorry Stockade Fence I believe it's 8T but it could be six I believe it's on the um residential property the jumps for crossing property okay and can we have a do we have a limitation on when the vacuums can be run like operation what are the doing traffic right now not under zoning we don't regulate hours of operation under zoning to regulate noise you you could you could include it as a as a condition the hours yeah and I think I think they provided hours of operation seven is that it in the sum it's 7 to s in the winter and 7 to eight in the um summer and that includes the the vacuums yeah same time okay I thought I thought we did yeah I thought I had heard that the vacuums could be used 20 4 S no there's going to be no attendant on the site okay okay so ours any more traffic questions to what's sir any more traffic questions we got the beta guy anyone else have anything else for traffic I don't okay so we can say good night to Dennis thank you very very much thank you Dennis thank you thank you still okay so now we have I believe next up a public hearing on this development unless there's anything else we need to do first no open itam I actually I will update you that we went to concom last night um and just briefly one of there I do have some operation and maintenance um items to work out with the commission but one of their Quest last night was why there was no Landscaping along that rear burm that goes down to the Wetland um and just to address that all the Landscaping we did was mostly for Aesthetics and to replace trees that we were taking down um we wanted to dress up the facility um one of their requests was if we could add trees back there it could help um buffer noise from 495 and whatnot um and speaking I spoke today with my landscape architect and because that's a steep slope it wouldn't be able to accommodate trees that would ever get big enough to buffer noise what we could propose there would be kind of lowl Shrubbery or kind of grasses that would hold together the slop so they're their function would mostly be slope stabilization but it wouldn't really do anything for noise um so really as far as the function of creating a buffer for noise we wouldn't be able to do anything on the about fencing fencing along the rear for for noise along for 495 is about 400 ft behind the site no I know I grew up know when you take down a tree it really does affect theise level in the neighborhood I know this for a fact and so that is a concern is the noise from you know that's those trees in there now are protecting most of that neighborhood from 495 noise so that we just need to try to figure out how we can help that so I we could propose a fence along the rear driveway um that would go kind of I guess it would replace the railing that we have along the the retaining wall in the back and then just run it along the um kind of along that rear driveway going straight across the site if that would be something that you believe um with the issue of you know Pest and you know how we were talking about chemicals being stolen another barrier might be nice to to protect the water how many trees are coming down 58 and how many are are you planning on planting uh between trees and shrubs 183 you're taking 58 down and how many trees are you planting trees with going up are the big ones between the landscape buffers would be 20 and then shrubs 163 or yeah sorry that's correct 163 you have break down trees to shrubs trees to proposed yeah yeah yeah trees 20 shrubs 63 and we we've lined the majority of the trees along the required buffers the 30 foot side yard buffer and then the 10-ft front uh against chord Street I'd be okay with that fence in the back to help it may help there are more trees down towards the waterway that they're not touching it doesn't help some the from some not going to help anything it won't help at all no because the highway is higher and the fence is only going to be 6 or 8 ft it's going to come right over it but also there is still 400 ft of wooded Wetlands Riverfront area that go to the highway so while we're taking down 58 trees there's still an entire woodlands and Forest behind the site that is still going to remain untouched and you've got some trees in the front of the property too right it's based per the requirement on the the landscape requirements and the building okay okay we'll never Sol the I would uh like to invite the public people have been waiting a long time I won't be long hi my name is Joanne Anderson I'm a Precinct 6 town meeting representative and I live on Evergreen Street which is off of Chelmsford Street Street near Dalton Road um I looked over this as much as I could anyways I was wondering can you guys bring up appendix a appendix a is in appendix a what what document traffic yes and the reason I'm asking for that is because I noticed it's it's like towards the beginning I noticed that where they did that it's a weekday total and no weekend total and I also noticed that your peer reviewer said less people drive on 110 it keep it's towards the beginning of it like keep going uh the appendix B keep going oh that down one there you are so you can see how this says specifically time period weekday and between the hours of like 9 a.m. and if you go down further to about 700 p.m. it's greater than 7% I know all of us first of all it's only a weekday they didn't do a Saturday I'd really like to see what a Saturday would look like for traffic because all of us live in this town and I don't know about you but I can't take a left out of my street on a Saturday I basically have to take a right onto Cher Street and I usually go all the way down to 49 9 5 to get onto Route three because to take a left out of my street on a weekend and sometimes even during the week especially in the afternoon is near impossible but the taking a left doesn't matter cu the car wash is to my right on cheler street but I just noticed that I would like to see a weekend traffic because I don't totally don't agree with the person who saying there'd be less traffic on Saturday what street did you say you I live on Evergreen which is right where if you're on chelsford street and right where Dalton road is mine's the little street right like you take a sharp right to get on down mine Street or a lesser right to go down Dalton road so I'm not in front of or by the car wash per say I'm like a half a mile back closer to Market Basket closer to Mark closer to Market Basket okay thank you um so I mean just looking at that I was I was surprised that they didn't take a weekend and I was looking at the numbers of that shw in Marboro or wherever it was and the peak ones where they had numbers of like 400 I would really hope we don't have a day where there'd be 400 extra cars on 110 I did notice that you know they've already you guys have already brought it up that route 9 is not comparable to 110 completely different roads and people do take rights and lefts onto 110 people can't take rights and lefts on to Route 9 it's a different type of street so and I think the other big thing is that needs to be brought up has has nothing to do with traffic but we're all being told that our sewage is maxed out how did we take into consideration the water and sewage use of a car wash that is within what a mile of two other car washes that's that's my other thought and that's all I have okay thank you thank you anyone else good evening uh my name is Bob Myers I live at uh 7 Pine Hill Avenue which is kind of a Stones throw away from the gas station which is next to the proposed Car Wash um I saw a a picture of the proposed structure and it seems to have a four-sided Tower attached to the building is that correct do you know the height of that Tower off the top of my head I don't I have it up I don't see any measurements if we if we look at it could we estimate about 40t 28 28 ft I guess okay so 35 has to be under 35 by Zone okay so it's taller than a taller than a single family home by a certain amount no no no about the same height they take the mean of the so it's 35 ft it's the mean so there's roofs in town that are higher than 35 ft and there's some that are less than 35 ft okay and this one is 28 just guessing I'm guessing find out 25.7 thank you um will there be lighted signs uh near the top of that Tower structure just the the logo of the will that be on all sides just we sh okay so one side of the car wash facing the uh gas station or facing away from the gas station facing the uh Highway 495 or facing 110 Crossing facing the uh the elderly complex okay thank you um I'm looking at the structure it's it's it's very modern in design some would say unappealing uh that's a matter of taste um I've noticed that in in some towns when you look at a a structure like the gas station it's you know early 1960s it's kind of ugly you know the era of leisure suits and whatnot I've noticed a lot of towns have kind of put the kibos on that kind of construction that they've required more traditional looking structures and you can tell the difference when you drive into a town that's restricted modern architecture this is the third version We we've sent them back three times to come up with this and we are pretty much all in agreement that this is acceptable you should have seen the first one yeah you I think I did see the first one because the the tower looked taller and had a flat roof it was rounded it was like a half yeah no one was on flat one was flat that was okay so I must have looked at one of the prior what we asked them to do is to try to match maybe like the Jean do credit union look is what we were looking for right we actually picked that building out so this was a compromise already okay thank you um okay um with regard to the water usage um I'm trying to figure out the difference between the water usage and the sewer usage I'm I'm seeing a th000 gallons per day thrown about and then 2700 gallons per day I don't know which is water usage or which one is sewer usage I would have thought they would both be kind of the same be 2700 2700 okay and I believe um Mr fera mentioned at the um the Conservation Commission meeting last night that town of Chelmsford as a whole has has 9,000 gallons per day available approximately few mons ago okay does and that's for the entire town of Chelmsford our excess capacity is 9,000 gallons per day is that correct I don't think the planning boy is going to be able to answer that question don't have that I don't have they don't the planning boy doesn't control the uh Wastewater system or flows that are provided to any particular development would you would you agree that the Conservation Commission number presented of 9,000 gallons per day is approximately correct likely to be correct yeah so it seems like we're devoting about 1 the3d of our entire Town's available sewage capacity to this one car wash project it's it's 9,000 after this project and the all the others you've heard tonight and that 9,000 based on Christine L's presentation of the select board may go up or down fluctuates fluctuate depending on how much sewer capacity they can keep reclaiming based on their their work okay so would it be fair to say that one quarter of the town's capacity will be used up by this project no no no no that's not right 3,000 gallons per day out of 15,000 gallons or 12,000 gallons per day of current availability assuming the 9,000 is what's left over after the 3,000 per day I don't think I don't think the N9 is the starting point for this project the number was higher when this project 22 I I don't recall 22,000 comes in my head right now and that's my point is that the numbers Chang she wasn't even clear on that yeah I know the numbers changing because they're continuing to look for infiltration that they can have catch Bas that work and in any case that's really outside of our jurisdiction yeah yeah so to the town cannot pick and choose right um they can't res Reserve capacity for particular projects come in if capacity is available yeah that's that's the answer really no no one point maybe about four years ago chumford was already at sewage capacity we've been up and down we've been we've been yeah we're at capacity I mean that's not I mean we're it varies but basically on the rainfall lately yeah see an infiltration with the high uh rainfall that's where we're exceeding our output then when it's dry we're trying to mitigate that now different than yeah now I thought our sewers and storm drains were separate pipes they are they are they are there's but there but there's infiltration is what they're thinking and they're going to do a smoke test as a whole thing that if you if you were to reach out to the DPW yeah they can explain a lot better than I can really know okay we go based on the dpw's recommend ation for storm water capacity so if they approve it it's okay for storm water and water but uh sewer capacity so we don't have we don't consider those questions okay so so the estimates of how much sewer capacity we do or do not have can't be answered here correct so we're somewhere between zero capacity available and 20,000 gallons per day yes that's we we look to DPW to tell us if there's capacity for a price okay for an entire municipality having in excess of 20,000 gallons sounds like we're at capacity we don't we don't permit based on that that's outside of our jurisdiction I understand your point yeah and I I listened to a some presentation just the other day uh actually was uh is the uh Tuesday select select board explained it and it was you know it depends on how much rainfall you got that much that month whether we're over or under it's really quite remarkable that do we have that much infiltration yes we do and it turns out it's largely through the manholes and some pumps and some pump so there's a program right now say a commercial development is over their capacity they can buy into a program and that money is being used to go fix the issues that pumps like some pumps and catch basins and the smoke test I think we're off yeah but that's that's a little bit of the answer for you okay so we are going to open up a new water intensive business in town just down the street from another car wash seems like we've got that's yeah kind of a lot of car washes piling we don't developments we don't pick them developments are brought to us for permitting and we assess their appropriateness with regards to zoning code understood um the planning board also takes an interest in the development of the Town overall quality of life of the Town traffic all of these things are under your consideration so I hope you take my comments and uh absolutely consider that when well that's that's where we start fiddling with the zoning bylaws yeah which is our kind of our other hat yeah so now that we are making exceptions for this lot which was single family zoned residential changed years ago to a mixed zoned it zoned commercial I believe C single family was not supposed to be there I'm meeting wanted commercial development there okay so I think I've brought up everything that I have to say thank you for your consideration thank you good evening La Meers 7 Pine Hill Avenue um after listening after reading the traffic report and and listening to the presentation I feel like it is a disservice to the Westlands neighborhood you know the competing you know the the competing exits and entrance for the car wash and the daycare if if there was no traffic on Route 110 and they were the only people trying to get out that would be one thing there is constantly traffic on Route 110 not only that there's there's no sidewalk on the daycare side so the parents who live in the neighborhood and walk to get their kids have to maneuver across a a a lawn onto 110 and now they're going to be competing with the car is coming in and out of the car wash and the in the additional traffic on Route 110 so I think there should be another traffic study it should also take into account the accidents on Route 129 in in on Golden Cove on stemman Street in Route 110 the emergency calls over to the hotel multiple emergency emergency calls same thing with the Assisted Living I went over sorry same thing with what the assisted living there are many emergency calls over to the Assisted Living um um I think the thing that really stands out to me I spoke about some issues uh with hazardous waste in planning that I know Casey is working on um at the the concom meeting um but I think the other thing that stands out is the trees you know I get this has to be placed on this you know the size of this lot but the trees is coming down and I understand they're trying to work on that but you know when you take down 58 trees and that that's a busy highway behind there and it's loud and we still have to live there you know I get this is a byright business but come on it's two highways Bas you know it's it's loud so whatever that whatever can be done to protect that neighborhood um would be greatly appreciated I don't think I have anything else let me look at my uh my notes here that's I I I do think I'm going to close with I do think there should be another traffic study um and to look at that you know that rout 110 area as a whole and I I just don't think the one that was done is adequate thank you Debbie Deary pring six um I live at 197 Street and I did get a letter as being in the but I listened to the traffic I I don't know what to say I had lived there for 49 years and it was strange the other day after the last meetings I remembered that we had a town clerk that was in that intersection of 110 a turny and someone went through a red light coming from 110 where this car wash is supposed to be and I thought about it because I was in the left lane to turn on this stemon state and I had a green light but there was a car coming and the light I was already in the intersection and I looked and the car the light turned red and there I was with no place to go it flew and that reminded me about the town clerk that was in that intersection that got pushed from that intersection to the onramp of 495 she died by the way was town clerk at the time and it reminded me of that because I was praying and every day I come home in my driveway although I didn't say it the last time I say a prayer and I say thank you God for getting in this driveway because they we have more trucks than ever in our area when they were doing the river right no project I went to those meetings I don't live on that street the only one that lives down there is my husband at Pine Ridge to be honest with you but I went to those meetings because when they were started talking about warehouses I said it will affect my area it affects all of Chums not one area of Chums it all of Chums it That Daycare Center my grandson from years ago he's now 19 he was young my daughter was stuck on mot three she said ma will you go after corner I said I said it's 10 minutes or 6 I said I'll be lucky if I get there do you know it took me 10 minutes from my house and I live at the bottom of St Street to get to a daycare center that I could throw a I see all night the lights are on all night long in that daycare I could throw Rock but I couldn't cuz of the fence so I had to get in the C and you know that's how bad it is in our area that intersection I remember one day not long after the riverneck road there was at least 20 Engineers standing at the intersection of 110 in Golden Cove they were all standing there with hard hats looking at the intersection now where is that information how many accidents about 15 years ago I was doing research for the area we had the larges from chumford Street and L where the underpass is to the right into the center on 110 that was the second largest traffic area for accidents in the town of chela and the number one was Drum Hill now I don't think things have changed that much but I'll tell you when you sit there and the lights yellow and they're coming down because that's one thing you haven't mentioned it's a slope coming down it's a small hill coming down they fly they're not going to wait for the next green light and I know it I live it every single day and there's certain times of the day I try not to even leave my house because this they want to let you out of the traffic and when you try to get into your driveway I put my direction on two others prior to you don't have any choice and they slam on their horns they're mad at me because I live there it really is kind of comical you know you s to say okay but I live here that is a bad intersection it is I think they it's a class 7even is that what they called it in the traffic study like the worst possible intersection then and they are studying it right now I believe well somebody should be there there's a state study going on right now to to resolve the issues at that intersection correct in combination with a new light at the off-ramps yeah there there's going to be changes coming yes well that off fre like that was supposed to be done about six or seven years ago but they never got around to it I was aware of that also yeah there's there's a new study going on because it's just backed up on 495 they just put a rotary in Lexington if you drive to Lexington now uh they they like rotaries just put it that way they like rotaries and they work they work picture of rotary just like Drum Hill we get we get your general point it's very D the problem is is that in your mind how do you explain to someone we're putting people's lives in Danger tonight around dinner time it was around 6:30 there was the sirens again and where did they go went to the assist of living I know my in-laws were living at metal Lodge they will not without a police officer there they have to have a police officer there in case they're abused and then you have the fire truck and then you had the ambulance he might father-in-law had slipped on the floor and everybody just showed up and cuz they don't pick them up that's one of the rules and they wanted to take him he said there's nothing wrong I just slipped off the chair he refused to go cuz it was a rug my point is we listen to Sirens all day long and it seems as though the freight trucks that's another thing I law the trucks are not allowed on Chona Street past the underpass to go into the city alone they're not allowed on to continue on to Chon Street the trucks are not allowed on North Road supposedly but they are they're taking Smith Street to get the parur road and then they're Crossing on to North okay not prodive what I'm saying it's not productive to what we're dealing with right all right I'm sorry but we're getting a lot of freight trucks no the select board definitely and we are so I don't have the answers as far as the daycare center goes to pull out of therea to take a left hand turn to go to that intersection I don't know how they going to do it from my kitchen window on Saturday morning the traffic is all stopped going up Chon street thank you Debbie so real quick I just I reached out to all of you uh most of you sorry D I think you're need new answering machine but um I just want to say thank you for everyone who called me back um Evan's been very responsive all of you have so I really appreciate that and I appreciate your time you guys have had some long meetings so thank you thanks thank you you thank you you can ask whatever you want talk that's that's a state road though I do want to clarify a couple things if I could um I just wanted to mention um some of the the comments that were earlier about appendix a I just want to clarify that that wasn't the traffic those were not the traffic counts of that area um that was the trip generation uh counts that are standard from the industry for a car wash uh the traffic counts uh for that area were in the main traffic report um that is a different uh document but um the traffic counts were counted on weekday weekdays um we gave specific times for the morning commute and the daycare pickup and uh the afternoon commute and it was also done on weekends um so it was done on the Saturday as well so I just want to clarify that based on an earlier um and those were like percentages of how it gets used yeah that appendex a is it's like 10% how a car wash is distributed throughout the day as an industry standard it's it wasn't actual counts based on the site all right I just have um a question question for the applicant um just you know something that the neighbors had brought up is it um possible to have them put in a sidewalk on the other side by the um the daycare along that side is there no sidewalk will it connect to an existing sidewalk do we have any that go on said that intersection so dangerous like to like you know connected to like sidewalks on the project side I believe right yes correct we are nothing on the other side you're building a sidewalk on our side and that's a state road right yes correct yeah anything done but can we do something so it connects to stemman and least it's on like the neighborhood side for them they'll be contributing uh it's either 100 or your your new fee um per parking space which the town can then use for Geographic traffic improvements in the area but would we be able to do it on 110 u in partnership with the state you have to do a state study like we're doing up V and we're doing that they're doing that on 110 too right now is that study started the state study 110 she saw 28 Engineers out there yeah that's probably who you saw that was Department of Transportation happens it'll be no the redesign of final square is 5 years schedule so this would be 5 years out but I'm still waiting for my my sound barrier is on 495 which they approved in 1988 so I'm like I don't know like we wait for them to figure this out so it might be worth noting as well that after or if we receive local approvals we do still have to permit through the state for our curb cut and for any actions that we're going to take within the right of way um so there is still an opportunity for input from the state for what they'd like to see within their right of way we can't just propose things within their right of way without and see if they're studying that area right now that would help they are are you able to propose to them things that propose sidewalks on the opposite side yes on the neighborhood side the last time I attempted something similar to that they shot it down because there was no valid or safe connections either across the street or directly connecting to it that's why I asked if there was any sidewalks so I believe the Sidewalk Ends at the intersection with stemman so there's where it wraps around 110 I believe there's a sidewalk that starts for stemman there I could be wrong but so that would be where we would have to go to like that would be let me tell you know um I see people standing that intersection is deadly like I no cross like no one should be Crossing it to get it's not the applicant's fault or anybody else's fault yeah but yeah it's just the layout of the highways um do we have anyone else from the public that wanted to speak and if not um I we'll take a motion what are we doing at this point traffic presumably traffic was the last item everything else seemed to be resolved I don't we don't really have a sense as to whether traffic is resolved the only reason you would close the public hearing is if you believe you have all the relevant information you need to make an informed decision based upon your uh zoning uh Provisions if you choose to continue the hearing you need a you need to articulate what additional information if any you need from the applicant I think based on what I remember yesterday from concom they're still open pending updates to the onm and longterm prevention plan weren't they going to work on that off yeah so I actually saw Peter offline today they left it where they're going to they keep the hearing open so that they can review the decision while the hearing is open this board also seems to have a similar so if you want to keep the hearing open but everything seems to be resolved you're not asking for any more information well I guess asking staff to draft a draft a decision that makes sense we need I have a point of clarification that I'd like to make which I think it's a very good point and I don't I I guess I have to go back with a closer eye to the traffic study about whether and to what extent the um the specific nature of the surrounding structures was considered specifically emergency vehicle volumes to the Assisted Living the hotel I doubt I doubt you can't do that I doubt the emergency emergency vehicles go to Every home in this town random and you cannot put a study to against how many I mean just because there there's a assisted living facility that's a neighbor here that should not impact okay I that's my opinion I I would agree with I agree with Mike totally based on what I've been reading about the it traffic stuff and the traffic engineer can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that type of data would exist yeah probably wouldn't I mean I don't think there any this is a bad this is a this whole area is tough traffic yeah and in the way I look at the way this business is going to operate the way I get a car wash it's spur the moment yeah I don't plan to go to the myself I'm just talking for myself I'm already on the road I'm just pulling in getting a car wash and getting out of right so like trip generation I don't know if they even take that into account I don't know I'm different though I actually like plan it like yes everybody's different everybody's different I get impulse item for me Mon and I gonna go ahead and jump in on the emergency access it sounds as though the issue is concern for emergency access Vehicles accessing places that have have a call into them uh and by rules of the road everybody should be yielding to those anyway so regardless of how many calls there are um that's going to be more of an Enforcement issue and I honestly that's the one thing that I think still in Massachusetts Works traffic wise um is people pulling over there's enough width on chelsford road with the shoulders um that as long as both sides go and anyone who's done like you've watched them go they they'll go up the middle if they need to so I think in terms of emergency response time and the impact that the car wash is going to have to emergency response time um along this Corridor I I do not think that that's a concern based on right on on the actual rules of the road um the way that emergency response responds the fact that they are big trucks they have Sirens they they honk they let it they make it very clear that you should be out of the way now yeah I mean traffic studies you can go okay I think we ought to close it and vote okay second um take a motion we got to close the public hearing okay you want to move that so I would rather keep it open until next meeting when we see the um onm plan and the long-term ution prevention only to have the decision written up so that you can still review the decision oh then so we'll be ready to go next time that's what they're doing we should do the same thing yeah exactly yeah I get it that's that's kind of what I was thinking no that's the right way for our decision no no no they separate all separate right they just want to make sure that you won't have future changes that's going to then affect them yeah put the copy for the horse so we have to uh continue so we would continue to next meeting but start drafting the decision necessarily have to do that no we can if we wish and we have done this before uh vote to close this vote on the item and then approve the draft when we get it as action I don't doing that well that's we've done it it's been done that way on this board for many many years we're all voting members I I I tend to agree with Mike um we have a full board right now it could change that's all I'm saying you know what I mean yeah we want to close as much as we can but until we see the last draft of the OM andm plan and the long-term pollution we think there's anything that's going to come out of that that would change there might be change any of our minds that's all I'm going to ask oh no it's it's not about changing Minds it's about making sure that we have the language correct because if we if we want to discuss it we can't with a closed hearing well I mean especially if you're working through if you're working through your conditions and then you realize you have a question which which is not not unexpected because you're going through details like you hadn't gone through them before for the decision if you have a question you need to ask somebody you've closed the hearing then you either have to open it for that particular question which which you can't do without posting posting I know you guys are good but I kind of I kind of rely on conom anyway with in in this regard what we're talking about right now right yeah um because that's our biggest concern is the water right a member on concom who believes that the car wash is a higher potential for problems to stor water and that's why he's asking he's the one that asked for the purs per peruse the onm plan and customize it but for this project and for a couple others we've provided some input to the onm plan as have they yeah so until we see what it is and the problem with if we close it tonight I'm sure we're see the on M plan we would have to reopen the hearing which we can't do spur the moment we would have to post it again you can close the public hearing part of it and then leave our hearing still open for just our conversation as a board we're done taking public input you're allowed to deliberate allow to deliberate and so we make a decision but we can't ask questions correct yeah un that's my that's my point and it has happened on a few occasions where the applicant you know did was asked and and applicant responded when the public hearing had been closed I just want to try to avoid void that I think all right what do we have a motion to continue the public hearing maybe make a motion to continue the public hearing till April 10 should be quick so we April quick second all in favor I may I suggest also that we ask for a draft decision yes yes yeah and because we may be able to just wrap that all up in one shot good thank you very much everybody to us yes and then I'm assuming we'll get the draft on M and longterm as soon as it's ready I asked Peter let me know as soon as he was available so waiting on that availability thanks when's the Conservation Commission meeting the nth and our meeting is on the eth or it's on 10th 10th but we have another meeting on the eth we got eight nine and 10 yeah yeah we got a busy week I'm supposed to be skiing they got a foot of snow and I'm I'm going to be down here maybe you won't get elected and you won't have to go don't say that pass the buck okay especially the M what's that adus adus okay so I I asked for this to be put on the agenda I mean from the select board meeting the other night y I was first under the impression that was going to be a joint meeting where we we discussing the bylaw that's what I thought and uh and learning more about it they were expecting a report from us on a decision one way or the other Ys it works out it works out we had a meeting we haven't had a meeting yet all right so we can discuss now we need to discuss this and then uh make a recommendation to the select board coming out of this meeting tonight okay so that we can as a combined boards reach out to our politicians amongst other things my biggest concern is the Home Ownership part of it that's that's the biggest owner's private uh homeowner property that's fine and then you can rent it to whoever you want but as long as you're on that property so I have a question on it good I'm sorry so you're saying right now it's not the way it's written right now there's no Home Ownership yeah the fear is developer comes in buys a single family builds the second house moves out and rents them both we're not the only Community backlash they're going to get a lot of letters put well people don't know about it that's my concern right and this is for every single so maybe we could promulgate our combined letter to the different than MBT yeah yeah I think so maybe we promulgate our combined letter to the little Andor the Boston Globe or we're not writing the letter our letter our recommendations going on select Bo the chairman of the SL board is sending she's we can write a joint letter we can also as a planning board reach out to every other planning board to inform them of this I they should know what's coming by now pretty can we can we ask the um that they know someone from the public to come up and talk not yet I got some questions about the actual bylaw okay so can let's talk about that yes so it talks in here about accessory dwelling unit on the first page of whatever this attachment is because this is not really formally the bylaw that's like definitions I think under under the definition it says page it says subject to otherwise app applicable dimensional and parking requirements so does that fall under the town setbacks yeah yes another structure in sidey setbacks it would either be based upon existing or newly adopted if the if the article if the bill passes and it becomes law the town would have the ability to adopt um reasonable regulations specific to ad so we would change our setbacks you could yes here's here's the fundamental question no it says right here would not changing any setbacks be considered reasonable no given how the state's been acting aboutta answer to that no but here's the thing right it's a minimum lot size of 5,000 there the reason why we have that so how how could like our setbacks that we have for an acre lot work for 5,000 sare foot well they wouldn't you couldn't do something that's what but and I'm I'm afraid of an argument that says okay that makes it unreasonable where our setbacks were reasonable before the law passed that's what I'm I worry about here right like first of all every town we already have have Adu zoning in each town right like to some degree yeah we all have it we can add more to it we can I mean l last year you know put it up and and went up to vote and they got put down by the citizens Alone Now can be Standalone unit now though that's the difference I get it but we like it's Town zoning it's like we're elected by the residents this town connection and the fact that to me the fact that the state is telling how each Town should be like I don't think right you still have to um correct me if I'm wrong how many how many actual Lots would get affected by this in your estimate I sent I sent out out some data of the 9500 single families I don't know worst cases maybe half would be would be um in what part of town would that be typically like we're not talking Westland right anything like anything 30 and more 30,000 ft and more is definitely yeah so some of our larger but that's assuming our current setbacks and and restrictions hold if the state has an exception with that like they did with our development I was at the meeting and I thought that they it was still subject to all of our local zoning setbacks well it is but they have to be reasonable but the it's the reason Reon we voted on them but so is our developer agreement until they said it wasn't so the other question Town voted on it's got to be reasonable so setbacks is one thing in my mind right the current setbacks are very reasonable the town where to choose to apply new setbacks because detached adus are would be permitted at that point then the change between existing setbacks and what whatever the planning board recommends the town meeting to specifically regulate detached adus depending upon uh the zoning analysis the size of the lot the state could the state could determine that those are unreasonable yeah but Evan they could also determine our current dimensions are unreasonable with the new law the new ones I think are like 10 feet I mean they're and again they don't really apply directly to adus they apply to detach structures so like garages VI have a three-car garage or a twocc car garage in some doning District it's a 10ft setback but our the adus could be so we have a problem with that part of the law too then yeah what about pre I I guess I'm unclear also about what about pre-existing non-conforming so say I had a three-car garage that was pre-existing it's non-conforming and I wanted to make it an Adu mhm under the state law you'd likely be allowed to do that I think so yeah yeah so how many there are a few places Carriage Barns and stuff that that how many yeah I think we should focus on too on asking the select board if we work together with them is to to contact all the state reps because it bothers me that especially that one State Rep from a neighboring suburb that represents a piece of chumford um did not consult with anyone outside their town just because Westford voted to up the square footage for an Adu that's fine for Westford the Westford solution might not fit for trumpf and you think if you think about what Anita said just think of that last year LOL a very large city in the Commonwealth had the same debate and they did not feel it was right for them and that's an urban area yeah they fought it yeah no you got a good point I did meet with that rep at the the the meeting and uh I see where they're going with it it's just the way they're going about it yeah is the issue yeah but from the select pool the other night talking with the attorney Town attorney he thinks that this may be voted on by July one it's being fast-tracked yeah the town manager uh indicated today I think he received uh correspondence from a select board member uh that the next hearing on this bill is Tuesday yeah so it's there's a possibility they could vote on it Tuesday I don't know if it's the final vote it is a public hearing uh uh the manager was not able to find any documentation on the state's website of the hearing but I believe it was confirmed through a select board member that the next hearing is this Tuesday could Virginia clarify she's in the back you mind coming up and talk do you would are you interested in providing us with additional information about the timeline so um Virginia Timmons 28 love at Lane I'm the vice chair of the select board this all happened shortly before your meeting started tonight um but we um received communication from representative Elliott that the joint committee for Capital assets and bonding is having their hearing on the house bonding bill which includes the adus on Tuesday from 1: to 5: and it looks like they're closing public comment at 5: um under somebody mentioned the July time frame under the normal time frames um my understanding is that typically as bills go through the house Ways and Means through the ways and means committees it goes through the house in the May time frame through the senate in the June time I'm sorry house in the April time frame Senate and the May time frame Committee in the June time frame and that's kind of what gets you to the July Mark when it when the bill passes it sounds like they might be trying to accelerate the timeline for this bill and push it through all those house ways and mean steps um sooner rather than later so um I don't know any more details right now representative Elliot was going to try to get some clarification on the timelines for the House and Senate Ways and Means and whether they would be accepting public input and he's going to get back to manager Cohen tomorrow on that um and uh we are just trying to figure out whether we need to accelerate writing of a letter to get into the Tuesday um the Tuesday process with the can people Capital assets and bond public comment can we speak at the public comment I'm going to go yeah anybody can go I think it's important that we show up like I think people need to there's also I asked representative Elliot if they would be doing that taking comment um virtually and he's going to check on that too to see if there'll be a link or if you have to be there in person were you paying attention to the meeting who was the lady that was an assistant to the governor from Salem Mass what was her name do you remember in the lieutenant governor was it the no she was at our meeting I don't think we had the lieutenant governor there at our meeting that that thing we went to about this with rero rero oh do you remember I I guess I could figure that out I don't remember yeah that was the Nim Cog housing strategy meeting yeah but there was a lady from Salem that was a proponent for this directly with the governor that did it in Salem that would but they did but their their versionen you had to be uh is the lieutenant C she was the mayor of Salem yeah so this is so that was the lady that was talking um but she they left in that you had to be a homeowner you had to be over occupied in her version so she brings it to the state and then she changes it completely even for her town you know what I mean what she already did at her town so what made her change that's my question I don't know and I don't want to inappropriately get involved in your deliberations either so but yeah I just so Lieutenant that's that's what I know right now in terms of the timeline thank you possible that we may try to do a emergency meeting on Monday to get a letter together for Tuesday but we're still waiting so we should try and come up with a position if we can in the next I think we've kind of stated it we so when I go can I say I'm with Chums planning board or I can't what if I go to meeting call this lady out because no one's called her out about 10 minutes you'll be able to when you guys finish your deliberations and take a vote yeah yeah first let's take a vote on what what our position is so does anyone want to try and articulate our position for us I can yeah so in general in addition to being opposed to the general approach that the state is taking on this um Fast Dragon we are also opposed to some specific issues as aspects of the proposed law the fact that it I think that it is no longer needing to be attached is one concern that it no longer needs to be owner OCC owner occupied either dwelling needs to be owner occupied and that the family aspect has been removed sadly I think it's a done deal because every town in the state is have has the same reaction we're having okay I I don't I think that we might want to try and focus our attention on what aspect is most egregious to us all three all three because I don't mind the family one because I don't think that's going to I I think that that's that train left the station people were skirting that for years for years people you know the definition of family is very fuzzy here's my thing again if we look at what the letter that they wrote here right I mean I don't know why we can't can't just copy something to what they've written like I have an issue with the state mandating anything to us quite frankly period that's they' that's as far as I'm concerned yes they can right but that's just oh like the reaching like focus on state issues focus on infrastructure structure focus on help us with our SE getting jobs here then we'll talk about you know you coming into our our purview of how we want our towns made like I fundamentally have a problem with that period we have zoning we can we can address if if we want to add additional adus we can address it we can address how we like it how we want we do need to address this specific legislation so we don't we don't we don't approve of the fast tracking we think there should be much more opportun for input um from the communities and the stakeholders and the citizens um and we don't agree with the with the resending of the of the requirement for at least one of the units to be owner occupied um because that's going to that's going to be the thing that has the most impact in terms of precipitating development so you'll have two rentals on a property yeah and it'll be owned by Black Rock of somebody you know what I mean some P cuz that's what's to me those are the those are the two main things and if we could get them to make it be owner occupied I think it would and and and maybe request that there be better um better clarification about what reasonable requirements are because it makes us uneasy that those that those stipulations are as yet the state come in here and Zone you know CB then they're going to come in and do CB and then they'll do RB residential single family specifically trying to fix housing which they're not doing it the right way but they are trying to address a specific problem I way doing it is incorrect not not consistent with modern capitalism there is no way to do it they would right there's a whole bunch of way to address it you can also stimulate companies going out to Worcester up to L up to can't believe a lot of politicians on Beacon Hill need to get in a car and go beyond 495 because the answer to this isn't to destroy the suburbs in the meramac valley there's plenty of land plenty of trees and Economic Opportunity yeah western Mass on in Central Mass get a bus and they need it some of them need it pretty badly y okay but what can we how what what can we do that is like come down the state house with me come with you do it concise and has some hope of having an impact kick I liked all the things that you articulated about the home ownership and the the um the home ownership the feed yeah well let's let's take those particular points let's make sure that the uh select board is aware of them which I'm quite sure they are Virginia I I would like to add the the family component and the detached component yeah yeah I definitely detach I don't want detach right every it's not you know people want um an office too so this is going to serve a couple things right people are working from home they can't work with the dog and the kid run around but an Adu is not an office but they they'll use it as as something like that you know what I mean so okay so so this is a full apartment the way the the regulation is I know it's going to have cooking and everything but it it'll be used in a bunch of different ways it'll be used as a rental something like what um Senator Kennedy wrote here like it's vague enough that just it pretty much says like you know we already have this other towns are responding right now guarantee right inclusive of sleeping cooking and sanitary facilities it's not an office right that is not an office part true true but it could be used as a self contained housing unit like I think a a simple sentence it says we're you know not in favor of this period no Anita they're going to ignore that they need not if they get enough of them from enough towns but they're not going to stop this but they may make a change they may make right but we have to we have to you might not want to shoot for the sky because they've already thought about this so maybe just the owner occupied and focus on that why focus on one thing if they're mult multiple things wrong with it give them the full list of what's wrong with it and if we get one of them great but we should be the key is ver uh verbal testimony the written testimony gets lost in it get lost yeah they'll hear it's a it's effective um advocacy organized advocacy for you know for revisions okay so we don't have a we don't have a plan that we want to give to the select board I think you've icul yeah well we still are stuck on are we going to list everything or are we going to pick up the we think are the most important things well they may want to list all those anyway they have at a minimum they're all General maybe you highlight you highlight one in particular I like to highlight the owner occupancy but I think you include them all yeah I think we include them all and highlight emphas emphasis on the on the owner occupancy feature needs to be required e EI it could be in the little one I don't care sure within the context of political compromise you know if if the if the municipalities are able to get their message across that requiring ownership is the top priority well maybe there I mean that's going to be the most detrimental but the other things are going to hurt too yeah it's not it's just not clear at this point if the state's acknowledging the opposition and and looking for some political compromise if they are in most Suburban communities prioritize ownership as as their as their compromise in exchange for allowing detached and and doing away with family relationship there may there may be a win-win or a solution yeah I don't think we get there without listing them all yeah I think we do yeah but it's it's going to come down it's going to come down to who who's participating at those public hearings so J are you gonna send will you let us know if this can be done virtually if we can provide comments they going to limit it till 5 o' you said there's a lot of communities involved yeah so um we're when we find out I can make sure that shared with this can you send it to us yeah thank you sure okay are we done okay um do we have any liaison reports that haven't already been given in another context no nope okay the plan bumps off another are you getting that to the select board I will send an email uh did you highlight a particular one yes own owner occupied list list them all that's fine no new business I hope no new business I move to a Jour do we have any agendas any agenda uh not agendas um minutes no I know Becky was frantically working on the five hour meeting one she did not make the uh the deadline she has my sympathy oh my God I feel like before we awful yeah wasn't bad we go run screaming out the door convene in another iteration of this board um we I I it's kind of laid into the game I guess now because the election's next week but I really feel like we should need to make a effort about the outstanding minutes as you well as you know your your tradition of the planning board minutes is more detailed than less detail and your recent discussions have been very technical in nature so those minutes take a long time but weren't weren't you talking with your guys were going to try and hire someone to help with that uh there was talk of that that has not happened the most recent talk has been um exploring AI just I was just say AI yeah so there is a there's a company they got to control any there's a company that's specializing in an AI program or system for municipalities huh and um the town has met with them and tested the system um but it's not it's it's a still beta it's not ready to go yet be an AI planning board well can you give us an update on that maybe so we ever going to vote on the last motion I seconded it I'll all in favor e e for