it's not anything good only the only thing is that started here I went there I went there chair no I didn't move that chair what's the 22nd the chair went to there uh yeah I think so she left it e 30 reels begin I'm going to open the meeting of the chumford planning board this May 22nd um person suant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this meeting will be conducted in person and as a courtesy via remote means in accordance with the applicable ww law please note that well an option for remote attendance and participation is provided as a courtesy this meeting will not be suspended or terminated if technological PRS interrupt the virtual Brad broadcast unless required by law also this meeting will be televised live by Chums tele media and will be available on demand um at for a future viewing pleasure we're going to open with um public input um items that are not on our planning board but are within the jurisdiction of the planning board um are available to be discussed in this public input session so there is a gentleman that's on that was just could introduce himself again thank you uh my name's Doug Chandler uh 47 AUST away our chumford and uh I'm the the chumford rep to the milx canal commission for the milx canal commission an association and the mass do and uh an HW group called The friends of rail trails and top Pats are working on the idea of getting a couple of short uh multi-use Trails bike paths uh established in the in the area of L that would that would connect up dead end Trails uh that that all kind of come into L and and and die here uh Bruce frean rail trail is beautiful until you get uh under route three and you're into L and then it's coming along as far as Target but then it kind of ERS out and each stepped to right around city streets there's a a trail that that comes up from Al wife and uh the conquered Reformatory and stuff like that that that uh goes up through Bill Ricket called Yankee Doodle and they're working on that over there um sir all is this is this pertaining to an issue that's under our jurisdiction and it's not clear to me that it is ah okay I was going to ask if if when when the um when the 191 River Neck is reopened I was going to ask if uh we could get the the chumford Beek uh to take a part in that and if if you could allow the the BC and to represent this Trail idea as a as an easement in the order of conditions when you start up 191 again okay so I think what you read what you read in the paper it I think it misspoke I believe they're looking for um they're going to go in fromont the slack board in the zba for the 40 B which is what paper discussed so you may want to talk to them because if it's they're going through a 40b that won't come in front of the planning board ah okay well thank you in that case great idea we'll have to we'll have to see if it if you know if these people apply and and uh thank you for that tip and I'll make sure that we get to the right uh board to uh try to get a a short instent across their property which would be a a deal breaker on the on okay thank you very much I'll get off thank you sir thanks all right and just for the record I will um note that Paul is Paul McDougall is on the zoom call um and the rest of us are present other than Joel who is not yet present um the associate member okay um is there anyone else wanting to speak during public input anyone else on the zoom call seeing no one no one um no one on Zoom for public input okay then we will proceed to the to the agenda we're opening with um a request for 199 195 19921 riverneck Road um looking for um an extension of the um statutory time to take final action regarding the definitive subdivision is there someone here from DV River oh and for the record Joel is present it's moving on up I don't see anyone um on Zoom representing uh div either okay um should we wait for them to be here or should we um I can tell you that they uh were provided notice this would be on the uh agenda um they asked for some clarity during the week as to what this agenda item uh meant and what may take place um I don't I expected someone to be here but I think that may did they mention that they were going to be here no they said they would let me know um you can you can certainly table it and give them the benefit of the doubt that they show up or you can take it up as it's on the agenda um well my understanding is they have presented um a definitive subdivision and didn't at the time that they presented it want the public hearing to be opened and now it's a year later so we are in um bringing it Forward up until now the um prior zoning is frozen so they would have an opportunity to request that we extend their frees of the prior zoning as a courtesy to them is that correct uh not exactly the um the submission of the definitive subdivision was the second step in the required step atory process for them to obtain zoning free m uh the fact that the hearing has never opened and the board has not issued a a decision um is the remaining part of that process okay so over the last uh year plus uh they've continued to express a desire not to proceed with the opening of the public hearing uh during that time uh they have been um undergoing an internal process uh to determine next steps um part of that was um uh a request for proposals to purchase uh which took place I think ended last month um and several months ago I engaged with them and told them that we were coming up on a year and I'd like to get this back in front of the planning board uh for the board's formal uh update disc discussion and potential vote so that's what tonight's agenda is the board has uh two choices the board can either continue to Grant the extension basically delaying the opening of the hearing for the definitive subdivision or you can deny the extension which will essentially mean that the planning board is willing and prepared to open that hearing and engage in that review process if you choose the latter then Davis has two choices they can either agree to open the hearing and begin to send representatives and conduct peer review or they can choose to withdraw okay um and wait minute when does that clock start scking it hasn't yet or has no they've they've they've been they've been requesting extensions so the uh the clock the clock has basically been stayed since uh March 30th of last year and that 8 years starts when we approve this or 8 years yes that that's the third and final step in order to achieve the Z approve the yes extension no the subdivision this once the subdivision is approved the zoning is Frozen for eight years right so zoning freeze has not started yet they Reserve their right okay uh by submitting the definitive sub I would like to have a conversation about whether we would like to um grant their requested extension I think at this point their eight years has turned into nine years right and I think it's time to start the hearing uh Mike Walsh no how does this play into isn't this the same site completely issues this is not this two different properties same property property this is not for the so it's not needed for that okay we can open it up and just continue it and start the clock wouldn't be wouldn't be uh opening the hearing tonight it still needs to be legal advertisements and a butter a butter notification we would be voting to deny the extension or to approve the further extension of the stay of zoning freeze yeah so then that would then we'd have to have a post a public hearing and then have a public hearing for what 30 days we would uh where are we uh end of May so by the end of June the he the hearing would be scheduled to to be open okay I would like to get this moving and get it on the agenda for I think we should get it moving I mean they may decide as you said to just pull it too because if they're going down a different path right but we can just clean it up right i m uh I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other I mean I I see no reason to deny it just to bang him over the head with a stick on the other hand I have a feeling that other events are going to bypass this uh and it's all going to be relatively uh minor to irrelevant aren't we voting on the fact to open up the public hearing to discuss it yeah we're voting on not delaying the not further granted them an extension stop but we're we're technically opening up a public we're not denying it and we're not approving the the subdivision today no no absolutely not absolutely not but but what what it does is it forces them to come in sooner rather than later which is not necessarily a bad thing right but they're requesting uh an extension to November at this that seems a little long that's that's the that's the um they're requesting an extens to the end of June to open the hearing and then the November extension is the extension to allow the planning board time to take final action which is C think a definitive subdivision is six months actually it's August for the uh open okay I'm sorry August right so what you're really voting on tonight is the August whether you want to extend this Beyond August or open the hearing prior to August yeah uh my personal opinion I don't support extending it I think it's been as we said others have said it's been over year at this point so okay Paul I agree with joh okay I'll take a motion I'll move that we deny uh second second all in favor all I and Paul Paul and I okay so unanimous um so that will set us up um to open the public hearing at the end of June is that correct Evan I don't have the letter was it was it end of August is that what you said Chris they wanted to extend it to the first meeting in August okay so so I will circle with them update them on the on tonight's vote um and if they so choose to want to proceed with opening the hearing uh then we'll um we'll figure out a date prior to prior to the first meeting in August can we target the end of June yeah yeah yeah okay um no new public hearings and then we have continued public hearings first we're going to table the site plan and special permit rules um it will remain on the agenda and um hopefully we can clean up some of these open public hearings and we can cycle back around to um that agenda item I'll take a motion yeah I will I will move to Grant a continuance on 10 HTH oh no first on the site plan and special permit rules oh okay you're right that probably should be the first one I will second all in favor I Paul forget to mention the names of who's doing the motion second for the AI um the motion was made by Mike raisbeck and the second was Chris lalii um and the previous administrative review uh was Mike R back I uh I moved it it was Mike and Chris both of those were okay next up we have ten Hildreth we have a request from them for a continuance um yeah the letter seem sensible enough I'll move to Grant the Continuum uh when would that be two did they State a date I I think it was next meeting which is June 10 12th can I suggest June 26th sure because the Board of Health is there's a meeting on June 3rd to discuss that topic and I can't imagine yeah that they're going to get the report done that that would be complete for us in only a few days so okay I will make a have a motion to move 10 HTH to the 26th of June do I have a second I will second that was Mike rck and Mike and Chris Lali sorry um again all in favor hi I and okay unanimous including Paul just so comfortable there I know look like it's nice in the sh lounger all right next up we have 110 middle SE Street um sweet one um marchie LLC requesting a special permit per section 1958 B1 to operate an outdoor cont structur yard that has been operating actually since 2019 and any other zoning relief deemed necessary the site is located in the CB zoning district and is shown as parcel ID on map 14 Block 19 lot 11 um so we have some um letters here do we have someone from uh marchie LLC to present to us I don't see anybody here I believe the attorney is uh Doug howler I believe I think that that's true as well but there is no one here at this point for that maybe they thought it started at 7 okay um so should we move ahead yeah um all right and we'll come back to this later um next up we have two 70 Bill Ricker Road DH Holdings and Company looking for a modification um of a minor mod or modifying from a a minor mod from June 14th 2023 um I see Casey here you know if Doug's online Doug um duchan is not on excellent okay all right good evening to the board Casey Ferrero with hardstein Hudson um so we were last before you a few weeks ago um we left that meeting with the understanding that our main objective um in the time since would be to work with beta to provide a scope for third party peer review um we did do so at the end of last week um and have received back correspondence which was actually a little more formal than we anticipated it was an actual proposal addressed to Evan and David um we are we think the proposal encompasses everything we thought it would um so we are in uh agreement with that proposal so we believe um that part for us is satisfied so we'd like to discuss it with you if you have any questions and for the for the board Rob Smith you're the LSP peer Reviewer is on Zoom since we just got this today can we get Rob to summarize it sure this is uh Robert Smith here with beta group um so the uh as far as the scope of work um what was proposed uh was roughly uh weekly inspections uh you know during uh periods when excavation is going to be um getting into areas of the of contaminated R water contaminated soil and um you know we also did include a couple other inspections so estimated about 10 inspections uh you know during sort of those Ram activities and I would just be to verify that um the scope of work you know that was proposed by uh by R Associates and it was being followed you know during the execution of the project um the other part of that really more of the sort of a civil component to evaluate the oversee the installation of the you know the focal point system and uh so we've you know included costs for a resident engineer to observe those activities um I spoke with Phil Paradis he he sort of estimated and it could be a couple of oversight and that may not be continuous and that depends a bit on you know you know perhaps the phasing of the contractor um but you we felt as though that would be adequate to uh you know to confirm the installation I think uh we understand the concerns of the of the town the board that we want to make sure that uh you know that's where that is installed is appropriate and that it's it's installed um without you know that it's tight uh and uh you know within specifications uh we did propose to do the work of on a time of materials basis as we may not need uh to complete sort of full day inspections necessarily M so that's a that's a quick summary um be happy to answer any questions about that I read it as 80 hours total Yeah question did I read that wrong yes so I put in um you know I we estimated about 10 hour you know 10 days of inspection during the uh again the ram activities and another two days during the uh so yeah that would be that's probably about 80 to 100 hours is uh is what I was estimating for that and then another you know the other two days that's another perhaps 20 hours of uh field inspection time we you know we did carry some time you know to complete sort of uh to document the our findings and assuming it be some communication with the perhaps with the town and the um the contractor with the the applicants their consultants and engineers seem like everyone's in accord um anyone have any questions or comments I guess I could also provide a little bit of detail in that we did meet with the site contractor regarding those figures in the ram plan so we have kind of an accurate timeline of how long it'll take to complete all these activities and we did keep it a little bit on the conservative end so it might not take that long but we wanted to make sure that we had a scope that would Encompass as much as was necessary makes sense the only question I have is um I I might have missed it but who are they going to be sending the report to at the Town that's going to enforce this logs and things I believe it's going to be conservation planning board probably engineering as well it go to be or is it who's that who's this fall under this will go directly to the town who with the town um it's going to be just as Casey said the Conservation Commission via the agent the planning board via myself and likely DPW via storm water okay what about a factory uh start up on the jelly fish is that included is there a Factory St on that I'm having a hard time understanding him yeah Factory startup on the jellyfish yeah um what the jellyfish sitation does someone from the factory because they're not really used that often they come out and guide you through like how you set that up is there any guidance so the insulation of the jellyfish isn't all that technical it's an insulation of a typical uh subsurface Vault concrete structure and then you add in the cartridges that contact will sell us so the partridges or what does all the um so the owner's manual is just good enough yes so were you questioning who this is all going to be reporting back to during the construction or on an ongoing basis or both B is going to be doing report so then at the end of it who's it go to cuz it's not going to come back to Bost and say oh they're not doing this who's it going to the day by day for them to go to the town that's what I wanted a person the primary point of contact is going to be the conservation agent okay then myself great and can we codify also the DPW yes okay you good so what does this need for does it need formal approval from us so you have a um you have a draft decision um hard copy today as I mentioned in the email this afternoon uh today's version is based upon a previous version that was attached to the previous agenda um my suggestion is maybe we spend some time reviewing the special conditions tonight I think that's a great idea clean it up pull it together so that is um top of the third page so the first special condition is uh Cod defined that any applicable conditions to the original approval which was Landscaping lighting a variety of other things parking things of that nature and whatever conditions uh uh will remain in place then the special conditions uh then go on to design and preconstruction um many of these are taken basically copy and paste directly from the commission's approval MH uh David worked with um the applicant David also worked with I believe beta to some extent to craft some of these more involved um conditions these are the ones that um I think are relevant to planning board business there were a variety of other conditions in the commission decision that weren't directly relevant at the planning board nesting turtles in the lake if if applicable correct um so yeah have the two through four are design and preconstruction fairly straightforward uh the next set of conditions are related to uh construction management uh number five speaks to um management of the construction site in particular calling out dust control number six refers to if there's any changes to the plan as submitted uh and it articulates um that these changes uh can be required by the town State agencies or introduced by the applicant and that the board reserves the right um to determine whether those changes require a new filing with the planning board number six uh refers to the soil and groundwater management plan and the and the ram these are Incorporated ated into the decision um that's number seven I believe I'm sorry number seven yep six we we covered six seven number eight is similar uh incorporating the long-term pollution prevention plan and the storm water uh management system operation and maintenance plan these are codified within within the planning board's decision so in this area here should we be adding the that Vader Beyond site um let's go through them I believe it's I believe it may be in here but let's go through them and then we'll figure that out okay um nine refers to um all the um dur construction um daily logs and maintenance logs are submitted uh to DPW DPW as you recall is on site routinely uh during All Phases of construction and the the 10th and final construction related uh dis special condition is the submission of the illicit discharge compliance statement prior to occupancy being signed off on then there's a variety of Perpetual conditions these are conditions that are uh remain in place in perpetuity um 11 refers to uh if there's a proposed change of use um particularly anything that uh is related to a lple um that would be not consistent with this decision or the prior decision um the board would have the reserved the right to require a new hearing uh 12 refers to um any of these Perpetual conditions the board reserves the right to retain outside uh outside peer review uh consultant services to monitor compliance 13 uh refers to any of the continued um engagement with with from the applicant to uh de P Wastewater uh would be copied to the board 14 uh refers to um the uh any leakage from the sto water system uh may require uh submission to the board for corrective action that's a pretty detailed uh condition here it it refers to a dry weather test plan tell me to go over that one a little bit yeah please all right so during our Conservation Commission meetings um we had a pretty lengthy discussion about this condition and really what it's trying to do is ensure that the storm water management system is watertight as it is supposed to be so the idea is that during High Water season but a dry spell of time we're going to review the outlet of the system and make sure that there's no water coming out of the outlet of the system cuz if there's water coming out when there's been no rain some water is getting in there what we're going to do is review that make sure and if there is um we agreed that we would test it test that water for p and the idea of testing water for past was we're going to have wells in the ground around the site so depending on the concentrations of what might be coming out of there might help us isolate and locate uh where the storm water management system needs fixing so that's the gist of that that condition okay number 15 uh is related to uh prior occupancy again we don't know who the tenant is at this point that the tenant needs to uh meet with myself and the agent to discuss the compliance related to this decision the long-term operation it's a maintenance plan um as you likely are aware there's a lot of customized procedures and protocols within those within those two plans uh number 16 extends that uh to a a future conveyance um where a new purchaser of the property uh would also be required uh to engage with the town uh so that they are fully aware of the um the associated uh plans that are incorporated into the decision number 17 a d I'm sorry can we go back to 15 the logs are going to you Evan but not to Chris I mean not to the conservation agent they going to the conservation agent uh in commun it says they shall meet with but then they'll be submitt 15 uh let's see all inspection shall be submitted 15 is like a prior to occupancy they must meet with the town representatives to discuss the requirements of the long-term pollution prion plan Ander main the last sentence in that the commission has has the same exact language their decision says to the agent okay fine uh 17 I think is a a duplicative of a prior condition so we can probably strike that one and then uh per Mike Walsh's comment I think we need we think we should insert the um scope that we reviewed tonight probably as new condition number 11 under construction management that would be the third party uh and you can reference this letter too right oh yeah yeah absolutely for this dat and beta so that's a third party field peer review par per May 22nd beta letter b letter so you actively have to just coord the field superintendent would have to coordinate that with Bader so that they're not doing things without him not being so part of the scope of work states that we have to provide them prior to the start of work a detailed schedule and then throughout the work any changes to that schedule has to be sent to the conservation agent as soon as feasible great and we we um General condition number one not a special condition the first one there is a pre-construction meeting um so that's that's another step where we would share all the contact information go over all the plans procedures and protocols but that's a formal meeting with DPW storm water myself U conservation actually can we go back just to 14 when is when is the plan the dry weather test plan being submitted the applicant shall submit to the board a proposed plan also what we what we did with the Conservation Commission was we said we would update the operation and maintenance plan of the rip wrap which is at the flare end sections so that as part of the operation maintenance of that every year I think I put um during May which is during High Water season after a spell of 5 days with no storm water or no rain water is when they'll perform that that review that check yeah but when did you submit the plan is that the plan I believe is the onm conservation wanted it in the onm so that's the the plan of action to do is just maintain it as part of the operation maintenance plan so that level of details in the om&m plan yep so that's that onm plan we have we have now where we will have I have revised it and we have to we'll send it in okay prior to the decision okay okay that was what I was getting all right thank you is that the only document that it's the only outstanding revision so under under page one page two what submission is that under under number four you likely don't have it listed you haven't submitted it at all no okay it'll be an updated date it'll actually it'll be part of the May supplemental data report because it's still going to be dated May so you probably have it encompassed when you have the May supplemental data report referenced here okay so it's that's what it's called supplemental data report that's just within it's appendex of the supplemental data report I thought it was going to be a separate on M Standalone no it's it's an appendix of the um supplemental data report so you can pull it out and use it as a okay uh Standalone document if you'd like to okay so and and uh I know i' briefly mentioned before about uh some sort of a guarantee or a escrow or something particularly for the expensive part the jellyfish replacement and where where would that where would that go you I guess we need to do you have any idea how long you'd want that um Bond or Escrow in place well the well the objective would be because essentially what we've done is we've shifted the infiltration the the what the function that the infiltration was performing to the to these um you know different filters including the jellyfish stuff that because the jellyfish in particular is something that is expensive to replace that we wanted to be sure that it was done and so we wanted to have some money set aside so that it was sure to be done that's really the what we're trying to get at is is because now there's so much greater Reliance on actually changing out these filters that we want to make sure that the changing out of the filters happens and so so I don't originally I was thinking you know do like one years two years of Maintenance but I think I'm really now more thinking let's just look at what are the high price items that need to be done and then just say the well we'll cover one of these I think we just begin that discussion last me right so I I kind of envisioned what it would be would be a full in the that there was a lapse of operation maintenance there is a fund to fully maintain that jellyfish unit yeah which would be essentially the three-year cycle because the cartridges last 3 years um so what we could do is the full cost of replacement for all those cartridges plus 3 years of the yearly maintenance yeah um that would be I think sufficient to do what and the the ones that are in the catch basins y the how what those Fabco units yeah yeah how often do those get replaced and how much do those cost the units themselves cost two or 300 bucks I believe okay so not not really not high so we could catch that kind of activity in the in the on andm report y okay okay I think that sounds reasonable so we're talking about imp perpetuity but a three-year cycle that yeah we just setting yeah setting up a fund to make sure that that it's there's we're essentially you you know the applicant is providing the seed seed money for it and then after that it's up to the person to make sure what I have is full Full Cost Plus threeyear maintenance yeah that's really be it would be cost of full cartridge replacement plus a yearly maintenance for a threeyear time per full cartridge replacement for the two jellyish for the two jellyfishing correct how much do they cost I believe it was for every 3 years somewhere in the range of 13 or 15,000 so so so what's your estimate on this escrow at this point probably the 15,000 but I'll get you a more defined number here in a second okay and so just so I understand the $115,000 escrow gets established prior to whatever occupancy let just said thought it was going to be two cartridges and they're $15,000 each no no no there's multiple several cartridges within each unit so each unit has I think the the smaller one has six and the bigger one probably has 20 or something like that so each cartridge has a cost then so to replace each cartridge within that unit has to be done every 3 years so we'll assume the full replacement over a threee time period so so once it's occupied the first three years go by we the town verifies that they're complying with the onm what happens like or in other words what triggers the release or reduction or increase of that 15,000 or is it just held there in perpetuity until such time as the town documents that they're out of compliance yeah good question yeah that a good question I mean my my thought was at least to make sure it's there for the first time okay and then after that so that the so that the owner knows that uh you know that this has to be done okay and then after that yeah I mean if there is if there is a violation of an onm that's a violation of your permit yeah so you have another Avenue yeah right okay so we we're essentially looking this as the first three years um and then we can revisit it at that time yeah okay and you want it establish what prior to occupancy yeah okay and that that sounds all right all right to you guys yes casy you had also uh shown either us or the commission the excavation exhibit yes is that in the is that updated in the plans is that is that a separate document that was a separate exhibit document okay that just came today right can we get that added to the I sent that to Evan officially midweek Midway through last week or Tuesday last week but can we get it added to the plans as well so that the like on the tail end just as an exib to the plans that way the the construction folks what was the name of that exhibit what was the title I believe that was called excavation exhibit but it's just the slides that came today right no it was it was something earlier oh but I I'll do is I'll add it as a standalone exhibit yeah to the to the decision yeah yeah and that's being used as part of the um the monitoring plan right yeah that exhibit is being used for the contractor to meet with beta and yeah so that's the exhibit that we Ed to discuss with the contractor so I got the jellyfish filter numbers it was 13 to 14,000 in cartridge replacement every 3 years so um if we want to establish an a yearly maintenance would be 5,000 for the V trucks to come and Vac them out every year um so if you want to establish based on that we can establish based on that we changing what we already talked about didn't mean to jump back on you but I just found the exact numbers sorry but he just had he was just giving us the exact numbers okay so the 15 the 15 numbers good no well I think 18 well if you if there is a violation the 15 the full replacement of the cartridges takes care of the previous three years of missed so replacing the cartridges will set you back at a functioning system so if there was a missed maintenance and it wasn't performing that 15,000 would guarantee enough to get the system back to functioning okay got it sounds good what so so are the exhibits that that you sent us are those not included in the soil and management plan I mean what is the indication that someone has as to where the areas are that that we need to be concerned about so one of the condition in the conservation approval is that we have to provide to David ahead of time as well as the contractor those precise exhibits um so one of the conditions there is that we have to give it to the conservation agent as well as the contractor so if I figured we could put a similar condition as part of the planning board approval okay I was just wondering why it's not included with the soil and management plan because there is there is an exhibit that's very similar that he drafted um so it is part of the soy ground water management plan it's just not the hsh ones that we provided okay okay and they are the same the same thing actually his is more conservative than mine is okay okay great thank you all right okay all right and I've got one typo on fact number four in coated I think should be Incorporated yes thank you okay so Rob Smith your LSP still on the call if you have any tech technical questions or what if what if questions obviously the applicant is here um if we think we're done with receiving information usually the next step is to close close the hearing you could vote your draft decision tonight but I will if you choose to do that I will provide a updated version MH um for your ratification at your next meeting if that's how you want to proceed because of the complexity of this decision and the fact that we didn't have it too soon before the meeting can we keep the hearing open one more meeting um just vote on the decision next meeting and have it attached to the agenda you can certainly do that if you what the board has also done in the past is if you think that you're um if you think that you're inclined to vote the approval you can do that but we wouldn't be drafting the decision tonight we would wait until the next meeting to actually review deliberate and vote the decision right but if so the decision that we've just drafted hasn't been published yet and because of the complexity of this it might be a good idea to have more eyes on it to see if there's anything else we missed yeah as I mentioned this this version is a little bit different than the previous posted version and that's why continuing it to next meeting having a quick is everything okay on this decision and then voting more time we're still getting the on M plan too right yeah so appendix and also the the additional condition 11 and then something about the performance guarantee right so it' just be good to have all those documents together that one last time on the agenda just for one that one final review before we close the public hearing so make sense yep I'll make a motion to continue this to what date June 12th June 12th second at 7:30 motion motion by [Music] seconded am I echoing y y hi he was an i he was an i and everybody else all in favor all right thank you guys thank you all right next up we have 93 BR k Road DND homes LLC requesting site plan approval for the construction of 49,90 square foot industrial Warehouse building with integrated surface parking loading facilities and on-site infrastructure improvements so site is located in the Ia District shown as personal ID map 88 block 271 lot 3 consists of approximately 9.63 Acres the applicant request special permits per article 11 major business complex article 14 aquer protection Article 5 off street parking and loading and sight plan review per 19514 and any other permit relief teams necessary um good evening Madam chair members of the board for the record Christin hung rear and bronstein with me tonight I have um Brian G our site civil engineer from hanok Associates John Higgins are licensed site professional from Higgins environmental and Ender SAR clay are um representative from the applicant D and D Holmes um at the last meeting there was a request made by the board to have our LSPs uh report peer reviewed by Beta um that beta provided a report that was issued to us in May 3rd and um higen enviral provided a response to the report and so we would just like to update the board with the respon M so um I'd like to call up um John Higgins to provide the board with the background and the response to beta's peer [Music] review thank you very much Christine good evening members of the planning board my name is John Higgins with Higgins environmental I'm a Massachusetts licensi professional on behalf of D and D homes LLC uh so as you all know uh we had initial report back in March for our review of the environmental assessment required by the Board of Health in my opinion of that in terms of an LSP what that meant in terms of our regulations and um we provided that to the board in addition to the Board of Health and Conservation Commission each of them have weighed in Board of Health has issued a letter of no additional actions required other than you know basic kind of holistic lawn care and that particularly that we actually our connected to Municipal sewer which which they are which is which is a pretty important criteria um Conservation Commission we met with twice and uh the last meeting was more along the lines of order of condition to be forthcoming David was really busy talked about turtl nesting areas and things like that and we had we've met with a planning board how many times once or twice once I have met once okay other people have met many times with you folks okay but me as an LSP I met once we did the peer review we didn't meet the meet the last meeting and I actually wanted to take that opportunity to actually provide what I have done which is the May 17th response to beta's review um just because I thought it'd be more courteous than having a kind of a tit fortat meeting of back and forth at hoc comments um I wanted to give the board and beta the benefit of of what my thoughts were again and so the net result is that there really wasn't any additional information provided by the peer riew that changed my opinion as an LSP looking at it from the first day I came here before the planning board and now having said that I did take that opportunity to add some additional information I that would help the board the additional groundwater contour maps things that I talked about in the meeting this that ad hoc kind of part that I thought would actually be helpful to see in person so I included uh three groundw contour maps I am a hydrog geologist that's what my training is in addition to being an LSP and yeah you can see part of that there and so but that's consistent with the groundwater flow direction that we had before um that I that I indicated uh but it wasn't depicted on a map it was more like a micro scale so groundwater flow is consistent with surface water flow in the areir which goes southsouth easterly away from these poble Wells um and so I guess I'll talk to about so I did you know I spoke yesterday with with um Rob at length and I I thought it went longer than I thought Rob you know I didn't have much time but but we give the we gave some time here yeah and uh you know maybe an hour and a half two hours something like that but um you know there were some kind of takeaways that he wanted me to look at again which I had looked at before but yeah okay I will and I did look at things again and my opinion still hasn't changed I so he he asked me to look at a section of the rags that talked to releases and threats of releases that don't require notification they have a definition for what a release is and we don't have any of those you know this isn't a cider vessel like a tank that has a leak or a tank with three legs that might fall down and spill oil and hazardous material so by definition in addition to not having a contaminate impact above any reportable concentration uh this is under the massachusett contingency plan at 218 um we don't have any um lost my train of thought there but uh H it's not a contaminated site it's not a contaminated site by any definition can I can see it's it's not a released site that's my that's where my thing is it's not a source of release this is a residential property the data assessment we have doesn't indicate that there's some Smoking Gun here that no one knows about you know we have an Upland center of the property that's basically dry bedrock and all flow us toward the edges and we have four Wells that around the edges consistent with what the Board of Health asked us to do and so um you know I think we've been really diligent for in respect to what is a residential property so this residential property predated UPS Road um and you know it's it's it happens to be being developed now it's in an industrial zoned area it's a warehouse so the activity and use limit the activity in my term you say Activity and use limitations that doesn't apply but the activities and uses are pretty pretty benign from from a from a industrial use perspective it's a Warehouse with paved area there's no oil and hazardous material uses no dry cleaning there's none of those things that are like don't do these ever here you know there's no landfills nothing scary so and I also do think you know I went through and I had to look at you know there were some of the comments that Beta had about the infiltration basically the peer view focused on mw1 which is on the bottom right of your screen in that infiltration area and this came down to the contaminant spreading we don't have contamination by any definition that I quoted in reference then here it's not reportable um spreading okay but that's the area that we focused and talked about and I looked at that holistically in depth as a as a niens side professional hydrog geologist and I think the quantity and quality of storm water handling is pretty good right now in terms of it's equally dispersed it has a pretty good representation of pre-development conditions this is part of the zoning board uh plan board work um so I I felt pretty comfortable with where things are laid out right now in terms of reproducing those natural flow conditions and I think what we see for a little bit of impact in pasas there I don't know where that may be coming from you know Rob and I talked at length about other things you know past are really widely globally present and uh I think that's a story we're going to be hearing about for the rest of our careers but you know it's something you find pretty much everywhere and I don't see indications that it's from the s and I don't think contaminant spreading it's not contamination but I think that spreading concern is consistent with the current hydrologic conditions for that area that's where rainwater tends to FL and so I think that's an important thing to maintain so with that U I'll take any questions yeah one question I I have is um the original report had groundwater Contours and those groundwater Contours looked quite different than these groundwater Contours so what is the difference between those groundwater Contours and these groundwater Contours okay so I think I think I talked about that in my letter that I just provided with one of the reasons why I gave the three additional groundwater contour maps so the groundwater con and that wasn't my original tent of my review under the March letter it was an LSP looking at environmental data it wasn't and do a hydrogeologic review at the same time but that came up uh juel and uh I I dressed it at hawk in the meeting like we have now and that I think that's a micro flow not a macro flow and you know so what they did was they took and I talked about um the type of modeling they probably used um you know whatever it happened to be but what they did was they they they basically took surface water as a groundwater Source a groundwater elevation it happened to be top of ice by the way we talk about that in my lad if so so the original groundwater Contours were not done by you no they were not they were done by somebody else they were done by another another another firm you and that was in your report and now in in this report these groundwater Contours have been done by you yes I am a hyro geologist and I I in order to provide additional support inform the same using the same data presumably the using the same data using the same data same surveyed elevations and as a hydrogeologist so what we do is we use groundwater elevations deter what the groundwater flow is and then once that's determined we look at what the boundary conditions are whether they're recharge or no recharge boundaries in this case we have Bedrock boundary on one side and we have surface water source on the other side and then we also have differences in geology there's different soil types that'll make things flow differently um and I try to reflect and then I take those groundwater Contour intervals and make it reflect its envir surrounding environment boundary conditions that's what you see in those three Maps yeah I'd be interested in Rob's opinion then of the groundwater Contours that you have done in in this Rob do you have an opinion about those oh did you want to add Haw or do you want to have them do it's your you're the board so yeah Rob if you could if you could weigh in on on your thoughts on that uh sure so the as far as the most recent cont or there um there were three different dates uh there was one date from uh December 2023 2023 I think that's actually the one that's that was just up and um I have a couple concerns about that um I think first is that there was identical hydraulic head noted in both MW2 nmw1 so that was presented as you know 107.4 2 and we're also seeing Contours for 107.4 you can just see it to the right of mw1 and that same Contour is presented uh near MW2 however you know there's still a a gr or flow Direction um basically you know between those two points um showing that it's it's flowing that way so I I think you know the first concern is that really those were at the same elevation during that event I in the really the second the second concern is that when we do you know as Jonathan knows um when we evaluate gr Contours you really need three points um and and really there's it it certainly appears as though there's a linear interpolation between mw1 and 2 that that's really a two-point contour and you you cannot resolve the flow Direction in that case and I and again yeah we did we did talk about that um in the meeting a bit you know Jonathan indicated there's there are other Wells but they're they're pretty good distance some the B5 was dry that's not useful there's no there's no head value there they be three and four they're they're pretty far away um you know like roughly uh 300 ft um so that you know that's certainly a concern that that contour map may not accurately um identify the the ground or flow Direction um we look at the you know the subsequent Maps um you know the January 3rd map we see mw1 does have a higher there's a higher head there you got 107.2 4 and then MW2 is is 107 .21 um so that you know that's a pretty flat radiant you know for that distance and that's reflected in the spacing of the Contours but again it's that same concern about you know how that how that interpolation is completed really between these two specific points and that it's hard to know if that's the true groundwater flow Direction uh certainly in that area I think you know the uh the fallowing map January 9th um you know that was fairly similar um you know to the previous one yeah those were the same observations that I had and and so the question then is would additional points provide a better indication of what the local flow is because I'm I I think that that's what our concern is certainly the flow Direction you rightly have identified the flow direction is important and if the flow direction is due south then you know you know essentially it's moving parallel to or slightly away from the zone two then it's a much less concern where the original the original um Contour showed that it was a basically a straight line shot to the zone 2 so so those are I would think those would be things that could provide a better indication of what the of what the actual flow direction is but it's it's predicated on the idea that not that we're saying that it is a contaminant or a contaminated site but what we're saying is that that if it were in the zone 2 it would be a contamination and the concern is that with the gradients that the flow would be for something that is not considered contamination not in zone two would be considered contamination in zone 2 that's the concern and that uh and and I correct me if I'm wrong Rob but I think that you were you are agreeing with that and so it seems to me that there's Rob suggested getting additional points for to get a better refinement on what the actual flows are I think that's a good idea but what we're really trying to do here is not so much to we certainly not here to to regulate mCP that's not what we're trying to do uh we're also actually really not trying to do a hydro Geo study what we're trying to do is we're trying to identify what is the way in which when when the board approves the site that it isn't creating a condition with the way the infiltration is set up that it's going to potentially result in some con flow of a material that in zone 2 would be considered contamination and and so for that reason uh some combination of better idea of where it is going and some relocation of infiltration seems like a reasonable uh thing to do um that's at least the thinking that I've had and so Rob I don't know if you want to add to that at all or not the only thing I would add is and I I agree with all that Joel and then the only I think something I would add the information that we can glean from these evaluations is that uh there's a pretty flat gradient between mw1 and 2 and because of that so I mean if in that case if you you if you do infiltration next to mw1 it's you know you're you're G to get some mounding it's going to be transient but that mouning is likely going to it's going to dominate um and you know and there could be spreading and it's just again we want to raise the concern that you certainly there there could be some migration there um you know due to that out filtration and uh you know I think it's important for the applicant and and in the board to consider that can I ask what's the difference between an inferred contour and a contour well a it's in terms of how definitive it is so you a contour is but it's it's def reasonably definitive on that scale and then you have interpreted and then you have inferred inferred is beyond is kind of in a Beyond interpreted so so when you look at the Contour and you'll see a solid line that's the Contour and then where it gets dashed it's interpreted because they have less there's less control points in those areas and then when it's inferred you know I can tell it's up gradient of but I don't know what whereabouts it is and you I show each of those on there actually yeah and my concern is that all of the Contours in the mw1 area are inferred no that's not true uh you have sections of those Contours that are solid um and there is a shallow gradient but that is what the gradient is and I think it's probably related to surface water supply being pinched a little bit there too uh so it does back up a bit um and you have a flatter gradient there but the reason we can Define that is that we have four groundwater monitoring Wells out here that are similarly screened in the water table Zone uh we have that that go around a Bedrock High which is the control Point uh so you're going to have they're very viable groundwater monitoring Wells and I adjusted that to reflect where just interpreted and inferred that you are approaching on this Bedrock high and you know so so you'll see it interpreted as you go toward the Bedrock high you'll see it solid between where we can triangulate in linear interpretation between points um so you know we have four grand monting Wells you know three is sufficient we have four um and we also have other controls that being that we have data s documenting that we have an Upland Bedrock h in that we have it's pretty clear you got you got a surface water Wetland right next to you that flows um so those are pretty good control points all around and you know to to Joel's earlier point I I've already addressed that that you know using surface water data to determine groundwater flow particularly when it's top of ice and it's like two to three weeks after the groundwater Elations were collected just really isn't representative data but but that wasn't part of my March report Jo that's why I took the opportunity for the followup when the question came up on this contaminant spreading to talk not only about spreading but to talk about contamination and I think I've done that and I I wanted to give the board the courtesy of doing that rather than just talking about it because I did that in the first meeting and here we are again today so you so you disagree with the Contours by the by the hydro Geo Group that that works for the applicant right is that is that correct is that what I'm understanding I I I do not I do not think they I do not it is my opinion they do not accurately reflect groundwater flow Direction all right thank you well I'm I mean my thought is I'm in agreement with Rob I think where where you're because you're creating groundwater mountain in conditions where you have a large infiltration it's a fairly centralized large INF ation I agree with you it's infiltration is is throughout the site so it's not all the site getting infiltrated there but still a significant portion of the site is getting infiltrated there which is likely because I I think especially because of the flatness of it is likely going to create some sort of I would I would assume uh some sort of omnidirectional flow away from it and that therefore you know raises the question of of uh you know what whether the the things that were observed in md1 mw1 are going to be flowed in into uh zone two areas that is the concern which abouts Chums of water right the property that this is all CH this literally and I think too these Contour don't NE don't reflect what's happening when they're pumping right this is just based on I assume that when you took those measurements they weren't CU I think they're seasonal if I recall correctly and I think that they pumped them in the summer I don't think they pump them in the winter I think it's actually been a few years since they've operated actually yeah but if they were to operate if they were to operate them uh then I would assume that that could affect things as well all right so now we're going to the ad hoc kind of feedback now which I'm more than happy to do but you know I actually love to talk and we could be talking a long time and not just tonight but other meetings in similar properties so you know what's changed about so the zone 2 boundar is defined by the maximum pumping rate for 180 days maximum yield you can get at a given approved yield for a well and you take that to the limits of your hydrologic conditions which you know boundary conditions recharge boundaries to the upper limit of the aquifer so we're not at the upper limit of the aquifer we're on the side and right now the zone 2 boundary goes to about where that stream channel is or is is now underwater so the recharge boundary is actually now closer to the monit the poble water supply Wells and is currently so the zone 2 boundary would actually be closer to the drinking water the temporary use drinking water wells in they are right now if you were to redo those zone two in accordance with mass T approved methods because they're recharge boundary so you know if you start pumping and the groundw starts to decrease because that's what happens when you pump at the maximum yield it eventually reaches a point where it has a boundary condition either recharge or or or or like a bedrock and when it hits that recharge boundary you know that water provides that extra recharge to keep that limit at that location and so that's actually why they defined the zone 2 boundary to be at the stream channel that's you know 90 to 100 feet away west of mw1 but but that's not the case today you know now we have beavers and I don't know what the condition of that discharge is but it's a much larger surface water recharge area around those Wells right so if that helps you but yeah these are all these extra parts about groundwater flow and contaminate fate and transport Wetlands standing Waters surface water groundwater it's you know it's called our natural environment MH so lots of things we can talk about yeah and I and I think that's that's a reasonable argument to be made but you know then again it isn't something that we definitely know and because of that I think we're we're we're in the interest of reducing the we're interested in in in in our approval avoiding creating situations where there risk of of making things worse rather than better and so that's the so I while I think that what you say is plausible certainly uh I I I don't find it convincing enough to make me not want to know more about either where the flow is going or whether or to see the infiltration moved in some places where I can be more sure it's not going to flow right so I mean so I'm not I don't really I don't really consider myself expressing my interpretation I'm actually considering like what the regulations say and what the what the rules are for like determining a Zone 2 boundary right so so in the world of like regulations in away from the side like a bell curve that Center pole is the rules and regulations that we have to apply to and then toward the edges of that are some natural fluctuations you might get in soil and groundwater conditions maybe the soil types vary all these other things that can happen or maybe someone's interpretation is different than the rules and regulation the center of the pole and more toward this side and and that is a BT curve I mean that's our population Dynamics too that that fits but I think it it casts a really broad net too in terms of what comes before the planning board in terms of where they can go and what topics they can cover and how much time it takes I think you need to consider that too in terms of the amount of effort that we've taken on your behalf or Board of Health's have for a residential property um which you know we don't have any sources on the property of contamination that we know of you know and Residential Properties are are treated with Care by the state and most regulations particularly when you're talking about pasas and that's their consumer products that everyone uses and has been for many years um it's just a really touchy ground to be on Joel and um you need to be tread carefully just because it's still an involving regulation too so I I'm going to follow up with robs if I can there's a point that he had about this upcoming potential EPA new standard that's coming out my interpretation of that Rob is that it's going to be applied more toward of water treatment plants in terms of the the treat treat treatability of the water they prod provide to their customers and not an mCP property by property basis because I mentioned to Rob this is just some context I mentioned the 90 90 nanograms per liter is being fairly consist with my review of like Regional background and you have to dig into it because there's a lot of data out there and I talk about that my letter but um I'm losing my point again I should actually rely on Christine to help me out but that's what happen so um oh so you know as LSPs you know being challenged with this in terms of how do we how do how do we inter how how do we follow these regulations and what constitutes background some of the LSPs just basically raised the hand and says we should start doing our own testing and so as a professional organization I mentioned Mr Rob and it's on our we and the person organization's website they the LSPs set out and did wet and dry deposition for pasas on their properties and you know it mostly included where most people lived which is kind of toward Boston and the coast you know but there were some from Central Mass and western Mass and the highest concentration of Pras was actually in chelsford um was 8 nanograms per liter uh this is just rainwater it varied by type of rain event you know the different type of storm events um and it did tend to concentrate more toward the coast which is what we have our cloud formations tend to do so you know we are looking at something that's it's very disperse it's been around for a long time um it has residential ex kind of Graces I would say in terms of a regulatory perspective I think NE I think importantly from a political perspective too because you can't have every residence going through what my clients doing for this residential property um the other thing that surprised me is how many Residential Properties are actually in the for protection districts within chelsford like maybe 30% of the homes in chelsford I mean I was shocked um you know I thought there might have been like one or two like us you know that I could look at for a reference point there's many um and I think the most important thing I mentioned this to Rob is that people need to focus on like I think EPA is doing one of the most controllable ways of limiting risks to people and that's by increasing the treatability of the water and they and they backed that up with significant amounts of funding you know you here's I was hearing billions you know which I still think is coming up short uh but that's how they do things cuz you know p and other things like that are only a risk if you're exposed to them and the primary exposure pathway is drinking water um that's why there's a significant difference from 40 million nanograms per liter just where we are outside mw1 and 20 nanograms per liter inside the zone to because they recognize that in a drinking water area the risks are higher but but the corollary to that is you know do you chase after every property and there's a lot of them in chelsford and many other towns or do you basically look at it and say and take the assistance from the federal and state government to increase your treatability of that and it's it's fairly treatable it's readily treatable I a lot of money but so that's that's how they're attacking it and I think that's I think that's the prudent approach um not peace meal holistically so given all of that um I think the applicants initial Hydro Geo study shows flows in a specific Direction our peer reviewer um indicates that there are some concerns with that I personally would like to see that infiltration moved to a different location on the property you'd like to see what see that infiltration unit moved to a different location on the property well it is what just see oh okay thank you I'll be here if thank you um for the record Brian G with Hancock Associates just so I'm clear uh we're talking about underground system 2 only no one there yeah yeah and the preference for the location would be anywhere on site except for where it's currently located what we would look to do and and we've done some preliminary kind of evaluation on ways that we could consolidate systems and something that we've identified is potentially shifting underground system 2 to where the infiltration Basin is behind the building in the initial buildout condition or the underground system in the full bu buildout Condition it's in the same location if we were to move that underground system by monitoring well two or one excuse me uh to behind the building would that alleviate the concerns of this board I'd be interested in Rob's Rob's opinion on that I'm just trying to understand when you say behind the building I wonder if you could help me out or maybe show on your screen um where exactly we're talking about so this is the system that is currently um concerned yeah we would be looking to consolidate it to the system back here uh so for uh for that location so uh that's certainly I think that's better I mean the highest levels P are certainly at mw1 I think the levels at mw5 are are unknown at this point um monitoring well is dry those samples could be collected the nearest Wells MW2 uh and I I've got a concern about that basically um you know I respect you know Jonathan has indicated we have a federal MCL that's in force we do not have revised standards however EPA has indicated that um there's an individual maximum contaminant level uh for pooa of four parts per trillion it's a pretty low level MW2 shows uh you know it exceeds that so um these are sort of lower concentrations but we do have certainly uh there do there appears to be some lower levels of contaminants that and again there's right now there's not a we don't have that standard in but Matt you know the department is working on that and uh and certainly you know they generally incorporate that into the into their gw1 uh standards Rob what are your feelings about the gradients around mw5 versus mw1 I mean those are closer I mean do you have a better feeling that that is a a a gradient that You' have greater conf confidence in that seems like it does seem like a steeper gradient in that location I think I think that certainly that would help and if it was down if it was downg gradient of MW2 then that would also be a little bit better so that's why I was thinking the proposal of of moving that whichever that one is on the North side and moving it to the back of the building would would put it down gradient of at least the places where we've observed it what do you mean as a steeper it's well the The Contours are like like a toppo map you know so when they're further apart it just means it's more level okay and then as they get closer together it means it's it's steeper only now we're talking about going down down groundw so it's fairly level and then it starts to no just because and again I I just drive by it every day yeah and and I like you guys have like measured that you guys have gone out on the property walked it and made sure that it's not like what this is what we see here is accurate just because I've been driving to buy it and I'm like that property looks like it's really un like it doesn't look like there's much dry land versus what we're seeing on the map I keep looking at the map and I'm like okay this this well this is this is underground this is underground but I'm like and you're talking about surface a lot of water over there a lot of water over there questioning whether or not a building can fit on it but I just want to make sure you guys have like loed it and make make sure that there's enough land cuz like I just have fears of Executive Drive in Chums remember when it was built and every Every Spring the parking lot fled in the case of Executive Drive in their plan they actually knew that they were putting that parking lot in flood plane they actually knew you were on the board at the time no actually I wasn't but when we were looking at Old plans I well actually it was on the board when we walked it but it was decision before that it was when they actually first put it in right and they they they knowingly willingly put a parking lot in what they knew would flood okay and guess what it floods okay I'm just my observation just fire beware like so are we proposing that we're going to get more information are we proposing a revision of the plan or both um well we've raised our concerns and Brian asked uh about proposing moving the infiltration to to consolidate it with the one behind the building um Rob and I were discussing the fact that that that because we have greater confidence in those Contours the gradient Contours that you would say it's fairly safely downg gradient of the places where we've identified areas that we know are not regulatory contamination but are of sufficient level if they were in zone 2 that they would be be and so for that reason that would give us a uh I I I'll speak for Rob here but that would give us a little bit better confidence that that we by approving this plan we would not be resulting in any sort of additional potential spread of something into the zone two so if that's what you're proposing then that to me sounds like a a a good thing to do okay um so also for clarification what is the process going to look like so Marsh uh Associates had reviewed the storm water originally um would this go back to Craig to be reviewed for the planning board if we're proposing changes we just we'd like to get it wrapped up and then everything done for our next hearing so we can continue forward progress here is that um the consolidation of the infiltrator that does not change the uh curb line changes nothing on the side it doesn't impact turtles or anything like that no I mean I would think the fact that because you're consolidating it you're essentially already have a sort of review of your location of it there that sort of expanding that to me seems like a reasonable thing to do without necessarily requiring peer review of that okay okay so that's what I heard should we um continue the public hearing until we have a chance to look at the updated infiltration infiltration system proposal will June 12th be enough time it will so we'll be able to issue our revised plan set and supporting calculations to the board that's I was going to ask for supporting I know your expertise so and we're and you're guiding by you guys okay do you have any other concerns with that we have anything else we have not mentioned tonight because it just seems that new things are coming up and from my take but I know it's it's in the aquafer and we're going off of what your expertise is but if there's any other concerns that you have with this plan we should tell the propon proponent tonight yeah absolutely and otherwise this is it right this is the last item mhm okay the so we're continuing simply to get the revised plan yeah I had one other thing though um the onm plan and the long-term pollution prevention um should have the snow storage section added to it okay yeah and the version that I'm seeing here was I think March 27th which was right around the time we were having our last meeting about that specific topic and I don't think that ever got into yeah I don't know if we I agree so I'll look at my notes as well to make sure that we picked up our conversation so maybe we could think about having a draft decision for the next meeting assuming that this is able to be we already have one attached to the agenda takes back some time but you know we'll refresh that in your meeting with the commission the night before yes we will be we're continue to the 11th okay and Brian it's not just the snow but there was a few other things from that March 27th meeting if you would like to reiterate those I'm sure I have them in my notes but just so I'm clear the snow storage section um the signage signage the any place where there's ins explicit instructions for the onm um about something related to the isolator rows or any technical instead of just mentioning that the uh procedures are attached specify that the manufacturer regular inspection maintenance and repair procedures must be followed and then see attached um and then truck trailers also not permitted in other spaces other than loading dock spaces I think was the other thing we had talked about okay all right I'll make a motion to continue this public hearing till June 12th I'll second motion by Anita second by Mike Mike R all in favor I I Paul I I unanimous okay thank you for your time very much all right there's still no one here from uh middle sex so my suggestion is we continue that yeah I'll move to continue 110 mil sex until wait hold on a second so what do we have on the 12th yeah maybe we should continue it to the one after the 12th to the 26th yep you have uh you have what you continue tonight which are fairly um minor as I understand it yeah H um hildr yep and then 110 middle suck The Whole Town's watching I I think we should move this to the 20 are you 26 I make a motion to move what is this called 10 middle 6 Street to June 26 26 that's fine I'm good that second all right all in favor I okay hi okay next up we have um um I think are we to Liaison assignments yes um so we didn't vote after the election yet on liaison uh it's still the same board I don't know if people have interest in switching I would like to go back to I was originally going to do the housing Advisory board but then they met in the middle of the day and now they're meeting in the late afternoon so I can make late afternoon meetings I can't meet make middle of the day meetings um so I would to okay take that back if that's okay that's fine um so we have Paul on Center Village Paul I know you guys have a big load doing the village master plan um revision or the center Village overly District rather um are you willing to continue on that project yes and then the open space and Recreation committee is uh quite intensive well I have two that I'm good with right now okay and then uh North Village I'll do it continue um master plan implementation I'm perfectly happy to continue we're actually making some good progress over there good strategic plan sure I'll take that um unless somebody else if you want if somebody else wants to speak up about that they want to take something else over um I'll do housing advisory um I'll stay on and then we also have um Community preservation isn't on that but that's a voting appointment John you've been doing that you want to continue that and then Anita you want to continue with ncog Y all right and then the non voting appointments um I know Chris you've been doing conservation historic I don't know I think Nan when Nan was on the board she wanted yeah she wanted to and the board said fine all right I mean I can do that um it may not be as critical I if Nana was more important to her I think um I don't know that anyone's been I mean I go to zba sometimes or watch them on on tele media but I didn't realize we had a onto them I've been I missed a couple of meetings I watch well I'm thinking with the the with the potential for the 40b that may become a little bit more significant while I mean I assume that people on this board are have interest in some of the 40b yeah proposals anyway somebody on the GBA um John I can also switch it with you if you can't make one I just give me a call I can make it I'll do it I like because they're at night so I can and I could also okay yeah um I I actually try and keep an eye on that anyway um c um the energy stretch Etc I don't know if that's critical but I just put it on there um yeah I mean I don't know maybe on that we can do that on an as needed basis I mean I know that um the chair sometimes will call me with when he has a question and that's as needed yep um Board of Health has been Joel and Anita kind of going and watching them wrestle their having fun with them I I just went once be I I I'll continue to okay and then Chris you're continuing as conservation I know Joel you're usually there as well yep often times um all right do we have any is that does everyone know what they're supposed to be doing Y and comfortable with that um any ladies on updates um from the north um just I mean it was just a milestone that they've stop they've always wanted uh out of uh vinyl square uh to Williamsburg sidewalks so they have been started by the state oh nice that's fantastic so it's on way that that came out this week so great news um anyone else well let's see I can I can tell you that um a strategic plan we have a contractor in place and we've started to engage uh with them on on how they're going to prepare the Strategic plan it's just getting started now but it's looking pretty good and master plan's actually been uh really quite active I have to hand it to Scott Rumble he's he's taken all of the things in the master plan and put them in a very good spreadsheet and we're we're going down it uh uh down that list uh you know interested party by interested party and asking questions and just to add to that the your June or July meeting we'll have that on your agenda I was going to ask if we could put that on master plan the master plan implementation committee is likely going to ask for a planning board update in August September yeah perfect um okay anyone else John or Chris no the uh conservation um commission's winding down most of their big projects just like we are starting to um so they're happy about and Chase Turtles for the summer there will be a um an open space Recreation plan public session on June 20th from 5: to 7: at the senior center it's more of like an open house style rather than a a formal presentation um I'll send out a flyer to the board on that okay um we had talked about making a punch having people come come up with a couple ideas for a punch list in terms of zoning priorities do people have are you ready to um talk about what you're interested in should we just take it around Mike what am I interested in on a punch list on a punch list for zoning areas we had talked about you know looking back at areas of conflict and kind of what we think are well I'm I'm kind of interested in looking at areas where the zoning on the ground is way out of whack right with the zoning and the rules and and perhaps trying to do something to bring them in a little closer I realize you're not going to make it perfect and I realize of course that we do have uh you know grandfathering that supports the uses that are already in there but but it would be nice if the discrepancy were 30% instead of 70% which I think is what it is now do we do you have any particular areas that fit that bill for you well you know somebody probably ought to take a look at the zoning and the Westlands and see if that's appropriate cuz there's an awful lot of very small Lots over there okay I mean it was clearly not designed for one acre lots right and and and if we had something that reflected that okay I I don't know that may it may it may be such a headache that nobody wants to do it but well it's worth taking a look at John yeah well the discussion that came up uh months ago when first started looking at MBTA so we thought we talked about kicking around could we look at doing something something to encourage different areas that may have issues um you know may not be at their highest and best use I'm thinking like we didn't want to go with the MBTA routes I'm thinking like the Rison property possibly the mall if that fall falls into a vacancies ever occur there again and it doesn't look like it's very viable I mean it it's still it's operating now and it has numerous tenants but um I think something like that we we we talked about so yeah we had talked about Village zoning with like commercial or retail on the first floor and residential upstairs and what that I I I believe if if if I'm correct you would probably know isn't the center Village yeah group looking at something in the village that was what I was going to say is that they're doing that and for the center Village and I think that might serve as a um a good model model for other Village areas um and so we might want to participate in that process mhm um Paul is um okay uh Anita yeah I wanted to look at um oh god um where BL heed Martin is because that's zoned IIA that's very specific but that's zoned IIA and obviously that it doesn't match what IIA for the rest of the town is right I think we need to look at that and make it something that is more appropriate for that area because right lucky Martin like it'll be grandf fired anyways that property but I don't think it should go under what everything else is that was that was that was definitely spot Z Spot zoning the other thing I'd like to look at um the 129 overlay um the 129 yeah do we cuz I don't think we allow retail in there currently and is limited well you have the the amenities cuz I'd like to look at something if you look at the Lindfield Marketplace yeah i' like to look at their M um and this is actually my son my 18-year-old son is like Mom and he's been pound pounding me for a year and a half about this about making 129 more like Lindfield Marketplace if there's a way to incentiv I'm just a thought to throw that out there yeah um and then looking um oh and then the other thing is with the housing shortage our we currently and I like to get the numbers but in RC we incentivize conversion people buying single family homes and we actually developers buying single single family home tearing them down and building two families because of the way our zoning is because it's more economical you can build a two family on 20,000 s ft versus a single family needs to be on the 40,000 square F feet and this is problematic because the developers are out buil out bidding you know individuals right young couple just starting out in life may want to buy a fixer upper they right and they can't because it's more cost effective and a developer can pay more for it so that's why we're seeing a lot of right now we're incentivizing it and I think with our school capacity our sewer capacity we're at a limit and I'd like to not incentivize that so that would be something I'd like us to put on the table we could get some guidance on that from ncog yeah I'm you know I'm particularly concerned about putting in like I know the state's doing this is like you looking at adus and stuff like that and that concerns me because I think all it does is incentivize developers to out bid young couples who want to come in I don't think it fixes their problem but and that's it sorry for aug list but so I'm just going to repeat a couple of things I mean the Rison area I agree I think that and we talked about um when we looked at the MBT communities we looked at multiple different sites I think as a board we in the long term we need to think of 110 and 129 areas and 129 has stalled for a long time so I think we need to revamp that overlay especially on 129 Y and then I think you need to talk about putting an overlay on portions of 110 and um and and incentivizing the what you want it to look like as it as you know commercial on the first floor with with residential on the second floor taking into account our SE capacity issue but you know so that's something I think I mean you're it's just a repeat of what was already suggested but I think it's areas that we should focus on Joel I was going to say what John said but he said it much better okay Chris um I think we should con uh pick the seid um overlay back up uh looking at the details of that and then also looking at riverneck as one of the priority conflict areas um taking care of that Paul he's not on anymore oh game's over all right so my um couple senses I don't know if we can do this but I would really love it if we could sit down with the neighborhood and talk with the neighborhoods for properties that we've identified for instance Maxwell's for instance riverneck riverneck maybe it's a day late and a dollar short but um like what would they like there um you know they're not going to sit vacant so if there's some way we can figure out what the community loc the neighborhood and the town in more in a more broad sense would like to see there and we could somehow incentivize that if if we can come up with some brainstorming good ideas um and then um I also you know I think that the one of the things in this proposed guidelines for the Adu um is that they do say that we could uh look at setbacks and um reasonable zoning guidelines and I think we should look at our guidelines and try and figure out you know if there's ways that it should be tweaked um that we could maybe achieve outcomes that we're more seeking um and then um I think well I don't know I guess that's it um The Village zoning was my other thing but that's kind of already being covered I like your idea about the neighborhood engagement and I think especially for like the Maxwell like that area I think we should definitely re out to that and I think that might be easy quick fix too right I don't think that that necessarily could be like I like to move some stuff forward especially for fall town meeting like to have little quick winds too if we can and larger projects mhm um okay new business um so so maybe I don't know maybe I'll write these up and send them around and people can pick their top out of the list pick their top two or three rank them and then we can take a vote like that will serve as like a vote of which ones we should tackle first and pick three to take on in a couple in a work session or two um does that sound reasonable yeah makes sense okay and then we have our um proposed lighting bylaw everybody have a chance to take a look at that just briefly I have't um so we already have a a lighting bylaw we do we do so this is just replace it mhm it's more towards like LED and and is this a planning board or is this yeah well it it be a bylaw change so we Zing bylaw change it's was a it's Kelly who is a former planning board member if I'm not mistaken I don't believe so he wasn't planning board but he's been before us before what he indicated was it's currently a zoning bylaw but he's seriously considering taking it out of zoning and putting into a general bylaw yeah and he he was looking for the board's thoughts on that is he going to be joining us tonight no we only put this on just because he submitted it okay um trying to I think he's looking try and have him come next time and give us a Little's for some direction a question he's a pretty good speaker and describes what he's interested in well what would be helpful if we could do um like a track changes to the current P bylaw I think he's proposing to delete delete in its entirety and re and adopt new yeah I I understand a comparison a compar I just want to do it from a comparison to see I'm sure he could do that it's just doents right Evan just a question is is Kelly Thinking by making it a general b is he looking for greater enforcement capability by the town or general bylaw doesn't provide for grandfathering so he'd be able through a general byw you can you can provide for a a um a hard set Horizon where where all lighting fixtures would need to be converted to compliant interesting that seems like it would have some benefit um okay so we'll ask him for either of the next two meetings what he can what he can manage maybe put him on early in the night yeah if you can just ask him to do the comparison too um and then we have we had some minutes to review anyone have any edits good I think that's a first Chris it was pretty good I actually like it was agree like wow those were the were those the first a I that you're approving no not the first but the first without edits okay so it's no there were there was last week that had no edits no edits but you guys like what you're yeah yeah yeah I don't I don't have any edits but I just wanted to say like since I couldn't speak through the microphone last time I did want to thank Becky D Silva coni for all that the LA at the last me meeting that was I think it was like five or six sets a minute so I just wanted to acknowledge that she did a lot of work to um catch that up so the AI option is really helping out good good yeah um you have a motion on that yeah I made a motion second to approve Mike made a motion I need a second all in favor of accepting the minutes okay I had a couple quick things six to zero cuz Paul dropped Paul's gone yeah Paul is so it's not unanimous Paul's not on the call anymore um there I had an invitation from um well first I want to remind everybody about the meeting before the next meeting at the library of um various Town boards Municipal board thing starting at 6 going till I think 8 but we have our meeting we're going to start our meeting next time at 7:30 corre so people can go for like the first hour plus and then come here um also I had an invitation from ncog head of um I don't know economic development manager to um at home in Greater LOL it's a strategy Summit at the L Senior Center on um the on June 4th so it's coming right up from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. um at the L senior center it's based to hear updates about housing needs analysis for Massachusetts and specifically for the greater little area um trying to put in place or develop goals and strategies and a comprehensive housing strategy for correct and they're looking to just put some additional information on there the regional housing plan but Nim Cog is looking for common themes and strategies among the communities n the nine communities among what among their nine nine member communities yeah um so I don't know if anyone has I have I sent it to every I forwarded the invitation to everybody maybe an hour and a half ago well an hour before this meeting so there's a link to RSVP if you're interested in going um I'm going to try and go but I don't know 100% um and then also um the select board is going to take up at their next meeting the Adu um issue and they're going to have the legislators present and they wanted someone from our board to represent the board at that meeting and uh apparently Pat said explicitly she only wanted one person I think um I don't know if other people what day is it uh the next two weeks from last mon from this past M I think it's Jun junun 3rd yeah I don't know if I can go on that day but I'd like to go but I'd like to speak as an individual not as a planning board because I have some things I like to say on the third I'll actually be at a conference I don't know if other more than one person could attend but she wanted one only one person to be a spokesperson um I'll try and clarify that with her um CU I think I mean I think it's unfortunate if more people wanted to attend that they couldn't well I'm not speaking of I'd like to attend but as an individual to right and I think and I do encourage people from the community to attend right because it's a huge opportunity um it's not that it's not that it's not an open yeah come up yes I thought sorry I'm then N Miss understood I thought it was a select board meeting I did too Virginia Timmons 28 L at Lane um the select board periodically twice a year we've been on a pattern where we invite our state legislators to come to one of our meetings and talk about priorities for the community and so at our meeting on Monday night one of our agenda items was what are the topics we want to talk to them about as a select board with the town manager and one of those topics is the housing Bond Bill and part of the housing Bond Bill are the adus and so I had suggested that it would be good to invite representatives from the planning board to participate in that discussion and um that's when you got the the note asking for a representative to come so it's nobody from the public is going to participate in the discussion it's just a board discussion with the legislators which will be not a not a public hearing not a public conversation but it will be taking place in front of the public it's a public meet it's part of our public meeing regular meeting it's not a separate meeting right I mean then I really would like to attend because I've been talking to Simon Galo quite frequently I think thinks I'm a pain in the ass right now but um because i' sorry about that but um I've been calling him so much but I do have concerns about whether or not we're incentivizing the correct Behavior by this housing bill and I want to make sure that they are like thinking about it from a financial perspective um in fact I've been drafting something to send to him so this would be a great opportunity to bring it up June 3rd what time 6:30 their normal meeting they me at 6 but I don't think it's an agenda created yet sorry than it's okay um our meeting starts at the regular time at 6 and there's no agenda yet but I will say that usually when we bring the state legislators in um we put it right at the top of the agenda so they can come go you don't keep them all and M sure I just want to mention while we're on the topic of 0 when when we can do when we ajour but I have the letter so before everybody goes those that wish to sign um I'll we'll pass it around yeah so Anita are you asking if you can be the Run representative I am from the planning board if you don't mind if you guys don't mind no I don't mind well someone else really really wants to go no it' be great I think you'll do good I just want to make sure they're solving the right problem I like the way it came out thank you very much okay I'll take a motion unless anyone has anything else for new business motion to adjourn second favor I I look at that 8:30 e e for