##VIDEO ID:PVjURyO-gDY## [Music] um so we will now open the public hearing and it is 5:57 so we will um open a public here a continue public hearing will be held on Thursday September 26 2024 at 10 West State Street gry Mass to consider a gravel permit application by LJ Development LLC applicant and owners James and Cathy aate et.al 44 Mercier Drive belter toown Mass to remove earth materials from property located on trom AV as for the zoning bylaw section section 4 four no five sorry special use regulations and performance standards 5.8 Earth removal of the town of Granby all right so um is the applicant here yes we are thank you so I think to open up this hearing we would first like to hear from the applicant that's okay okay good evening um again for the record my name is Damen berthume I represent the applicant in connection with uh the gravel permit application that you just mentioned uh I'm not sure if this information has been circulated uh largely but prior to uh the last scheduled meeting uh my client's engineer Mr Frederick who's with me tonight did submit a letter to the board indicating that we were looking to reduce the scope of the project uh to about 25% of what we hadit original asked for uh so the original ask was 40,000 cubic yards uh we did submit a request uh asking that the uh that the scope of the project be reduced to 10,000 cubic yards per day which according to Mr Frederick's calculations uh should be on the the letter that you have would result in about two to three uh truck trips per day to the site uh at our last meeting you know we certainly heard opposition from residents and concerns about traffic and congestion uh we tried to listen to that and present something that we thought uh would be respectful of the community and uh to reduce those number of trucks based upon the reduced truck traffic and the fact that the expectation is that the trucks would be driver loaded so that there's not a lot of additional uh traffic into and out of the site it seems that a traffic study here uh although there have been requests for that I think not from the board but from um some some of the members of the public that have been here is really unnecessary because I I would suggest that two to three trucks in and out of the site is such a Dom Minimus uh addition to any traffic that that doesn't reasonably justify a full a full study for that number of trips uh we also I think the board did request information uh concerning uh sound and so uh we do have an acoustical study that I will be happy to share with the board I apologize we thought that uh this had previously been sent to the board and due to some miscommunication Among Us it was it was not submitted um so if I may through the chair pass this in thank you so we had this report prepared by cross Spectrum Acoustics uh [Music] they took the noise parameters that are included within the town of grany bylaws and you'll see those are identified on page two they also identified the type of equipment on in table two on page three that would be used at this site and uh based upon the analysis that they performed you can see in the paragraph just below table too their their ultimate finding is that uh operations at trumav at the tromp Avenue site will meet the town of gramby noise level requirements U so our suggestion would be that uh We've demonstrated that that noise would not be a concern here uh there are some uh suggestions I guess I'll call them that the uh engineer included on page four of the report we'd certainly be amendable to those uh if if the board were uh inclined to to grant our application although I would suggest that uh based upon the scope of the the project that we're talking about with only two or three trips per day we're not talking about a situation where trucks are going to be queued along a road waiting to be loaded um so that that condition may not be be necessary and I'm sorry I did um excuse me for one moment I do want to let the audience know that there is someone else filming tonight so I apologize I should have started off with that in the meeting so besides gkim there is another gentleman filming just so everyone knows sorry about that that's okay at the last meeting we we did talk about um some title concerns with respect to trumav and what I would suggest uh is that trumav is a private way uh there were concerns expressed uh that a portion of the gravel area which is physically located on the ground with that is that the physically traveled way as it presently stands is located outside of the layout of trom keav as shown on the plan uh we would certainly be amenable to a condition that we have that gravel way surveyed and and that we take steps to move the gravel way uh within trom kav if the board were concerned about that as well I think that that should alleviate any concern regarding title issues uh in that respect uh I think that we in our presentation last time identified uh the the basis for which uh we felt that we satisfied all the criteria in the zoning bylaw or the granting of this uh special permit and so I would at this point uh uh end my presentation and and reserve the right for either myself or our engineer to address any other concerns that are brought up tonight thank you thank you say the prospect we know spe so attorney Costa I know um Dave is still reading over the um report that was giving us given to us for noise study or Acoustics um as we look at 6.27 there was 11 criteria that have to be met in order for um us to Grant the gravel permit and when I look at number five it says the proposed you shall comply with the environmental performance standards specified in section 5.2 of this bylaw so I know one of the concerns that the people had as do I and I don't feel like I have enough information to Cross or check this box off is whether or not there's going to be particulate matter in the air so so I I would need a particular matter study done um in order to check that box to say whether or not they have met that standard so I don't know how the other board members are feeling but that's one of the ones that I don't have enough data for I would tend to agree it is one that was asked for in the criteria I don't think it's unreasonable but I would asked that we have other um gravel pits in town we haven't done a study that such so that's something we should be been looking at for all gravel pits well according to the criteria I think the other ones were and correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they for a they've been in business for a long time so we didn't Grant the original one right but we renew it every year though based on Conservation Commission has told us so the Conservation Commission goes in there they inspect it they say Yep they're operating within their means and then we Grant it based off the compliance with the Conservation Commission no but I understand that just if we're asking for one should we be asking for all for it's concerned with one having the particular matter into the air we should be addressing other ones as well and I don't know if the other ones are by um a brook and everything else I don't know if they are but I can really only speak to this one this one is no I'm saying I agree with you in regards to the study but I'm also saying that that would be something to look at for future as well and then I did have on here a um that I was requesting more information for number seven which was the traffic analysis that I was looking for um just because I didn't have enough information but I do know you guys said that you were decreasing the cubic yards from 40,000 to 10,000 so instead of 18 trucks each day it's two to three so I don't know is the traffic analysis incorrect we have four other incorrect numb um excuse me we're talking for a moment but we have four other gravel pits that are operating on that road right now and I think they're also 10,000 cubic yards that they are taking out that we have granted yes to yes absolutely we have enough here thank you Ju Just so I can be heard um so um I guess I would caution the board there we go I guess I would caution the board to just be be focused on the application that's before you I I don't disagree that um and I recommend to boards I represent that you be consistent in your application of your bylaw so certainly if there are other gravel pits that are operating in town uh if those pits come back before you for renewals or or new pits come before you for special permits uh you should consider what you've done in other similar circumstances now every Gravel Pit may not be the same you have may have some that are surrounded by residents you may have others that are uh quite a distance from the nearest residents um so you have to evaluate each each case each application that comes before you on its own merits but there is something to be said for for being consistent with respect to uses within the community um on the issue of traffic and again that that rule applies to traffic as well you know there are different types of impacts that result from traffic in my experience I'm certainly not a traffic consultant but I've been involved in enough projects where traffic consultant have been employed by Boards like yours to provide peer reviews and where boards like yours have requested that applicants provide either full traffic studies which can be 150 pages in length and can take weeks to perform or traffic assessments which can be a few pages in length and can be can be much more much more brief and to the point obviously not as comprehensive in terms of what gets studied uh but they can also be turned around much more quickly um and they perform traffic Consultants do both a a qualitative analysis looking at the type of traffic that might be generated by a project because obviously a you know a new a new development of uh single family homes is likely going to generate mostly traffic from passenger vehicles the occasional pickup truck um that's going to be different for example from from traffic that might be generated by uh a a gravel pit or traffic that might be generated by um a a landscaping operation where you're going to have um more commercial vehicles coming and going on a regular basis so there's that qualitative component and then there's the quanti ative component which is how many vehicle trips are we talking about coming into and exiting the site on an hour to hour day-to-day basis so um I I leave it to you to decide whether that's appropriate in this case that's beyond beyond my pay grade and that's why you get the the big bucks um but it's a it's it's up to you to decide whether you think you need a full-blown traffic study for a project like this uh comparing what was proposed originally to what's being proposed now which is reduced in in in size or whether you feel you need a traffic analysis or assessment which is something lesser in scope or whether you're comfortable without either that's that's a decision for the board to make but uh you certainly have that within your purview you've got 11 criteria for the issuance of a special permit you have to make affirmative findings with respect to each of those Criterion that that each is each is satisfied uh and if you feel that something is prohibiting you the lack of information is prohibiting you from making a finding um I'm sure the applicant would rather provide you the information you need and give you an opportunity to review it uh than to get denied for failure to comply with with one of those standards thank you so with that I'm I'm fine if if you're looking to a a traffic study assessment assessment it just provides the the select with information that weing could you could you please use the microphones oh yes so you can make copies thank you all right so Mr seon was just saying that he agrees with the uh traffic analysis or assessment um so that we can have more information um in order to determine if it's going to create traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety so that's what he said forward you have a should I ask you a question yes absolutely my name's Don Frederick from Sherman and Frederick Lan engineering you had mentioned number five in particular a particulate matter study y um I know they're going to ask me what that is I don't know what that is is that something that you have seen or just I'm wondering exactly what you're looking for um by asking for that just so that we could provide the right information so the um from my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong attorney Costa but the particular matter in the air means when you are Excavating how much is being flown into the air that could travel to other residents in the area and how far will it travel is my understanding is that correct so I think that's a component of it I think also you know what measures might be undertaken to ensure that that doesn't become a problem uh so there's a mitigation component to it as well and I think that the mitigation component may be the large part of it I I don't know that the applicant is going to be able to deny the premise that there's going to be some particular matter generated by uh an excavation operation uh I think the question is you know how does that get mitigated so that it doesn't become problematic uh for neighbors or or residents that are in fairly close proximity or sometimes further proximity from the property so it's a study of what is anticipated in terms of particulate matter in the air and then what mitigation measures might be employed to ensure that it doesn't become a health concern for for residents thank you thank you all right so I have asked for a particular matter in the air um study be done and a traffic analysis be done as well and with these studies um it is common that under chapter 44 section 53g that in order for us because we are not experts when it comes to these studies but in order for us to be able to um look at this objectively for us to be able to have a someone who specializes in those tests do a peer review so we would be asking the applicant to pay for those peer review to be done as well and I'm not sure how much it is for a peerreview how much we should be asking the applicant whether 5,000 is enough or 10,000 I'm not sure how much the peer review process costs so so Madam chair it's it's it can be difficult to say without having the studies prepared and submitted right so because we don't know what those look like yet um so so I think it's sort of a it's a it's a two-step process and whether the applicant uh wants to expedite it or not guess is up to the applicant uh I think the first the first part of that process is to ask the applicant whether it's prepared and willing to provide the things that the board is requesting uh these two studies or these two analyses um if the answer is yes the second question is well is the applicant willing to provide funding so that those can be reviewed on behalf of the board by a consultant of the board's choosing that has the expertise that the board doesn't have um the way that that process works under the statute that you you you've been referred to uh is you're required to get a quote from a potential consultant you're not obligated under that statute to comply with uh public bidding laws procurement law doesn't apply to to those sorts of Consultants uh but you are required to get a quote to present that quote to the applicant uh that quote should provide a scope of services in terms of what is going to be reviewed and how comprehensive that review may need to be and then the applicant has to sign off on the scope of services authorizing the use of the funding it's providing to the town so but again I think it's a bit early to know know um what those quotes might say what that scope of services might be without knowing what it is that the applicant has submitted there's I imagine going to be quite a bit of difference uh between reviewing what could be a 25 page traffic assessment because I have seen assessments even though they're not full studies that have gone 25 Pages maybe not for a project like this I don't know uh but there's going to be a difference between reviewing that and reviewing something that is three or four pages that is not quite as comprehensive and obviously the cost will be reflected in the in the scope of the peer review so whether we accomplish that over a series of meetings whether you um once there's I'm not suggesting that you continue the meeting now but once we're we've concluded tonight whether you continue to a date that is 30 or 45 days out to see what the applicant submits to then have a discussion about peview Consultants or whether you have that discussion about Consultants now uh and structure it so that that St that study or those studies get submitted they get peer- reviewed and by the time you meet again both of those things has have occurred you've received the study you've received review of that study and that's what you've got before you that's up to the board I have boards that do it both ways um but it's also to a certain extent up to the applicant and they're going to be at the mercy of whatever Consultants they're engaging they could call a traffic consultant to have a assessment done and they could be told that that assessment is eight to 10 weeks out and that's going to affect the timing okay so as attorney Costa said are you willing to give us a particular matter in the air study and a traffic analysis study are you willing to do it so I guess that's the first thing we'll start with we we will provide those okay and then are you also willing to fund for a peer review consultant most likely yes I think we would my experience uh the attorney cost point my experience is that um there's some back and forth on that sometimes in terms of a peer review certainly had uh peer reviews suggested where the scope of the review was was more significant than the initial board it was not it didn't make sense as to why that was the case um so yes we we would be willing to provide the reports and find a reasonable PE of um Dave or Glenn did you have anything else that you want to look at on the 11 criteria so we're not then coming back once they have those for another study or something else no I think those are the ones that uh that stood out that we I know I had concerns with as well so okay I agree I agree that was the only thing that we were looking for excuse me um you may approach yep the you need to come to the mic so that they can hear you hi Susan nightly 32 fairy Road I'm just a couple of things one um in terms of the traffic and the count I think the count is incorrect when you look back at what they base their truck usage at two or three trucks a day it's annual and actually these guys aren't going to be doing it annually they're not going to do it in the debt of winter I hope um they're not going to do it on really rainy days that's one thing the other thing is water can we not look at what's going to happen to our septic systems to our wellwater and to the any kind of water that the trucks have to pass over I mean I'm we're fishing aldrid lake I mean what's going to happen to Aldridge Lake if if one day a truck just happens to slide off the little Culvert that's there and and you know diesel fuel gets into it I mean I think besides the fact that this is the one of the three towns in western Mass that has vernal pools where the Blu spotted salamander bursts its young and we have a Vernal pool all over that area and I'm a little concerned about it's it's debated in the legislature now about our our 50y year 20 year 50y year 100 100 year flood U maps and those things are changing rapidly with climate change and we just have to think about you know the wells and the water that's there so I I would hope that there'd be some sort of study around the water I don't know what that would be but thank you and I have something to read later but I I I won't do that now thanks very much thank you thank you so number three um attorney Kasa does say that the use will not constitute a new by reason of an unacceptable level of air or water pollution excessive noise or visually FL flagrant structures and accessories so they did provide us with the noise analysis that was done um we are asking for air particular matter so is there a study that would be in our purview because we are not the Conservation Commission that we could ask for for the water uh so Madam chair there there's an obvious difference between U surface water groundwater Water Resources like metland resource areas so I I heard I heard a reference to concern about water I heard a reference to concern about Wells uh and then I heard references as well to vernal pools so those are all different things uh if we're talking about vernal pools or Wetland resource areas that is a a matter that's within the purview of the Conservation Commission I don't know whether this project if it's if it's occurring or there was a a disturbance or the the term used in the Wetland protection act is an alteration of land that's within the 100 foot jurisdictional bounds of a Conservation Commission then the applicant will be required to make either an RDA filing or an noi filing I don't know if that's going to occur or not no it's not they were out of the 100 all right so if they're if they're outside of that area then they won't need to make those requisite requisite findings um to to provide a bit of additional color commentary I heard the reference to vernal pools but vernal pools are not always subject to protection under the wetlands protection act as isolated Wetland resource areas they're they're different um and there's also a difference between a certifiable Vernal pool and a certified Vernal pool so without getting into the the the the weeds with respect to Wetland resource areas it sounds like that's not something that will be reviewed by the Conservation Commission if you had significant concerns because you have some broader Authority under your special permit standards to evaluate environmental harm you could ask for additional information from the applicant but I I I want to caution you about um defaulting to this idea of a study of this and a study that it's not always a study sometimes it's just that you need information and you need to evaluate that information on your own as to whether it satisfies you based upon these purposely sort of subjective criteria within your bylaw so that goes to vernal pools that goes to surface or groundwater uh groundwater surface water runoff that might occur as a consequence of U relocating a roadway or a driveway uh and of course it goes to to private Wells to the extent that there's concern that something that might be done could could could pollute or could cause harm to a private well I don't know I have not seen anything in the paperwork I've reviewed for this project that necessarily suggests that that's a concern I've not seen anything in this paperwork that addresses those issues headon so if the board has concerns above those things I think you should engage in a dialogue with the applicant and um see what information the applicant can provide and if it's not satisfactory to you you can ask for additional information um but as you say each of these you've got an 11p part test for the issuance of a special permit uh and almost each of these 11 criteria uh is is purposely a bit vague a bit broad uh a bit ambiguous and it's it's meant to provide you with some flexibility and and how you apply them what information you ask for to to convince yourselves that this is a use that is appropriate for uh the location where it's being proposed thank you and when I look at number eight I don't think I have enough information to check that boxy either because it says the proposed project shall not create a significant adverse impact to the quality of service water or groundw during or and after construction and provision shall be made for maximizing gr groundwater recharge so as you said a study might not necessarily be needed but more information is but me not being an expert I don't know what that more information is like how would they provide me with enough data for me to be able to say okay it's not going to affect groundwater it's not going to affect surface runoff so sure so so that is one I I was I was speaking very broadly about not requiring a study with respect to necessarily each and every one of the nine or 11 criteria right that is one where I might actually look to a study because applicants will typically provide um a a drainage report um a study of drainage conditions pre and post construction during construction they'll present an erosion control plan during the construction phase to give the board a sense as to um what will be done to ensure that there's not uh runoff um you know with with particulate matter into sensitive areas um so I don't think I saw that in the materials that were submitted um but that is something that would typically be submitted for a project it obviously depends upon the project scope if you're building a single family home or a duplex that's not something I see submitted to to permitting authorities too often when you're when you're building shopping plazas it's it's a routine submitt um this is probably somewhere in between in terms of the nature of this project um and that is something that would be reviewed typically by your engineer some communities do it in house if you have a town engineer or engineering department uh in smaller communities that don't have those resources uh it would be reviewed by a thirdparty engineering consultant the civil engineer that has experience with storm water and we do not have a town engineer we do not have a town engineer correct yeah we're one of the small towns give you some information on please yes come on up believe uh all of this has been presented before obviously it's been a while so I just wanted to make sure everybody is aware of what we've said or uh submitted to the board as far as the Conservation Commission goes we did have the wetlands delineated we asked them for a request for determination to look at those Wetlands they wanted to do a abbreviated notice of resource area delineation which is quite expensive as far as fees and they would hire a consultant to do that um we agreed that we would do that at a point when we got closer to the boundaries um basically they would have somebody confirm the boundaries but as it stands right now we're not anywhere near jurisdictional areas or buffers or the flood plane for that matter um so at some point we could get near their boundaries we not ever going to be Our intention is to stay out of all the buffers Rivers area and so forth but the best to my knowledge um there is no certified vernal pools on this property or that will be affected on the property by this uh operation um as far as storm water goes um generally storm water management policy will be kicked in if you're filing a notice of intent and have a increased in impervious area or create a new um point source discharge which we don't do on this project so we have not done any storm water reports the intention is to contain everything on the site as far as storm water and erosion it's a gravel operation so putting it simply they're digging a hole and everything will run into that so there's no erosion off the site or um loss of recharge there'll actually be recharge going into the ground we've also maintained we've done uh and submitted U test bits and um monitoring Wells so that we have either found a level of groundwater or have a a a monitoring well in in the ground that has not shown groundwater we maintain a minimum of 6ot Separation throughout the site to the groundwater to uh maintain the filtering capability of the soils above the groundwater your Bot does not have a minimum separ allowable separation um to that groundwater for the Earth removals some towns do some towns don't I can give you a example of the storm water management policy for their underground infiltration areas or detention basins allow a twoot separation um um Title Five varies from four to 5 feet can get a variance to three feet um other than that there's nothing in your bylaw we have maintain a six just to be consistent with other applicable engineering standards for that separation thank you thank you thank you Ma Madam chair uh yes Attorney K if I could just ask through you to the applicant is there an operation and maintenance plan that has been been developed for uh for the construction phase or post construction no don't really okay what did you call it attorney Costa operation of so it's an operation and maintenance plan it's of referred to as an on andm plan I I would agree that you see these they're required by those projects that trigger the storm water handbook um my understanding from what was just said is that this is not that sort of a Project based upon calculation of impervious surfaces and area of disturbance um I wondered if there was such a plan the operation and maintenance plan would address um during construction then post construction how the site was being maintained and how any storm water management system um would be maintained it doesn't sound like there's much of a storm water management system here um because it's not a a construction project it's an excavation project but I just wanted to ask the question because if there was one that is something that the board would would want to review yes come up to the mic please hello everybody hello we can just state your name and your address Dian to's room 312 Bachelor Street and I apologize for my voice um I am the audiologist so I was able to take a really quick peek um I want to just make sure that you all really look at this um noise study carefully they only gave an instantaneous noise study here it is not a comprehensive one that will also look at the impact of all of the residents in the area particularly up there on trony Avenue we're supposed to be looking at the schools that are within the mile and how it could AFF um the the the measurements and all the that I looked at quickly are confusing um our maximum sound level is 65 decb um within that and some of their numbers we're talking about 75 Deb and we have no idea where those are really measured if a comprehensive noise study is supposed to be taking place within 25 feet of um it was supposed to be from the the property lines of closest residents to the the site um I have a few articles I'm going to submit this again to you all um I am a I can get you copies of what an appropriate comprehensive noise study is I don't know were you planning on having um or hoping to have a peer study um on the on the noise study the the peer review of the noise study as well we would have to get a peer review of it because I'm not a specialist okay so that was planned so I just really want you to think about that this is not a conprehensive noise study that will um address all of what the what could happen with the residents and all of the know there there's a from what I understand there's a um also a um a daycare up there so you we need to think in that just about you know the air and all that everything but um I just as being an audiologist I wanted a careful review of this thank you thank you so dve or Glenn looking at the other 11 criteria was there anyone that you guys needed more information for know if you want to take a look at them stood out Madam chair yes did you still watch the title search document also yes the title search document actually was something that you guys were going to have for us at the last meeting when we had to resched received that document so okay do you have that document uh no okay gave my opinion about at the beginning of the meeting like specific generated a so you had um at the beginning of the meeting you had said that you would suggest changing the road so it's not on that property is that what you were saying for the right away to the extent so I think what we would do would be the the plan that we are looking at likes people can hear me the plan I think that we're looking at uh that shows the actual physical area of the gravel way known as trom keav um versus the layout of trom keav on the plan is from 1988 um my understanding from from speaking with Mr shomy is that that gravel area has probably shifted significantly uh in the last 30 to 40 years uh and so what I suggested was that we would uh to to avoid these issues of of some of these title issues that are out there about where the easement lies and and and so on we could just uh move first of all have the the Grava way surveyed if necessary or have more appropriately trumav as it's laid out on the 1988 plan survey uh and move the uh traveled area within that layout I don't so as a result I if you'd like a a specific report saying you know that the owners of the properties of budding trom keav uh owned to the center line pursuant to the derc Fe statute with additional information about who has rights to to use Trav as a private way certainly happy to provide that um but in light of the fact that we were moving and it didn't seem necessary it's easy enough to provide well because even if you move it we have to make sure that it's not within the property of the people on the corner right so you would still need a title search to see where that property goes a title search isn't going to show that that would be a survey show that so we would move the the road um to the area of trumav as shown on the plan okay that which was the 1988 plan that you were 198 and and so you know for all we know we may have that have the pins put in the ground and it may already be within Trona but I I did say we would provide a title report why don't I I will we're already providing these other things I'll provide that as well thank you M there a question M chair yep you can come up to the mic M issues I'm Attorney John mlin represent the bruffy represent the troughs represent micone represent the bruffy the troughs and uh Miss Lambert now so represent more people um we have financial support for many many people um and I just wanted to address a couple of issues uh as to what happened what have heard tonight first off my understanding of the amendment that was filed did not change the special permit application except for the yearly amount unless they're going to be more specific brother Council said reducing it by 25% the application still says that they want to remove 292,000 and one month um they're just changing the amount they're taking out per year they're seeking andless unless I'm wrong brother Council said we're reducing it by 25% they're just reducing um down to 25% the amount that they're taking out each year this is still a massive industrial siiz uh project that's going to go on beyond the lives of many of the people in this room I'm 65 I don't know if I'll see the end of this this special permit is huge it's it's a massive amount of money they're going to be making for decades and decades this is not like a 10,000 cubic yards for one year and we're gone so that's the way I read the written amendment I don't know if brother kson wants to say that they're reducing everything to Simply 25% I didn't see it that way as in regards to the written amendment that was somewhat confusing okay indeed someone got up here and said this isn't going to go uh 12 months a year it really isn't there there'll be periods of time where there's no market for the product and where it's extremely hard to get it out of the ground I think at best you're looking for maybe uh 42 weeks a year maybe um which is 210 days um I'm taking them at the word that it's 17 cubic yards per truck that's 588 truckloads per year at uh with work days at 210 days that's 2.8 truck loads per day what they've neglected to say is that's almost six trucks trips a day not two or three because each load is two truck trips so you've got a lot of traffic here um that's going to be increasing um the other thing is you should look at the court decision from 2012 that happened after days of trial of sworn testimony and the judge said and I'm quoting from the judge's decision this is adjudicated and it wasn't appealed by the tropy owners and it wasn't appealed by the applicant at that time this is the law of the case and the judge said Bachelor street is a winding hilly road ranging in the vicinity of trony Avenue from just over 19 ft to just under 22 ft wide with no Sidelines there are multiple school bus stops along Bachelor Street including at the corner of trony Avenue due to the width of the roadway cars must pull to the side when trucks or school buses pass them on Bachelor street so they're asking the cars that's what the judge found as a fact regarding this matter um on essentially the same time Ty special permit uh which was being saw so that means they're asking and and on and on trumpy it's even worse I don't know if you've been there but where the the Culvert is it's impossible to get two cars so that means people who live on try like my new clients they have to stop and wait for the trumpy Gravel Pit trucks why I mean that's so the way I see it is people are going to have to stop six times a day uh to let the trony trucks go for almost every normal day of the year for 30 years this is not a little thing um in special permit criteria 7.27 sub7 says you can only pass a special permit that will not cause traffic congestion and there is no and there is a convenient and safe traffic flow on the adjacent streets this is not a convenient traffic flow everybody's got to stop to let these guys pass just because you can get a special you can apply for a special permit for a particular piece of property in this District doesn't mean that these streets are good for it and and this is a new special permit that getting hundreds of thousands of cubic yards this isn't you know 10,000 I'm going away or I'm just renewing one that you already granted my understanding is they're going to say okay once you got this we've got this for 30 years and we can keep doing it so long as we stay in compliance so that you're going to have this forever and this traffic is going to be there for 30 years everybody's going to have to pull over at least six times a day um I don't think any reason the board could find it that it it is reviewed every year for a special permit so they could be Ren for compliance for compliance big deal I mean you you if you give somebody hundreds of thousands of cubic yard special permit and you say you're out of compliance with that they'll fix it but they still got a special permit going for 30 years that's what you got here um and and I know they reduced it okay but that doesn't affect a bunch of the issues that have been raised for my PE my clients that are on trony Avenue are direct abutters to this um so the noise I I'm glad you're going to get someone to review the noise test um when it's an industrial use frequently they use State guidelines not just local guidelines uh you have special permit criteria doesn't say they have that it's everything's fine if they obeyed your regular bylaws you could say you know this is a massive industrial use we want to make sure there's no sound problems and then the particulates now how um uh brother Council aasta was talking about there's other ways of mediating this frequently what happens is a burm if you're going to do a pit that's going to be there for 30 years that's going to generate at least six trips a day forever um you would have a burn you it would be um fairly steep on the side of the gravel pit and then would be a gradient down to the Residential Properties on the other side and usually boards would have them have to vegetate that side that would help with both sound and it would help with dust both if it's done right around the entire property so that's what we should where where especially where it's intersecting with Residential Properties um and then what happened with the title was I was right they didn't have any right at all to put commercial traffic on my client's property that's what I've been saying all along he's not giving you the title search cu the the title search will show what I've said and that is what happened here so the only way they can get around it is to move the role you have a title did you do a title search I did I had someone do it and all of the um statements as to the pertinent um title references were in my 15-page report that I gave you one or two times ago yes and and what it showed is that the easement that goes over Miss Lambert's property who's now my client Miss Lambert that is only good for what it was used for in the 1930s which was residential and agricultural not industrial and you list this use is industrial so they have no right to be on my client's property with industrial use so they're going to have to move the road and he said well what we're going to move it to what was approved in 1988 that's good but they should do the entire Road not only to what what the 1988 approval said was if there's further development on this road they had to bring it out to the full width of a subdivision Road and pave it that's what they have to do that's what this board ordered in 2010 you shouldn't you were right in 2010 your own lawyer in 2010 wrote a written opinion that said yes if someone's going to do a gravel pit there they have to bring the road up to subdivision standards the problem with that is they're going to be doing that in wetlands and in um flood plane so they're going to have huge problems I mean you should have them a Wetlands expert say that they could do this it's even feasible especially where the covert is the covert goes through Wetlands literally through wetlands and through storm water and now they're going to have to make it much much wider they're going to have to kill a bunch of wetlands try to replicate it someplace else I don't know what they're going to do it doesn't seem feasible this particular property is not a good place for a special permit I can't say any reason board could say oh this is a good property to do this and speaking about the covert one of the other issues is is that covert going to be okay to handle this amount of traffic all the time every day for 30 years is it I don't know I mean that is something you might want to have them give you more detailed studies on umh the hydrology I'm glad you talked about the hydrology if you saw that we gave a report someone volunteered a PhD from MIT volunteered I didn't pay that gentleman anything saying you definitely need a hydrology report especially for storm water and uh surface water and underground water um it gets me to another Point look at the paperwork that they gave us regarding um the the uh the what they gave for the water Heights they're dated 2010 they didn't even do new mapping for this application they just threw in what they did last time 2010 is a long time I don't know if if the hydrology changes that much but they've got 2010 reports in there you should at least say that it should be a a a contemporary um um plants and showing the the storm water the uh the groundwater um okay and brother councel said I dealt with every issue before there's a big big big issue here which is 26 272 all right the special permit condition and it's says that it must be similar in character and scale to other uses that are done by right in this District there's nothing even similar to this at all whatsoever that's going to call for the massive amount of work they're going to have to do to prepare the site and the industrial use for another 30 years what can somebody do by right in this District that's similar to that nothing if you recall last time when brother Council spoke to each issue he said oh this is like one of the others literally I think that was the quote no it's not like anything else it's it's a poison pill it basically for their project their project is not like anything people can do by right here not in scale or in scope or in character at all so they just can't do it in this um this district with a proposing for the scale of this particular project um reports um I I'm glad we got the report I do remember that in April 1 they said we'll get you the report in 30 days so it's here it's better than not showing up at all um but I do think uh when it comes to the traffic that um that's extremely crucial uh because especially with judges finding a fact which was not appealed um in the the fact the other thing that you really have to address is that point that to issue this especially permit they must put trony road to the full width and paved now I I know brother counil is going to say well the the planning board didn't have the power to do that in 1988 Maybe not maybe they did but it wasn't appealed that is the approval that was done it's like somebody finding a problem with the special permit that was issued two years ago it's too late the special permit's done this this was approved decades ago and tronis who own the land lived with it they said okay you know that's I don't know if that's right with the law maybe they did or they didn't but they had a chance to appeal it and they never appealed it and your own lawyer in 2010 said and I've said reading it that the only way they can do this project is to make it the road fully to the width of subdivision and uh subdivision standards and paid it they're going to have huge problems doing that um the other boards I mean we now have them saying if I recall them saying we're going to go to the wetlands commensurate with you the statute doesn't require them one before the other but they were going to go to the boards they said it was weather the weather was bad so they couldn't now it's saying it's going to cost money so we're not going to go to the to the wetlands people to do all those plannings just a point that I recall um and also there's still the issue of the the court um in 2010 this board seemingly was saying that they would have to go to the planning board to get a special permit to bring that much Earth over the um over the uh flood plane which part of the road is in the flood plane which is an unusual thing I I understand but that's seemingly the language you have um um so I've been talking mostly about the special permit criteria you know there should be a burm you know um the roads got to be bigger they've got to get off my client's property for any use commercial use but we should also look at the um the some of the stuff with the application itself I mean they initially said that they're doing this for so that there be Title Five um availability for sand I think there's been this we've heard tonight there's other places available and there's many many places with an easy uh drive to get Title 5 sand but your bylaw says that they have to give you a statement as to what the purpose of this project is for um what is it I mean this goes Way Beyond what anyone would need for Title 5 for gry so what is it I mean that is an unusual provision not everybody has that but I haven't heard a statement is this going to be sold in other towns for commercial uses you know what is it it's not going to help gramby at all it's not going to give you a lot of jobs out of out of town people and it's just going to make money for the landowner and I don't see that there's much benefit at all to the town of grany and not not every town has such a provision but you do so they're supposed to tell you and they haven't done that also um in their application I'm getting now into the 5.8 stuff this is 5.8 is the stuff that's peculiar just to the Gravel Pit not your special permit criteria in general but there's a provision of 5.8 that calls for restoration okay and a bond to pay for the restoration this restoration this is going to be the size of of a a stadium when they're done in 29 point something years and they're supposed to I'll give you the exact um replace with L or top soil a 4 Ines of pre-existing top soil um and they are required to undertake planting of the area to a suitable cover including trees okay so and you know when they did their application they said these are the points for 5.8 they left out the bond that's going to be an extremely expensive Bond and and are they going to get it are they going to are they going to redo every area each year that they get back otherwise the Bond's going to have to be significant to to make sure what they get done in 20 or 30 years they don't leave you with just a big hole in the ground because that's what could happen unless you get a significant Bond to make sure that they can pay if no if they don't restore the area and you should talk about restoration how many trees where are the trees going to be located they've done nothing with that they theyve s when they did their application they sort of left off restoration they didn't really talk about it um so the the other thing I wanted to address is uh the 2010 situation in 2010 um and I guess it was Miss McDow who was who was sitting in one of your chairs 10 years ago um she made it clear that what happened in 2010 was they had a gun at their head they asked for these studies and they said we're not giving you any studies they wouldn't do it and normally that could result in a board saying well we're not giving you your permit if you don't give us any studies but they didn't because they were left in a situation where the app they had closed the hearing and then more than 90 days went by before they gave a decision that's a bad situation to be in and they believed that they had a gun at their head they either had to give uh a permit with a with conditions or that the applicant was going to argue something called constructive approval meaning that I got what I applied for so you better work with me or else I got what I applied for yes why do you say that I just I'm I'm concerned as because it's just putting words out there I I never heard any of the other board members that were on the board at that time so they had a they felt like had a gun through head well well Mrs mcdow's letter seems to imply that I mean and I've spoken with her that's why I'm saying it he she was there and read read I gave lengthy excerpts from what happened and what happened was they had it they had minimal hearings Clos the hearing Clos the hearing and then the neighbors came up and said what have you done but it's kind of too late at that point so so they took evidence that was probably not admissible and so McDonald status she felt like she had a gun drad no no no that's my words but but that that with all due respect sir that that is the point I'm making those are flammatory words okay that that's all those are my words no she would never say that that's what I'm ask to hear that that's what was being implied I know one of the other uh members that was on the board and that's I mean he he Bas he said what the issues were at the time that occurred but didn't say he felt pressured or anything like that he just basically said we made a wrong decision we didn't listen to our attorney we we pressured I mean there's a letter from the applicant's attorney that says again I'm just I'm stating the same thing you kind of stated that that's that's that's why I'm bringing it up because that's true she she would never say words like that saying she felt like the board members felt like they had a gun through her head isn't she that that that that was my spin on it you know I'm a lawyer okay that was my spin on it that's why I asked okay that's right so so but but if you read the letter from the applicant's attorney he basically said you guys waited too long I you know we'll work with you but I can get what's known as constructive approval I'm sure attorney CA can tell you about that it's a bad thing to get around constructive approval if you've got an applicant who says we'll take conditions and we'll run with it then you'll give them conditions and run with it because you don't want to fight over constructive approval so um that's the situation they were in I said it's a gun at their head but they were constrained really constrained and they had asked for reports that they didn't get and and the applicant and presumably the property owner wouldn't give it to them be because it might not be good especially when you consider what the judge said in her decision after days of trial and sworn testimony she said that the roads are so bad people got to pull over for these trucks why is that in compliance with your special permit it isn't no board could find that that's a good reasonable traffic flow that's congestion that's and the other issue number two of your special perimet criteria it's got to be like something that they do here by right and there's nothing like it so there's I don't see any way that this could be granted and um I think I've said enough but thank you for hearing me thank you thank you folks with all du respect please and it we're we're having a a public meeting I don't think it's proper to collap one way or another okay it's just we want to give people the opportunity to speak and voice their concerns on on the issue at hand thank you go um attorney CA do you give us some advice conning so there was a lot there um so I know we're looking at 6.27 criteria and there's 11 um 11 things that we need to make sure are being upheld but then we also have the Earth removal bylaw which also has the board which is the board of Selectmen also looking at that we also have the noise ordinance that we have to look at there's a lot so when we originally um looked at this it was 11 criteria of the 6.2 27 we're also looking at the Earth removal correct that's correct so so this is not unique to gry it's not unique to to Earth removal um there are many instances in Municipal ordinances and bylaws where there are self-contained sections of those ordinances and bylaws that regulate a certain use um think about a you know an open space residential development or a cluster development you may have a section of your bylaw that deals with those uh think about a solar photov voltan system a solar facility you may have a section of your bylaw that deals with those but it may also state within that section in addition to providing V various criteria that must be satisfied that are particular to that use it may also incorporate the requirement of a special permit and therefore incorporate the more generic special permit criteria that you've got pursuant to a different section of your bylaw and that's what happens here so you have section 5.8 it's entitled Earth removal bylaw uh it doesn't do much in terms of criteria there's not a there's not a section that says you've got to make the following 11 findings but what it does do is it has a list in section 5.81 under procedure of submittals that need to be made by an applicant and then in section 5.83 which is called limitations it says that a special permit granted shall impose reasonable conditions designed to safeguard the neighborhood in the town including specific conditions pertaining to the following and then has a list of a through n various topics some of which were just referenced by the previous speaker um it also includes a bond requirement also referenced by the previous speaker so these are things that are particular to Earth removal it wants to know uh the type and location of temporary structures associated with the removal it wants to know the area and the depth of excavation these aren't generic special permit standards these are standards that are specific to Earth removal operations which is why they're in section 5.8 so you have to make findings that these required submittals have been made you have to go through to the extent you're going to Grant a permit obviously if you're not granting a permit you don't need to condition it as provided in section 5.83 but if you are going to Grant it you've got to go through and ensure that these conditions have been satisfied or that you're going to condition and approval accordingly things like determining the distance of excavation from Street and lot lines things like determining that there's proper fencing being provided things like again something referenced by the previous speaker that there'll be replacement with LOM or top soil of 4 in or pre-existing top soil condition over the area of removal once the removal is complete you would need to condition your approval again presuming an approval not saying there should be one but if you issue an approval you'd need to condition it consistent with these requirements so you have to do that in addition to the 11 criteria that we've been discussing off and on over the past hour or so which are the more generic special permit criteria you need to make those 11 findings if you make those 11 findings and you're prepared to Grant the special permit you then have to shift over to the Earth removal bylaw inappropriately condition it consistent with these additional requirements okay make a statement yes please remov requirements our application did as far as the Earth removal requirements go um we did have a project narrative that addressed each of those items in uh section 5.83 um based on what the the section that you were just referring to and that is accurate the applicant subal materials had this document called Earth removal permit narrative and it does walk through those criteria okay attorney Costa do you mind just holding that up because between everybody who has given us papers there's a lot here so if I can just see what the front of it looks like sure it it's a it's a document that's entitled Earth removal permit narrative it says sensored on the page beneath it LJ Development LLC Earth removal and then it has a reference to the map and parcel number and then it begins by saying the following is in accordance with the requirements of the rambi zoning bylaw section 5.8 Earth removal and then it walks sequentially through the the numbered criteria it was toward the end of the December 12th 2023 I think that was the original submitt made by the applicant it was uh toward the end of the the pdf version that I received by email got it m m Sher I have a copy no I have it right here thank you very much all right all right so I just want to to the other board members make sure that we have a full list of what we need in order to make an informed decision on this so we have particulate matter in the air where we want them to look into that we have a traffic analysis we are also asking when it's time once we get those analyses that we have funding for our own consultant which the applicant has been willing to do uh for reasonable peer review as far as the drainage report or erosion control plan um as discussed with attorney Costa um they are over 100 feet from any Waterway or anything like that and they're digging a hole in the ground not surrounded by anything so they wouldn't need the information correct so I think that's correct based upon the representation made by the applicant but as as a board you don't necessarily have to take those representations at face value having said that I can tell you I'm not an engineer so I can't it's not a legal question that's a question for an engineer as to based upon review of the site plan whether it's within the 100 foot jurisdictional bounds based upon the storm water standards whether any of those apply in light of the nature of the project that's being proposed um legally I can tell you I I I have I understand the storm water standards in the handbook and I understand when it does and doesn't apply so I have no reason to doubt based on the nature of this project and what's been represented by the the the applicants engineer that it it it may very well be that the storm water handbook is not triggered uh and the nature of the project doesn't require the design of a true storm water system and so you're not going to get that information but again I'm not an engineer so I can't say that definitively so then would it be a peer review on our end to make sure that their Engineers within the scope of that right so you you've talked about peer reviews of the two forthcoming studies so you're talking about a peer review of the the particulate matter study and a peer review of the traffic assessment um there's also a noise report that's been submitted and heard from at least we heard from at least one resident to request that that be be reviewed and I think Madam chair you said that it would be but again that has not been posed to the applicant uh and now we're talking about engineering components uh site design uh that's something something that could potentially need to be peer-reviewed um and I don't know that I know enough yet but it sounds like I'll see it once I receive the the materials from the the applicants Council uh about this title issue so I know we referenced it a couple of meetings ago but as I understand that there's both a title component to it but there's also an on the ground component to it as the applicants attorney properly said the title's not going to show whether the the roadway is within the bounds of the layout that's something you're going to see on the ground and there going to be verified or Not by a survey that's done uh so I don't know what may be needed and this is something that I ought to be able to do in terms of a review of the title work that's submitted to determine proper rights within try Avenue to for for the applicant to use it and what whether that runs a foul of rights that other other uh adjacent land owners may have but then there's a second question of the location of the existing traveled way today within the bounds of the of the layout of the roadway and uh that could be a condition of approval of the board to to Grant the permit it could simply condition the approval on relocating that roadway to within the within the the layout presuming that the applicant proves the right to use that layout okay and I know um the 2010 uh court case keeps getting referenced so would the covert over the Waterway have to be replaced based off the previous court case or are we supposed to be looking at this without that court case attached to it so so um I think it's important that you look at this case to a certain extent in the context of of what the what the housing court said um the housing court was not evaluating this particular project presented to you in 2023 and 2024 but it was it was reviewing a similar project by the same property owner on the site um and had much to say concerning your bylaw and the applicability of certain provisions of the bylaw and ultimately the decision that your predecessors predecessor select board members uh made when they issued the the special permit um special permits are entitled to a great degree of so it's not uh it's not common place for courts to second guess special permit granting authorities whether they're grants or denials far more cases uh far more decisions are affirmed or upheld than overturned and in fact if you read the 20 2010 court case I think it was 2012 by the time it was decided the 2012 decision uh you'll see that the the judge actually began over the course of several Pages discussing the typical deference that's entitled that that is that is due uh a special permit granted Authority but then ultimately proceeded to say in the next sentence or the next paragraph nonetheless um in light of the facts that were before the select board at the time the court simply couldn't find that the select board was justified in in granting the permit and highlighted certain I think it was four of those 11 criteria that we've been referring to repeatedly tonight uh that uh the court determined the the the board was not justified in finding that those standards had been satisfied so I think that that's instructive for the board again it's not doesn't dictate the outcome of these proceeding meetings but it is it is instructive for the board in reminding the board what it needs to be looking at and also reminding the board of the the the degree or extent or or strength of the evidence that it needs to be relying upon if it's going to Grant and again I'm not saying it should or shouldn't but if it's going to Grant the permit again or in the same manner as it did a decade ago uh it needs to correct the mistakes that were made a decade ago and if it can't correct those mistakes or can't make the findings that were made a decade ago it shouldn't issue the permit I chman hold on one moment please and one of the mistakes they made in that was or not so much a mistake but was that not the judge finding that they said or the judge said that it had to be brought up to um substandard level or no not substandard level had to be brought up so that it was two lanes and they widen in the road so so so this this is something that my understanding is het Arisen and you heard previous speaker Council for some of the the residents uh refer to an opinion that was given by council at the time I I actually have not seen that opinion that was provided by council at the time it's at this point it's 12 13 years ago I've not seen it um uh but my understanding is that that opinion was was issued um to the board indicating that consistent with a planning board uh approval that had issued in years prior if there were to be further development off the roadway the roadway would need to be improved to be brought into compliance with subdivision standards uh the court didn't actually say that needed to occur because the the board had already said it needed to occur right remember the court was court was reviewing the decision of the board granting the permit the board had already said it needed to be needed to be improved and brought up to to to to up the snuff so when you when you look I have the decision in front of me when you look at uh page eight of the decision numbered paragraphs paragraph 17 it says if allowed to act on its special permit Stony Hill will be required to upgrade trumpy Avenue to subdivision standards before beginning Earth removal operation so that was it was it was a condition of approval already and the court simply acknowledged that was going to be required it did go on to talk about the fact that widening and Paving trumpy Avenue was going to affect the neighborhood so that is something also that should be considered in that context but um that that that was where things stood back in 2012 okay thank you uh Susan nightly you can come up Susan nightly fairy hill road I'm not going to tell you anything you haven't already heard but I wanted to put it in writing and read it to you so I just wanted to really thank the board um for hearing so many residents who opposed the trumpy Avenue Sand and Gravel Pit and who share who shared we shared our concerns during the past several special board meetings we're so grateful to live in a community where we can step forward and express our concerns thank you we wanted to further put on the record that we're very concerned with the very real impact this project would have on the Health and Welfare of local residents wildlife and the wetlands Bachelor street so beautiful is designated as a Scenic Highway Massachusetts it's already a challenging place to walk and safely many of us do so every day we had hoped the traffic Road study as well as Road suitability study would have been done prior to your vote on this and we hope that it will be as a special permit granting Authority you required a copy of set applicant to be sent to the board of appeals the planning board the Board of Health and the Conservation Commission for their review to that end our Board of Health know Ed many important health and safety issues and many made many strong recommendations against the approval of this special permit application if certain studies required do not meet the board of health concerns the planning board voted in 12222 24 to recommend a peer review by a civil engineer we're discussing that uh thank you further the Conservation Commission said that they'll require an anrad and storm water pollution prevention plan but not until after the project is potentially approved that doesn't seem to make sense to many of us we wonder why it would be afterwards but but um where are the studies that determine where are the studies that determine the long-term environmental impact of removing more soil in this sensitive area after several public hearings the applicant LJ development LDC LLC has only been asked to produce this noise study and the title search or now we have some other requirements tonight thank you we are extremely concerned that without several critical studies the select board will not be able to make an informed and safe division decision for our entire Community we sincerely hope that you the select board will consider and be informed about all 11 criteria thank you we hear that you're really exploring that in our gry bylaw 627 before you vote on this special permit as the town special Council advised even if one of these was not met you would be within your rights to disapprove the application if I understand that correctly we assume that you would protect us by not approving it if any of the 11 criteria are not met in particular number three that the use will not not constitute a nuisance by reason of an unacceptable level of air or water pollution excessive noise or visually flagrant structures or accessories our bylaws are passed by and for all of us and they are what protect the residents of grany we hold them them dear and we assume you do as well you have been elected to do so you are our Defenders against which harm what would harm us our health our clean water and our clean air please consider all the legal and binding bylaws we urge you not to approve LJ construction special permit for an industrial Sand and Gravel Pit unless all criteria have been researched by independent experts approved by you and our Board of Health those studies would include a peer review by an independent civil engineer thank you an anrad and storm water pollution prevention plan prior to approval that would include details regarding the ongoing monitoring of the site thank you a hydrological study for the wetlands and Bachelor Brook and Water Table analysis please a traffic study for bachelor Street and trumpy Avenue to include core samples of roadways thank you a noise study to include traffic noise levels analysis and documentation thank you environmental impact study air quality study thank you note that per the bylaws the applicant does not have to respond to our requests they are only required to respond to those requested by you our select board these studies are warranted after significant concerns were raised by the citizens of grany within the parameters of the application thank you for hearing us thank you  thank you you rich saraki 428 Bachelor Street first of of all I'd like to say that there are no gravel pits that take out 10,000 cubic yards that travel Bachelor street now there's zero the first thing I'd like to do is just I'd like to hand in some documents uh one of them was the Board of Health letter that the applicant attorne held up and said look it's not even signed I did get the uh Board of Health chairman dick Bomer to sign it also I got the conser the Conservation Commission letter signed by the chairman of the conservation and I'll throw in a planning board letter too so I wanted to hand those in the next item was uh of order was a letter I received by uh filing a public records request with the town for the Covenant which was issued in 1988 in connection with its approval of a tlot subdivision here it is okay what happened was the board of Selectmen at the time asked their special councel to determine who was responsible for paying truny Avenue roadway uh improvements I'd like to just read a little bit of it this is from the attorney to the select board this letter is in response to your request for my interpretation of a covenant which is included in the approval of a subdivision plan a copy of which is enclosed now this is the exact wording that's on the deed to uh it's on the uh site plan approval and I'll read it any development Beyond existing 10 Lots requires that the road champy Avenue be upgraded to the town of gry's subdivision standards said cost to be born by the residents of truny Avenue not the town of grany it seems logical to assume however that the planning board's concern was for the increased traffic which would result from the potential futur development of the property and which would warrant improvements to the road so basically uh the important letter that was included in that request that I got was the last letter it was written by the planning board to the select board and I'll just read a portion of it it says the planning board is in the receipt of a letter dated September 13 2010 to the select board from attorney David Martell presenting his interpretation of a covenant which is included in the approval of a subdivision plan granted by the Granby planning board in 1988 the Covenant as it relates to the proposal for a gravel pit and the use conditions and upgrade of truny Avenue are of concern to the planning board as the proposal for a gravel pit progresses through the permitting process members of the planning board wish to emphasize the importance of the enforcement of this Covenant the uh planning board evidently in 1988 considered an approve approved the development of trumpy Avenue subdivision roadway and Associated infrastructure as adequate at that time but that may uh but that any future development of trumi Avenue would require the upgrade of some not by the town but by residents of trumi Avenue the planning board is requesting that as the select board renders its decision under the pending application enforcement of the Covenant be required okay so the planning board really didn't want to write this letter the uh Pam Mayu was one who was on the original committee and others were they they also supplied the minutes of the meeting that took place and they more or less encouraged the uh chairman of the planning board to write this letter the last sentence says during the discussion of this at the meeting of the planning board on on September 13 2010 it should be noted that the chairman felt that the legal opinion letter from attorney Martell noted above was sufficient for the board of Selectmen to enforce the Covenant so there's no question that the Covenant should be enforced any future development on trumpy Avenue would require subdivision standards be be adhered to the uh next letter is the the letter that was talked about from Mary McDow now I I just want Mary mcdonal was a highly respected select board member she was on the board at the time that the board voted the first time now she says the select board requested three important studies to be conducted before making a decision those studies included one an aquifer 100-year flood plane study two a vibration traffic noise study and three a culvert study for me this decision was critical in making an informed decision on this permit I did not want to Grant the permit without knowing the results of the studies unfortunately we never received any of the requested studies because we had closed the public hearing on June 29th 2010 and as of October 7th 2010 we had not made a decision within the 90-day statutory requirement consequently the lawyer representing the applicant informed the board that due to our inaction within the statutory time period the application had already been granted so what the attorney uh was talking about was basically true the last last paragraph Mary wrote she goes in conclusion you might ask why I am doing this the reason is simple I left gramby but gramby didn't leave me she happened to move out of town I still care deeply for the town I resided in for 35 years this Gravel Pit is going to be adversely is going to adversely affect the residents who live in its proximity put yourself in their shoes if you do that you will make the right decision thank you for your consideration and I sincerely wish you good luck in your deliberations on the current application so I think that letter speaks a lot for uh the residents who are opposed to that pit the next comment I have I want to comment on the the Gravel Pit renewal for charer Orleans only because it it's important when I when I discuss the next letter this re Gravel Pit renewal I don't do not understand because it's very confusing last year charer Orleans was authorized to extract 5,000 cubic yards a year you look at question four on the application it says specify the amount of yardage of materials removed from this site during the past 12 months they have 10,000 cubic yards they violated their permit by 100% last year they were only allowed to take 5,000 cubic yards they admitted right here they took 10,000 cubic yards question five says approximately what amount of materials do you anticipate removing in the next 12 months didn't they say of 10,000 cubic yards now the applicant said at a prior meeting that this ra pit was phasing out and that he wanted to take up the uh slack now how does it how do they phase out when they asking for a double amount of of cubic yards it doesn't make sense but if you look at the second page I don't know if the select board missed this or they took it into account item eight it says No Limit be imposed on the rate of excavation per year this rate is in reference to the time only the amount of material yardage is estimated at 5,000 cubic yards so the selectboard put a condition it looks like on how much they could take out each year it says 5,000 but they ask for 10,000 so I don't know what the story is but the reason I brought that up was because I wanted to comment on the letter where the applicant says they reduce the yardage from 40,000 to 10,000 now any Gravel Pit application there are two numbers you have to take into account you have to take into account what they're asking for on a yearly basis and what they want to take out in total this letter is inadequate in that it only talks about reducing 40,000 cubic yards to 10,000 cubic yards the second part which you should be really concerned about is that they should take 75% of the original 2 92,83685 a year but in total they can take out no more than 73,0 70 cubic yards that would bring them to 78y year life which is what they had originally now what's what's wrong with this letter is that the uh person who did it said that there'll be 2.3 trucks per day that's totally wrong number one he took 52 weeks in operation he quoted the uh applicant's attorney quot was quoted in the newspaper as saying that they would only take uh Gravel Pit gravel out of the pit for 10 months out of the year not 52 so that's an error and as was already brought up you have to multiply whatever he came up with times two because every Chuck that leaves full has to come back in to get another load so again I don't know if there was an error made on this charer application or not but if you take 10,000 cubic yards uh first of all I want to mention that it's very I don't think I mentioned this once before that it's very important to get a visual of how how much gravel are we talking about here 292,000 yards is equivalent to 58,000 cars the volume of 58,000 cars piled up on top of each other that's how big a hole would you would have 58,000 cars now even uh on this letter he came up with 2.3 trucks per day so with my calculation you not only have to take the the uh gravel trucks of the trom KE application you have to take you have to add the uh gravel permit the gravel that's taken from charier landfill don't you because the danger is you're doubling the amount of trucks so if 10,000 is correct from charer and 10,000 is correct from try you're talking about 20,000 cubic yards a year here and that that would uh that would be 12 truck loads a day not 2.3 Rich uh the address that is on the sharder Orland uh gravel permit what address is that do what what address is on that permit application that you have in front of me because you started off saying that there is no operating Gravel Pit on Bachelor street it's 232 bachor three but you just started off saying that there wasn't correct there is right but you started should legally there shouldn't be it looks like he illegally I mean he would he had a permit for 5,000 last year and the select board limited what he could take out this year even though he's asking for 10 the select board signed it as a condition saying he can't take out more than five so he's not taking taking 10 I just wanted to clarify for everyone cuz you said there wasn't another one operating but there is one operating so I'm just clarifying that for everyone he's operating yeah I mean he's yeah he's Opera there is another gravel I didn't miss that right no okay correct yeah I just want to clarify but uh let's see okay okay the last thing I just wanted to bring up uh at the LA uh at at a prior uh public hearing meeting I forget which one we had so many but it was the one where the applicants attorney spoke at the end of the uh public hearing so we didn't have a chance to respond I just wanted to respond to two items uh the attorney said that all the people all the residents on Chia Avenue were in favor of this Gravel Pit that's not true they're not all in favor of it plus he said the only difference between a 2010 application and this one was that in 2010 the cubic yards were uh in the 2010 one were taken out would be extracted a lot quicker than what's uh asked for now but that's not true because the uh the one in 201 10 was also limited to 40,000 cubic yards a year no matter that one was limited this one uh hopefully well originally was limited so there is no difference there's very little difference between the 2010 and now so I want to just point that out but I found it odd that that Char Year all of a sudden would ask for 10,000 cubic yards but that was all well they could be just deciding they're not going to keep on doing it that much longer there could be many reasons why yeah they decided to do that I can't speculate but there but did you they have the reasons I'm sure did you intend to limit it to 5,000 because that's what the application that's what it's on the the permanence yes okay now I wonder will you do anything that it seems like they were in violation they took out 10,000 last year when they all we're only supposed to take out five do you have the permit from last year since 5,000 yeah take a look at that okay good thank you m chairman just for this so if you can just give the board a minute we're just trying to make sure that we have everything that we need um in order to make a decision um and I do believe about the hydraulic study we did say that they weren't within the 100 foot zone so I guess I'm just confused because I don't want to overstep my jurisdiction either as a select board member because if they're not within the Waterway I don't think we have jurisdiction to ask for that so Madam chair I think this goes a bit to the the definition of what a hydraulic study is Right are we talking wetlands and Wetland resource areas are we talking Wells are we talking uh concern for the Culvert and uh just the the the general uh flow of surface water or or groundwater those are all different things some of those things are right some of those things are within Conservation Commission jurisdiction namely the Wetland resource areas the others aren't necessarily within the conservation commission's jurisdiction okay uh they're they're all to a certain degree within your jurisdiction because you have the ability in evaluating a special permit application to determine whether there will be environmental harm because that's one of the criteria right um it may also be that you want to I mean we've talked about a lot of different studies and potential peer reviews we're talking about noise we're talking about traffic we're talking about particular matter we're talking about engineering it may be that for example once you complete an engineering peer review your engineer may say may raise some red flags for you and say you got to looko more closely at Hydraulics you have to do a closer analysis of the Culvert and its ability to support the additional traffic and the the engineer may say that's beyond my purview you need an additional consultant to review that so it may be that you're going to do some of this sequentially or the engineer may say it's perfectly fine and it's not something that require Rees further review okay so would the board say at this time would it be safe to say that we would like the particular matter in the air um study done the title search which um the applicants ATT had said he's going to give to us the traffic analysis and the engineer study done at this time and then and the noise sorry yes and but the noise would be a peer review because we already have one or should no that that's right manager you have you have those other so those are the studies that we need cor correct you have the noise report already um so you you can you can you can debate whether to submit that to per at the appropriate time okay or you could submit the peer review now again this goes back to what I said at the outset in terms of how you want to sequence the submitt of these additional materials by the applicant and then peer-reviewing those do you want to wait till you get them review them and then have a further discussion at a at a at a continue public hearing and at that time determine what needs to be peer-reviewed and to what extent or do we want to have that discussion tonight that's up to you question you just yes AB said one particular two title three traffics and you said four engineering study civil engineer so it's that would be a peer review because you already have your so that would be a peer review one sorry that we are asking for yeah because particular that that is what's on everything that's been submitted so far say it again I'm sorry you're looking for a civil engineering a civil the question was that you said engineering study a civil engineering study so yeah I wanted to know what that was but it sounds like you're saying you're going to take the whole application and give it to a civil engineer for aiew correct not that we need anything particular for that review they're going to do it on what we've submitted already plus this other stuff down yes thank you so that one would be a peer review and what the civil engineer can tell us whether or not the cver or will advise us if they it's within their purview or not if the cber needs to be brought up to subdivision standards right so does the board want to wait until those additional studies come first before we ask for peer reviews or do we want to do the peer review of the um civil engineer of the project itself as well as the ideology s ideology sorry since we have both of those but again we would need a source of funding for that which we were asking the applicant to um under chapter 44 section 53g uh Supply the funds for that correct okay I would I would I would say that get all of them in everything that we're requesting have that come in and then send it out for a peer review because I think at that time too when when you do that there is a uh a cost to that and I think they can take a look at what the peer review would cost and we can tell the applicate at that time what the cost would be instead of just keep on you know kind of PC meiling together it's would be hard for us to say at the end of the time what would be the cost of peer review for all the right so if we have them all together and we submit that for a peer review we'll have an idea what the cost would be at that time and does the board want uh again we would have to clarify what we're looking for in the hydrologic the hydrologic study because what lands is underneath the Conservation Commission Verno pools that are certified is under the Conservation Commission which we don't have that there that we know of in that area he did um the engineer did speak to the Wells that they have a mon moning well uh on site right where it's a minimum of 6t separation from the wells as far as where they are going to be digging correct yeah there's there's four of them on the site and there's four of them on site which they are monitoring and when you say monitoring are you testing the water for matter for level oh for levels okay whether or not you are getting down into the groundwater okay so as far as drainage report and erosion control um we said that there was no storm water reports because we're keeping it contained on site is that I think Madam chair that this is something that your civil engineering consultant will address when they review the plans they will determine whether there's more required to address storm water or not and they'll make recommendations uh it tends to be a back and forth after that initial peer review it's not one and done where the peer reviewer looks at a report and provides a report of his or her own and then walks away it tends to be that they provide a report and then there's communication between your consultant and the applicant's consultant the applicant's consultant attempts to address the concerns that are raised by your consultant they continue to go back and forth until either everything is addressed or your consultant reports that they simply can't address it and makes a recommendation to you to deny or to condition your approval okay yes you up sorry I just we're talking about see no manager there are some people in the back with been okay thank you we're talking about um the application I mentioned this in one of my memorandum but the soil testing information that they've given us that they're utilizing for keeping so many feet away from groundwater is from the last application of it's 2010 um they really should do a soil testing test now not you know uh 15 14 years ago um this is all they they just handed in what they did last time so that's appendix two of the application is 14 years old all right so that's not a good result okay in reading the briefly reading I'm not an audiologist or understand the engineering behind the the decibels but the please note in table two of the document we received tonight talks about a screener okay reading the Earth removal permit narrative that they gave with the application uh the method of removal they say they're going to be using loaders excavators bulldozers and dump trucks where's the screener all right um do this your Earth removal permit talks about Earth removal it doesn't talk about any processing a screener is a machine that um you would put Earth in with and there'll be different screens so you can get different granulates um that you can sell you know certain screeners are Extremely Loud and it and it says screener here there's two kinds of screeners some screeners are just gravity fed you put them in some are machines that make a lot of noise they basically Shake stuff so is the screener that was tested um a mechanical one or is it simply a gravity fed one it doesn't say also more importantly how do they get a screener where where does that's Earth processing that's not um Earth removal what's next a rock Crusher are they going to say we got a special permit for hundreds of thousands we need a rock Crusher too I mean the I could be wrong I just went back to read the Earth's removal narrative but I don't see anything about a screener we are not screening on the site that makes it easier okay well okay well then it was in the it was in the um the uh sound testing so they were thinking about it at one point I guess but so it's strictly Earth removal no Earth processing if that's what the applicant stands by that was my concern but the other thing is these are very old that please the on the desk yes that will be fine but I want the gentleman in the back was standing up to talk after you if that's okay because he's been waiting for a while the attorney is correct those tests are for the soils and they were done in 2010 uh the soils have not been Disturbed so those soil tests are still good monitoring Wells I'm referring to were installed of June of 2023 so it is current uh okay June of 20 and they can be tested again ongoing for levels of water thank you that sir come on up that was yeah the wells were um put it tested in you said put in in June of 2023 and the soil is because it hasn't been Disturbed sorry come on up if you can just say your name in your address please I'm Paul I live at 20 penber Circle and uh I'm sorry Paul can you say your last name uh bo pre okay thank you um my grandfather wrote this but he can't be here right now so I was just he wanted me to say it for him okay good evening my name is Paul BR I live at third uh 313 Bachelor street gy with my wife of 53 years I've lived there since 1973 I'm a Vietnam veteran who suffers from the effects of Agent Orange I have COPD my wife has asthma and we are concerned with the effects that this open mind could bring to us previously we have submitted letters from our doctors verifying our concerns tonight I want to address a comment from a previous meeting stating we already have a lot of truck traffic on Bachelor Street I am retired and I am home a lot working outside or walking walking my dogs the street has minimal truck traffic and the majority is delivery and service trucks these vehicles are mostly Vans and the others are box trucks and oil and propane delivery trucks occasionally there is a larger dump truck or other larger trucks this brings me to the construction of the road that was paved approximately 5 years ago I spoke with Mi uh Mr dooes dooes of the town of DPW he told me that the portion of the road from Harris Street down to approximately 330 Bachelor Street the old asphalt was removed were guarded and paved with one course of 2 in of asphalt the remainder of the street to school street was overlaid with asphalt rubber chip surfacing this type of Paving will not hold up to the heavy use of 10-wheel and triaxle trucks on the surface these trucks weigh in at 77,000 to 80,000 according to the scale operator at the notch Quarry the following are the trucks that are normally use on Bachelor Street fans that weigh less than 10,000 lb box trucks that weigh less than 26,000 lb and uh six wheel Oil and Propane bobtail trucks that weighing at 33,000 lb I was p i was a Paving contractor for 11 years I contracted for many engineered projects projects for parking lots and gas station for Mobile Oil Republic oil o coat Adams and rexon chicke school system and local Pizza Huts a number of local banks and parking lots for Providence Hospital these projects were all engineered and created by Architects I stopped at the Northampton State Highway Department office to discuss my calculations I submitted a copy of Mass state highway department Highway design guidelines to the select board along with my letter and information according to the Mass state guide the road should be paved with 2 and 1/2 in of base or binder asphalt than 1 and 1/2 in of top surface this is what is needed for heavy truck traffic one course of 2 in is what is done for a home driveway and the asphalt chip overlay is one step above Gravel Road to get a hard surface down the surface has already been contracted to a commercial crack fill company a year to uh one and a half years ago to fill the numerous cracks to save the life of the surface and it is only 5 years old I am not critical of what has been done I know there are budget restrictions and you try to get as much as you can for the money that available I feel the taxpayers of this town should be uh not be burdened with the cost of Road repairs for the enrichment of a select few this permit should not be issued thank you thank you thank you Chris do you want did did your grandfather want us to have a copy of that letter we have that one okay thank you uh yes in the back I'm sorry yeah I don't know your name come on up GL hi readings Granby select board can you just say your name and your address please Susan Lambert 308 Bachelor street I'm on the corner of trumpy Avenue in baser Street uh we begin these we began these public hearings for the LJ development trumpy a per special permit on February 5th 2024 and this will be the fourth hearing not counting the council meeting and the continuance requested by Jim tropy up until today the select board and Grammy res have not received any studies on the community impact from gravel mining this is a stark contrast to a similar small town of 2,000 people called Huntington Mass where a special permit for Earth removal is also pending the Huntington planning board had already requested nine Studies by the second public hearing to study the impact on its residents and is proceeding to find Consultants to complete the studies before any decisions are made we want transparency and fairness in our process and we again urge you to protect gramby residents and natural resources please follow the gramy bylaws and mandate studies for the impact studies requested many times over before four public hearings and supported by our petition signers comparison to sharder gravel pip Jim CR try gry chair of the planning board and an owner in the special permit project has drawn many cons comparisons to the charer gravel operation and other backyard gravel pits for which no documents have been presented from what I understand backyard gravel pits ex existed before the planning board came into existence and are no longer casually allowed given their detrimental effects first the charier grab operation began in the early 1940s according to the last permit application submitted in 2023 around the start of the sharder Gravel Pit the 1940 sentences indicated that there were about 1,000 people living in grany compared to over 6,000 today the two maps which I have on the board over here people have take time to look at it the two maps one from 1943 and one from 2024 show the significant expansion of houses along Bachelor Street and trumi ab evolving from a rural to a more residential Community a map from 1943 indicates there were about five to six houses in the neighborhood of the sharder Gravel Pit for comparison there was only one house on Tropi AB at that time in addition sher's house abutted their gravel pit and they profited directly from the operation this contrasts with other non- tropia Butters whose land may be as close as 25 ft to the gravel pit and they will not profit in fact a Butters and others in proximity may actually lose money if they decide to sell their homes while I was door knocking and informing residents about the second special perit application I spoke with a trony app resident who stated they had gotten a good deal on their house because of the ongoing 2011 lawsuit against the first trumpy app Gravel Pit permit the price history of the house showed it was put on the market for 24,900 in December 2010 there were around nine price decreases made over the house ultimately sold in December 2011 for 135,000 please note that the house was sold before judge fine overturned the special permit that is almost an 880,000 decrease in this issue and this issue needs more study I want to remind you about the other special permit pending in Huntington where their planning board has asked for a study on home values around these gravel pits I request that Grammy do the same right of way and nature of grany gramby has always been known as an agricultural Town captured by our historical society's work and more recently I said designation as a right to farm community the 2016 planning board chaired by Mr seon and vice chair Mr Jim trony commissioned a land use study by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission that survey Town residents on their version for the town's future regarding its preservation and development their responses did not include more gravel pits in fact an overwhelming majority valued peace and quiet and wish for Grammy to continue as a small rural town with Scenic Vistas working farms and historic buildings Town residents also value the preservation of their natural resources and the avoidance of the loss of these resources to development this study further adds evidence to judge Fine's assertion that this project does not meet the bylaw criteria this is what a majority of town residents want and we just want you to listen to us and do the right thing by the town lastly I want to again again assert that I do not give permission for the rideway on trony app to be used for industrial use for the daily huling of gravel in the 1990s when Ernest trony sold several lots to non- trony families I did not object to the building of houses or increase traffic as the use would remain residential in addition the trumies never upgraded the road to subdivision standards as the plan indicated I strongly object to the right of way on tropy app for industrial use the rideway established in 1931 was for troni AV residents only at that time there was one house LJ development is not a resident of trab and not even a business in grany I have goats with close proximity to the property line and my grandchildren and I walk the road with our goats our quality of life will be reduced with the Dust and diesel fuel coming up and down the road again we ask that you vote no on this permit also I would like to add one very important fact there is no documentation at the Town Hall that these gravel pits have been monitored throughout the years thank you for your time el el vandermark 280 Bachelor street so many issues so little time I I want to bring to your attention an issue that I don't know that it's getting the proper attention tonight we've talked a lot about um the water and runoff and studies related to the pit itself but we're not talking about try Avenue and I recently uh was learned that trumpy Avenue was a private way um I I had an interaction with one of the owners I was under the impression that because the town of grand B maintains the road for snowplow purposes that Mass General law actually says that it can't be considered a private road so I was walking my dog um I took some of these pictures let me turn this around for you so here's some of what I learned when I was apparently trespassing but that's not entirely clear to me um if you are on the covert itself as you can see from this picture only one vehicle can be on that CT that means that the the the traffic study that we're asking about shouldn't be limited to Bachelor street but should include trumpy Avenue that also means that the Culvert itself which was privately built never inspected it's a private road so that the residents it's none of their concern according to jimut try as quoted in the Hampshire Gazette the the article that was published recently if that road if that Culvert was not inspected it's over a brook what questions does that come bring to mind what other how do we know that was built to State Standards how do we know that that Culvert will withstand the trial trucks loaded with gravel and sand we can't know that so while we've been focused this entire hearing today on the extraction site the mining we aren't asking about the dust and the particle about the sound about the um civil engineering studies we're not asking for any of those things relative to Trump gav and I am asking you to expand your ask to include these and I would also urge you to investigate the conditions under which that covert was installed because if it was installed by a private individual on private property without inspections we can't be sure we can't be confident that the vehicles that cross that covert won't won't collapse the covert and end up in Bachelor Brook and then we are talking about an entirely different situation um Al I'm just confused because we are having civil engineer go and do a peerreview and it does include trump it it it includes the road and the C yes that's the project very good thank you so it would have to include to the site and out of the site and whatever roads they're taking to haul that that that is what I wanted to hear because it wasn't several times when when the attorney was speaking he was talking about only the site and I wanted to hear you say that that it was the whole um that it included Trump KF no it says for the project so it's the whole project thank you so a couple other points that have been brought up tonight um Mr seon I think that it was you who asked at the 25 meeting you asked why folks hadn't raised hadn't raised concerns about the charer um Gravel Pit operation and so I did some research on that a few folks have already done it so I'm not going to go into too much detail but that that pit did begin in the 1940s and then at the 25 uh the February 5th um meeting Mr Greg is it Greg Orland Greg Orland yeah yeah he actually said that that that pit had expired it had run out and they didn't have a whole lot left to pull out of it which was why he supported the new uh trony Avenue pit but the question you asked that I thought was really interesting and important you said why didn't people oppose uh the gravel pits before and that's because the Orland pit is the only pit that we've had operational on on Bachelor Street and the permit that you signed through March of this year permitted the uh permitted pulling just 5,000 cubic yards per year since the new letter was received that reduces the annual withdrawal of the trumpy Avenue pit that pit has a mid increase to 10,000 now there is a question about if he testified in February that it was depleted how can they continue to draw more I don't know that there's an answer to it but I do think it speaks to the question that residents weren't concerned about it because it had depleted because they weren't pulling from it so folks weren't concerned about it the other thing that's important is that the map at the Town Hall that it's a USD it's a USGS map at the Town Hall that lists gravel pits you asked really important question you asked about property about people seeking residents The Bachelor Street Gravel Pit is not on that map so if I were a new Resident if I were thinking about buying property here and I went and looked at this USGS map that is hanging in town hall that pit isn't even there people wouldn't know so they can't make an informed decision and so I think that's another important point I do not envy you the decision that you have to make but the permit says the the bylaws say that it shouldn't be a detriment to the community and it shouldn't harm residents and one of the things that we have shown is that we have packed these these meetings time and time again even when the meetings have been cancelled or rescheduled at the last minute there is significant concern in this community about this operation and I really appreciate the attention to detail that you are showing tonight and I look forward to hearing the results of the surveys that you and reports that you've asked for so far there's one more point I want to make and that is Mass general law actually has a lower threshold for decb than Grand grandby bylaws so just be aware of that as you're looking our bylaws may be outdated in that aspect I know Massachusetts updates things a little more regularly but Mass gen law decip is lower than our grand beam uh bylaws thank you for your time thank you thank you all right gentleman in the red come on hi I'm Bill Shantz and we live at 350 Bachelor Street and I guess I've kind of gotten a reputation after the first meeting of being the frog man and uh but in this case I'm more concerned also about all of these things but primarily the noise um study as it is being a musician I know that noise on a flat street is not the same as noise going up a hill or back down the hill and I'm curious how this sound study is going to be conducted going going up Harris Street for example or going past our house where there is a slight uphill the trucks gun to get up the hill and then they take off their air brakes to go back down the hill it's very noisy when these dump trucks go by there aren't that many now but that will change and uh I I came here because of the quiet and the peace and the Great Road and you know this the great neighborhood uh and and if all of that starts to deteriorate um I don't know it's it it really uh would be a tragedy for me uh being very sensitive to sound and the other pollutions as well um in addition I know I've heard all night about all this legal ease I'm not a lawyer I don't know these things I don't know where the bylaws came from but I would suggest that at the moment that the bylaws become more important than the will of the people maybe the bylaws have to change because it's clear that people don't want this and I think that it should be considered very very seriously to make it not happen and that's what I have to say thank you thank you thank you uh there was a gentleman that was standing up in the back do you still want to speak yeah oh you're all set yes yeah blue shirt sorry uh hello my name is Devon gerstenfield uh these are not my words uh these are uh uh words written by a uh uh by a neighbor who couldn't attend today okay uh dear fellow residents of Granby uh we write as longtime residents of grand B to voice our opposition to the proposed Gravel Pit project on trumpy Avenue uh we are unable to attend the meeting on June the 3 uh but we hope our our views will be taken into account uh we authorize anyone to read this letter uh to the meeting when we moved into our house on ferry Hill Road in may of 1996 we got a very unpleasant surprise uh huge dump trucks from the Orland company uh were using the road on a daily basis uh roaring by our house which is only a few feet from traffic the the noise was truly horrendous it sounded like trucks were rumbling right through our house and in fact uh there were times where we could actually feel the walls shaking and uh hear the windows rattling often this would go on all day long uh any activity that required concentration and focus Reading Writing computer work even television watching were nearly impossible uh the trucks uh would literally drown out your own thoughts it it is no exaggeration to say that the constant disturbance which exceeded by a wide margin the uh uh level of of mere annoyance uh had a significant impact on our quality of life uh uh this was uh surely true for our neighbors uh uh both here on our road and on all the other residential roads um where the truck where the trucks passed as well when this problem went away life got much much better and and uh and happily that was some time ago uh but the memory is still Vivid and uh puts us in very strong opposition to any project that gramby might take that comes even close to reproducing that problem whether the trunky trucks are routed in in front of our house or not no one in Granby should have to tolerate that kind of disturbance our roads are too narrow and too residential there are too many senior citizens and children in our neighborhoods and they surely shouldn't be subjected to this kind of skull jarring noise and vibration it's just not in keeping with the the profile of a beautiful quiet little town like grandby where people cherish their peace and quiet some of whom moved here largely uh for that reason please do not permit this project uh sincere sincerely Christopher l Miller uh Christopher Rivers uh living on 64 fery Hill Road thank you yep in the back with your hand up you can come up hi my name is Melissa Harter I live at 326 Bachelor Street and I'm reading this letter from a neighbor who was unble to attend um to the members of the select board I am writing with regard to the application by LJ Development LLC for an earth removal Gravel Pit on try Avenue off Bachelor Street I am one of many grandby residents strongly opposed to this endeavor for a multitude of reasons I am aware of a similar application in 2010 that was also opposed and I see no reason that the same project should be approved now my late husband and I were truly thrilled at 1990 when we were able to buy a beautiful piece of property on Harris Street from Les and Pat Reynolds it had everything we were looking for natural beauty adjacency to the Holio range and its hiking trails peace and quiet good neighbors and all the setting of a lovely New England community of grand we built our Dreamhouse using a builder from grandby and over the last 34 years have loved being here and tending to our Gardens while enjoying the view of The Verdant hills around us recently I became aware of the plan to activate a large and invasive Gravel Pit a few miles away a high Hydro geologist acquaintance from the area terms these projects strip mines the pro the subject of Graduate Studies there are already many gravel pits and grany too many in my view and this project will have a negative impact not only on the Neighbors in the trumpy Avenue area but also on all residents across the town of grand we must take it upon ourselves to protect the beauty and health of our land and not allow it to suffer inappropriate industrious uh in incursions I have read the responses of LJ corporation's attorney Mr ber ber I'm sorry I think it's birth of sorry birth of um and many of them do not fulfill the require requirements that a special permit must ensure a harmonious relationship between proposed development and its surroundings to quote from the bylaws Mr a little bit more as I see it some of the issue key key issues include the inappropriateness of the industrial industrial project in a residential neighborhood where it will certainly have a negative effect on the health and Quality of Life by nearby residents the obvious degradation of the fragile environment that will be caused by the terms of air uh water and land itself issues of noise traffic and the potential for pollution from runoffs and Spills the ruination of Bachelor Street surrounding roads and land that has been recognized for the scenic qualities for which grandby is known the current condition of trompia Avenue is in no way appropriate for this level of truck traffic and the area over the Culvert is a narrow single lane road with a warning sign posted next to it the danger to children pedestrians cyclists and bar and cars on Bachelor Street and other streets nearby the potential for the expansion of future of the truck routes to other streets in rby such as the other end of Bachelor Street Harris Street North Street and so forth an 8-year project will certainly involve some expansion I think she wrote this before we knew that it was a 30-year project um this the responses of the applicants attorney to a number of issues at hand do not appear to be accurate here are some of them this neighborhood is hardly a suitable location for the project the idea that it will increase air water and noise pollution cannot be true that that it will not increase air air water and noise pollution cannot be true there is no way to use large trucks in addition to Earth moving equipment bulldozers Earth movers screening equipment without noise dust and vibration the comparison of a gravel pit operation to the building of a single family home is simply ludicrous the opinions of the Board of Health and Granby Police Department have appear to have been ignored even though they were uh strongly worded the anticipated truck traffic on Bachelor Street and eventually other streets will surely cause damage for which the town will eventually be financially responsible the temporary sanitation facility mentioned that will no doubt be needed on the site is evident has evidently not been proposed to members of the Health Board the proposal to loan and Seed over the areas for which the material has been removed will surely not enable the area to grow back to its natural state this residential neighborhood surrounding Bachelor Brook is not the kind of place in which to allow this sort of industrial project other neighborhoods in grany have already suffer the consequences of other gravel pits water issues property values and I feel that we should learn from those negative experiences it is 2024 now and although these were approved in the past there is no reason to continue in this way it is clear from what we see around us that the environmental deterioration has become a major Glo Global problem let's see let's start to address some of this by looking right here in our own beautiful town and stop the continued destruction of projects like this and their efforts and their effects on the people and the natural world around us I would like to thank the select board I would like to think that the select board has a well-being of its people lands and highest priority and that every proposal they approve will reflect that um Wendy M Watson she lives on Harris so thank you thank you very much thank you I just want to um I know she's not here for that letter but the select board is not ignoring anything we are looking at everything so I just want to clarify that we're not ignoring any letter or any documentation that we have um we're taking everything into consideration so and as far as sanitation there was no sanitation at the site okay I just want to make sure uh with the engineer Frederick no sanitation at the tempor s can a San can okay cuz I I thought it was only going to be a sany can so I just want to make sure there's nothing else all right uh yes I'm and then move on my name was St in gon field I live at uh 326 uh Bachelor Street along with my wife and my son who just uh spoke to you guys one of the big concerns actually I have two concerns uh one is my well and uh so it's a shallow well of course and uh one of the concerns that I have is uh the hydrology study uh that was mentioned does that concern the water uh our wells and uh the effects of removing so much gravel because I I think that it may have an effect on the aquifers underneath and how many houses would be affected by that and then what would be the renumeration uh for us in case the water is affected my water is almost Crystal Clear don't need a filter for it at this point I mean it's great water uh the second thing is uh kind of uh looking at this right here this is just me walking my dog along the street along a bachelor Street and uh the interesting thing about this is uh I'm on one side and the trucks are giving me 4 feet of bir they're already in the opposite lane this is a winding uh narrow Serpentine Road uh in probably in the same direction in which the trucks would go out towards School Street uh and the concern that I have is uh if you have someone that's walking along or you have a child out there or you have an walking along or myself with my dog which you know is very important to me don't want to do anything to the dog but um the concern that I have is uh there's no room what happens if there's a truck around one of these blind Corners there's no way to get out of the way what happens if there is a uh someone walking along the side of the road there are no sidewalks there's really in some places there's no place to go especially over one of those bridges you and uh so someone's you know the chances of a really bad accident is uh significant and so those are just some of my a couple of my concerns along with all the other ones and then I'm not sure that it's keeping with the character of our community at all and I think that's a violation of uh some of these uh rules that we have in place and those are things that uh I wish you to look look out thank you very much thank you all right so we've heard from everybody um looking at what we need I guess I just want to be clear on what the S board is asking for because we're all in agreement so we are asking for a particular matter in the air mitigation study we're asking for the title search we're asking for a traffic analysis to be done and we are asking for for a civil engineer to come in and peerreview the project which will look at the coverts as well as whether or not a hydraulic hydrologic study will need to be done because the civil engineer will address these issues when he's reviewing the plan and then for peer review right now we have the ideology study which we're going to hold on the peer review until we get the rest of the studies so is this select board in agreement did I miss anything I see according to my notes because the civil engineer will also peerreview what we already have so that's going to wait until after we have the particulate matter mitigation study the title search and the traffic analysis so that's what we're going to be waiting for um the applicant how much time would you need to do those studies attorney berum since it's apologies he did have a prior commitment then he had to leave at 8:00 for um we discussed it before left and we would like to ask for a 60-day continuance that's actually what we had in mind I think was 60 days I think when we 45 to 60 days but 60 days 60 days seems fair just to to further clarify so what we would anticipate doing in 60 days is the board would reconvene y you'd be reconvening uh hopefully having received maybe a week or two in advance if possible copies of these additional studies so we're talking about a a an air pollution or you've called it a particular matter study y we're talking about a traffic assessment uh and we're talking about the title report which it sounds like is something attorney burkam can can provide sooner than later um none of that will have been peer-reviewed yet and so the next session of the public hearing you'll simply be discussing what you received asking any initial questions you may have receiving any further feedback from the public on those studies but I guess I would advise you not to get too deep into them because none of us are experts in those those matters and so what we'll be doing at the next meeting is uh discussing with the applicant through Council uh what sum of money might be necessary so what you may want to do in the interim is you may want to start reaching out through through your staff to potential peerreview Consultants you don't have a report to give them yet you really can't get a defined scope of services um but you can at least find out who's available and that they would be able to review um the sorts of uh studies and reports that you're anticipating receiving uh so that when you have that meeting in days you get authorization you get a a commitment from the applicant to have those peer reviewed we're not starting the next day cold calling potential consultants and losing two or three additional weeks um thereafter now they would be giving us a conditional quote right because they don't have the analysis or in front of them or the study in front of them to say definitively how much it would be to do that peer review and I'm not even suggesting that they'd be willing to give you a quote but you could have conversations with them you can contact a couple of engineering firms and say have plans for an an earth removal operation is this something you have experience reviewing would you be able to do that for us and provide us a quote once we know what we're receiving from the applicant uh I guess with the engineering you could actually give them the plans because we know what we've got already right same with the noise um with respect to the other topics we don't know what we're receiving yet so you'll just have to have more generic conversations um with those potential Consultants about their availability to perform the work and to do it on a on a reasonable time Tim table may I add ask um yes being it 60 days and I don't know how long some of these studies take because we don't do them um but let's say we had things done in 30 days submitted them to the board can the board then seek peerreview um quotes maybe get them before the 60 days not necessarily have them done in the next 60-day times but have the quotes certainly you can seek uh information you you you can't proceed with the peer review because we won't have the funding yet we won't have the authorization the approval of the quotes but if you do get those studies sooner and again you've already got the noise report you've already got the civil engineering plan so we should we should be able to within 60 days get um fairly accurate quotes or estimates for that work for the others if we get them sooner than anticipated certainly you can send those off to to potential consultants and get clearer quotes as to what they would charge to to complete a peer review thank you sure we had we heard one one issue regarding situation I believe for other Council said that they would have to do a survey to move the away right now well I think that was going to be in the title search though so he's got to do that first believe what he said today was that we were right they're going to have to move the road and they they need a survey uh to move the road and it may be that moving the road going to put them into the El area to move the road um so at some point they're going to need that survey I don't know if you tell them to do the survey now or wait till later but I believe brother Council has essentially said he didn't give you the title search because we were done they can't keep doing this with industrial uses I also believe that uh attorney CA said that if we provide a survey that a condition of approval if you wanted to go that way would be to move the road before operations started do we know if we even have the space you might want to see the survey would you recommend a survey for that so so Madam chair I I think we can do this in more of a pacem fashion I'm not going to aim on whether a survey is needed or not yet because I simply haven't seen the title search and I haven't seen the plans indicating where the roadway or driveway is today and where it may potentially need to be moved to uh so I I suggest we do it in a more pacem mail fashion let's await the title report I'll review that report hopefully if I get it within the next two or three weeks I can review it well in advance of your next meeting and be prepared to provide some further advice at that time if there is a concession and attorney berum is not here now so I I appreciate the characterization of what he said I'm not saying the characterization is wrong but he's not here to defend himself uh so if he concedes that in fact the the roadway is in the wrong location and needs to be relocated uh that does potentially open to can of worms if relocating the roadway is going to create uh problems from a construction standpoint in terms of where it's done and what environmental or or or site work uh what environmental harm or site work might be required but that's I think a discussion for another day we should do this in steps okay thank you all right so we're in agreement with um everything that the select board is asking for in order to um make sure that we are looking at all criteria the 11 criteria and I think there was one person with the hand up you'll have to come up here I'm sorry jelle Livingston 99 Bachelor Street I just have a question on the a ideology report do you know is that going to take place the whole length of Bachelor Street or is it just going to be within certain feet of the so the Audiology uh report was the one that was given to us today and I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing in depth because I've been at the meeting so it's as one um resident said she claimed that it wasn't comprehensive and again I haven't had a chance to look at it so we would have a peer review look at that and decide if more if more uh data is needed from there okay as a gentleman made the point that he lives on a hill and the trucks go up and I so I didn't know I mean it's very hilly and curving and I didn't know if they were going to do one link to the other or if it was just going to be at the site I think that would be a question for the person who period reviews it thank you yes thank you all right Rich do you have anything new to say Rich okay yes Mike sorry so that they can hear you at home whichi Bachelor Street uh if they move the road they have to uh with the subdivision standards don't they they has to be paved uh that is something that our civil engineer is going to look into so I'm not I'm not an expert yeah but that's something putting another dirt road doesn't do it well they're talking about the right away that's what moving the road is for for the right away off if they want to anticipate driving the trucks over the road which is future development they have to bring it up to subdivision standards there's no question about that okay that's I just wanted to bring that point up thank you all right yeah just related to no uh I know that the road is Dam probably I know that the road is hilly um and we're talking about uh trucks that are probably Laden down with 70,000 plus pounds uh um will there be uh something considered in regards to noise uh when you do the study about uh J brakes because those are incredibly Loud and Incredibly disruptive is the J brakes the same as the air brakes or different Brak it's a little bit different it's uh basically using the engine to slow the vehicle down okay that's something we have to look at it's not a town ordinance or by the bylaw so I don't know if we can actually insert that but that's something CU we have our but it's you know it's part of the noise study too I understand that but as as I said it currently it's not part of our [Music] um you know part of our right and stuff like that so we can't just but those are things we're talking about and and so most people do understand that um that's why we're having experts be involved up here review to look at all these things because these are what these are what they do for a living these are the experts and they're going to you look at the information that's being provided and and it bring back information the S board to help us make a decision right and what and what I'm saying is uh if you can have uh uh that be included in something that uh they would consider uh that we're looking at deciel ratings of the whole operation uh for the removal of gravel in this uh in this mining operation thank you thank you all right make one more comment on that it right j32 Bachelor um the bylaws here you have a noise bylaw that says 65 DB during the course of the day we also have one on your special permit that talks about nuisance which is a huge difference compared to just deciple levels I have given you tons of research and articles about the effects of noise we're not talking about 65 DB we're talking about 50 dcel I'm talking to you at least 75 to 80 DB right now but we're not considering this a nuisance remember what a nuisance is when we're talking about all these different facts here and all these different exposures that we're going to have and the health effects that are documented and what I've given you so thank you thank you oh and the the Massachusetts law is 10 DB above ambient noise there's no reference on what was just giving to us about any ambient noise here and that really plays into what nuisance and health effects will be okay so um when we're talking about Boston their decibel level is 70 DB so their level of what is considered a nuisance goes up when we're here in little old gry with no other that brings us down to a much lower level you all right so 60 days so now we have to look at a date moving forward and I know um the applicant attorney had to leave the December 5th December 5th 60 days out brings us right around Thanksgiving so the following week would bring us into December okay like December 5th is a Thursday I think if I saw correctly it's a Thursday [Music] one we could recommend is I know you're the applicant uh attorney's not here and I'm assuming you want them present at our next meeting so we could do we done before uh we can continue this to our next regular schedule meeting but the only purpose would that be is to be scheduled to another date so we can confirm that the uh Appliance attorney is available because after we schedule it the December 5th that would be the day that it's going to happen sounds like a good so our next scheduled select board meeting is October 7th and you have time for um so we would open it up at 5:31 right Chris because we're just going to be setting a date for the continuance to December condition only to set future date okay no discussion and that would be uh for again the future date that you're going to as December 5th for the attorney okay thank you that's what we're looking at we're not setting it but consideration if it works and it works for attorney Costa if it works for that then that we'll be a date we we would consider y thank you would the board like me to send an email to attorney rang yes and the applicant will check with them too but that way it's in writing it's in confirmed yeah please okay so with that I will entertain a motion to continue the hearing till October 7th by C 5:31 5:31 I make a motion to set a date here to set a date I will make a motion to continue the hearing until October 7th at 5:31 at 10B West State Street where we will then choose a future date for the next Gravel Pit meeting I'll second this motion and only for discussion all for discuss agre all right any further discussion after that all in favor I I all right and now I will take a motion to adourn no never mind make a motion no we already continued it so we're good yeah we're good thank you yeah it's not a regular meeting we don't have to yeah