[0:00] This is a continuation of the hearing of
[0:05] uh the application of Kid Toledo
[0:07] Development Group
[0:10] of Torington, Connecticut to obtain a
[0:13] special permit and or variance under the
[0:15] particular under the applicable sections
[0:17] of the zoning bylaws to the town of
[0:19] Sunland for the purpose of constructing
[0:22] a 9100 square foot retail building with
[0:25] associate site improvements on the
[0:27] premises of Ammerst. road route 116 tax
[0:31] map 9 plot number 44 in the town of
[0:34] Sunland. So this is the uh the fourth
[0:38] continuence we've had on this. So
[0:46] I suppose I should probably send you
[0:48] guys the agenda
[0:51] would help. Thank you. Can we use the
[0:53] mics by chance?
[0:55] I don't think the mics do any
[0:57] amplification inside here. Uh
[1:01] I will try to speak up.
[1:04] That's that's
[1:07] pass it on to Stuart. Uh
[1:11] that's something that my wife rarely
[1:14] complains that I speak loudly enough,
[1:16] but okay. Um
[1:19] [Applause]
[1:21] okay. Uh
[1:25] the first item on our my draft agenda
[1:29] for today is a further discussion of an
[1:32] item of a that uh
[1:40] both uh Ron Roblesque and Michael Pill
[1:45] presented at the last hearing. It had to
[1:47] do with the uh
[1:50] driveway separation town bylaw and the
[1:54] argument that the uh that bylaw doesn't
[2:00] apply in this case. And uh when it came
[2:04] to us, I said I'm going to have to take
[2:08] some time and discuss with town council
[2:10] on this because it was kind of a matter
[2:12] I was not familiar with. Um and uh
[2:18] there's been some further developments
[2:20] on that. Um
[2:26] today it was it was actually this
[2:28] morning. Uh
[2:32] I discovered and found the uh ANR
[2:38] that uh created
[2:42] the parcel
[2:47] All right. Probably be best if I show
[2:50] one. And I have copies of the ANR from
[2:56] you from the planning board. And
[2:59] if I could steal your easel,
[3:03] I will put this up there.
[3:10] Okay.
[3:16] [Music]
[3:19] Okay. the the argument uh that was
[3:23] presented
[3:25] by uh the applicants was that the parcel
[3:30] known as 99-4
[3:33] uh predated the uh uh the the uh parking
[3:40] area bylaw that was introduced in the
[3:43] town of Sunland I think sometime in 1999
[3:47] and the creation of this parcel predated
[3:50] it And the argument was that uh because
[3:53] of that the uh uh
[3:57] that bylaw did not apply. The the
[4:00] driveway location did not have to meet
[4:02] our park our driveway bylaws, our
[4:05] driving design bylaws.
[4:08] Now,
[4:09] uh, I noted
[4:12] all along that the parcel 944 that they
[4:18] were referring to
[4:21] was actually it shows here was the whole
[4:25] thing. Now there was a parcel that
[4:29] appeared uh at at about 2015
[4:33] that is parcel
[4:35] 100
[4:37] and
[4:39] uh
[4:43] and there's and uh I did find an ANR. I
[4:47] found it today. It was an ANR issued by
[4:50] the planning board and it's all signed
[4:53] off and dated. Oh my goodness.
[4:56] January 14, 2014.
[4:59] Uh, and in this in this ANR, which uh
[5:04] it's a the ANR is a term that means
[5:08] approval not required. People can come
[5:10] and cut up their parcels and make
[5:12] changes to their parcels. And uh what
[5:15] happened here in in January of of 2014
[5:22] uh GB Jackson, who is the owner of that
[5:26] property, the whole property, uh came in
[5:29] and he presented a uh approval not
[5:32] required that locked off this part of
[5:36] 994.
[5:39] And it even says in the description, it
[5:44] says this part, and they're referring to
[5:46] in on this drawing as parcel A, it says
[5:50] parcel A is a portion of 994 or 944
[5:55] and it shows what the the area is and
[5:58] the frontage is. It also says the
[6:01] remaining portal
[6:03] uh remaining portion of the land of 944
[6:07] uh the remaining frontage has been
[6:10] reduced to 48 ft or 480 ft and the
[6:14] remaining area is down to 2.966.
[6:18] So uh
[6:22] and this was approved by the by the uh the planning board. All of them
[6:27] signed off on the ANR. It's stated
[6:29] 11414.
[6:31] Well, where was it recorded? The
[6:32] recording was blank.
[6:33] The owner didn't record it.
[6:36] That didn't happen.
[6:37] Oh, that doesn't count. that is not that
[6:40] uh I I discussed this matter with town
[6:42] council and it's uh Mike uh I I don't
[6:46] know if you want to speak to that but
[6:48] this is an ANR that created that and our position is that the the new 9944
[6:57] or 944 came into being in 2014 and is
[7:03] therefore subject to that parking bylaw.
[7:05] Uh Mike, do you want to elaborate on
[7:07] that?
[7:09] I
[7:09] I'm happy to, Steve. And um just to give
[7:12] a little context uh for the board and
[7:15] folks in the room, the genesis of this
[7:17] issue comes from the provision of the
[7:20] Sunderland zoning bylaw. And that's uh
[7:24] in section 1253-1
[7:27] which deals with driveway configuration
[7:30] requirements uh when you're undergoing a
[7:33] review by the zoning board of appeals.
[7:36] Uh and those new uh requirements came
[7:39] into effect with an exemption. They said
[7:41] that unless precluded by lot
[7:44] configuration in existence on the date
[7:47] of adoption of this zoning bylaw. Now,
[7:50] these driveway requirements were last
[7:53] amended in 1999.
[7:56] And so, if uh the lot configuration
[8:00] existed prior to 1999,
[8:03] uh it would not have to comply with
[8:06] these requirements that came into effect
[8:09] later on. On the other hand, if the lot
[8:13] configuration was changed after the
[8:16] effective date of the bylaw, which is
[8:18] 1999,
[8:20] then the any proposal would need to
[8:23] comply with the requirements of the
[8:26] Sunderland zoning bylaw specific to
[8:30] driveway distances between entrances and
[8:34] exits onto a state highway or a town
[8:38] road improved under the chapter 90
[8:40] program.
[8:42] The question here legally is whether the
[8:46] application and endorsement on the
[8:49] approval not required plan from 2013 or
[8:52] 2014 and Steve correct me if I've got
[8:54] the year wrong was effective to affect a
[8:59] change in the lot configuration even
[9:02] though that plan was never reported at
[9:04] the registry of deeds. And while there
[9:08] is no case law that is directly on
[9:11] point, there is an uh an analogous case
[9:14] as well as uh the statutory text of the
[9:17] subdivision control law. Uh and that has
[9:20] led us uh in previous cases as well as
[9:22] this case to opine that the subdivision
[9:27] plan is effective that it did change the
[9:30] lot configuration as of the date of the
[9:33] endorsement of the plan even though it
[9:35] wasn't recorded at the registry.
[9:38] Therefore, the driveway separation
[9:41] requirements in the bylaw apply. And
[9:44] Steve, if it'd be helpful, I can explain
[9:46] the analysis a little further on that or
[9:47] I can pause for questions.
[9:51] I cite the case. He's law is referenced
[9:54] to authority and so your attorney has
[9:57] referenced statute and case and it would
[10:00] be really nice if he would provide us
[10:02] with the citation to both please. Well,
[10:05] uh,
[10:07] otherwise he's got
[10:08] Do you think I don't know if I want to
[10:11] deliberate and argue this case in front
[10:14] of this this this particular hearing,
[10:16] but is is that appropriate, Mike?
[10:20] I I really take your your lead, Steve.
[10:22] I'm I'm happy to go into some of the
[10:24] details. Now, I'm also happy to provide
[10:27] either to speak with uh the applicant
[10:29] and their council offline and uh also
[10:33] provide information in writing
[10:35] and I'm happy to give you a citation in
[10:37] the case that I can give you off the top
[10:39] of my head that shows that your learned
[10:42] council is in error the case. And may I
[10:45] give you that case and and perhaps he
[10:47] might want to look it up because it
[10:48] appears he's not aware of it. I you know
[10:50] at at I think this is you know uh Mike
[10:56] we got two Michaels thing. Uh Mike
[10:59] you can call me Michael and Mike. How's
[11:00] that?
[11:01] Well uh Mike I I don't know. I I'm
[11:04] tending to think that this could occupy
[11:06] the whole hearing. Uh I I don't know if
[11:09] this is better to be taken offline. I
[11:13] you know I mean and then you guys can
[11:15] you know take off the gloves and have at
[11:17] it. Uh,
[11:22] well, Steve, I think what I would say is I really defer to to you and the
[11:27] board and and if you have other uh other
[11:30] items. So, if you think it would be
[11:32] helpful to, you know, hear the
[11:34] conversation between um council for the
[11:38] applicant and myself, we can certainly
[11:39] have that conversation now. Um but if
[11:41] you have you know other elements of the
[11:44] application to consider and process uh
[11:47] you know your time may be better spent
[11:50] doing that and myself uh and applicants
[11:54] council can discuss these citations dig
[11:57] into them offline uh you know tomorrow
[12:01] in the coming days. I I I I would say
[12:04] that we have a lot of other I mean uh
[12:07] this is not like the final issue that's
[12:09] before you know this this board as far
[12:11] as uh other things that come into play
[12:14] for the uh the special permit. Um we
[12:18] have other items on our my proposed
[12:20] draft agenda. Uh uh I don't know board what what do you think of it? Uh I know the board really I will say that
[12:31] the board has not been in the many
[12:33] discussions I've had with town council
[12:35] and my discovery of the ANR and
[12:39] uh they're not as familiar with the
[12:43] nuances and the situ you know the
[12:45] matters that are being discussed here.
[12:47] Uh do I mean
[12:51] uh you know the our our c our town
[12:54] council is is uh uh looking to us to
[12:59] decide do we want to have them slug it.
[13:02] I don't know if you're Michael I don't
[13:04] know if you're prepared to uh site cases
[13:08] or or whatever. I don't know if that's
[13:10] going to take
[13:10] he's obviously prepared
[13:13] to bill.
[13:14] Okay.
[13:15] He's obviously prepared. uh
[13:18] this was something we just discovered
[13:20] today. So I mean I don't know how much
[13:22] this what is the impact of this this is one matter that involves
[13:29] whether we you know we can deny a
[13:32] special permit based on this if we if
[13:35] our if our standing side stands but
[13:38] there's a lot of butts to it. Um
[13:44] yeah, you know, cuz there there was
[13:46] other issues, Michael, uh Michael D,
[13:50] that uh there are other issues of this
[13:53] letter that we would like to address.
[13:55] And you know, it's it's let's let's put
[13:58] it this way. We're not going to be
[14:00] making a decision whether to grant or
[14:02] deny this special permit today. It's
[14:04] this is we get a lot of other things
[14:06] that we want to go through. So, um, uh,
[14:11] I'm thinking that it would our our time
[14:14] would best be suited that we you go
[14:17] through what I had to present today on
[14:20] this and if there's arguments between,
[14:24] you know, between the attorneys, let
[14:27] them take it offline and, you know, and deal with it. I mean, does
[14:32] how does how does the board feel about
[14:34] that? I I would say my proposal would be
[14:37] after that for them to like bring some
[14:40] sort of summary to the next meeting.
[14:42] Well, that that would that would be the
[14:44] thing that we would we would that that
[14:47] would be my idea is that
[14:50] you know this hearing is going to get
[14:51] continued
[14:53] uh for other matters.
[14:55] Why do we how do we know that yet?
[14:57] Well, I I why why do you think
[15:00] otherwise? So, if I could respectfully
[15:03] just address the board briefly just to
[15:05] kind of reframe the discussion
[15:08] and you're you're Rob Levesque. Yes.
[15:10] You're the
[15:11] Yes. So, for the record and I don't know
[15:13] if there's cameras now or there wasn't
[15:15] before.
[15:16] There's cameras somewhere.
[15:17] So, we can speak into So, uh good
[15:18] evening. For the record, I'm Rob Le from
[15:20] Marc Associates. Um to clarify, an ANR
[15:25] is an approval not required plan that
[15:28] gets endorsed by the planning board. If
[15:30] it doesn't get recorded, there is no new
[15:32] property lines that are put on record. I
[15:35] think Mr. Pill has case law to that
[15:37] effect. We are here to present the
[15:39] entirety of the project. We have no
[15:42] question, no concern that these property
[15:45] lines, although contemplated and
[15:47] although approved for recording by the
[15:50] planning board, never got recorded. And I think by admission by of town
[15:55] council as well as by uh the chair, it
[15:57] sounds like those never got recorded.
[15:59] Whose respons can I ask whose
[16:01] responsibility is it to record an ANR?
[16:04] It would be Mr. Bill that
[16:07] it's in fact your council has completely
[16:10] missed the mark in terms of real estate
[16:13] law. The issue is not just the
[16:16] recording. The issue is that to create a
[16:19] separate lot requires an instrument. And
[16:22] if he's not willing to sight authority,
[16:24] I am. Patel versus No, let me give him
[16:26] the citation, please, because I'm ready
[16:28] to put my cards on the table even if he
[16:31] is not. Patel
[16:32] Hold on, hold on, Michael. I'm going to
[16:35] interrupt you. I'm going to interrupt you right
[16:38] there cuz you're making an allegation
[16:40] about my state of mind that you you
[16:42] don't know. I'm I'm happy to discuss the
[16:45] details. And I also welcome any
[16:47] additional new information because uh
[16:50] none of us has a monopoly on every case
[16:52] that is out there.
[16:53] All I can tell you
[16:54] and he should stop interrupting me.
[16:56] Please
[16:58] go ahead.
[16:58] Mike,
[17:03] so attorney Bill is about to
[17:06] versus planning board of North Andover.
[17:09] It's a published case in the Mass
[17:10] Appallet Reports, Massappellet Court
[17:13] Reports. I believe it's 1989. The point
[17:16] of that case is that regardless of
[17:19] whether the plan is recorded, a plan
[17:23] cannot create a lot. That requires
[17:26] what's called an instrument, a D. In
[17:28] Patel versus Planning Board of North
[17:31] Andover, a subdivision plan was recorded
[17:35] showing crucial easements for the
[17:37] subdivision. There was never a deed from
[17:41] the developer to the municipality
[17:44] creating the easements. What the court
[17:46] pointed out was the intent was clear,
[17:49] but the formalities required by
[17:52] centuries of Massachusetts real estate
[17:54] law were not observed. So even if it was
[18:00] recorded, and I've seen this happen
[18:02] before, the recording of a plan does not
[18:05] create a lot. There had to be a deed
[18:08] that separated these parcels ownership.
[18:12] That's what created a second lot. Now,
[18:17] as as you probably know, I'm the author
[18:19] of a multi- volume treatise on
[18:20] Massachusetts real estate law. It's on
[18:23] West Law 28, Mass Practice. I'm sure
[18:26] your distinguished council may not have
[18:28] done a lot of real estate conveyancing
[18:30] because this goes back centuries and the
[18:34] deed is the essential element. Without a
[18:38] deed, there is no separate lot. Now, if
[18:41] he's willing to do as I've done and cite
[18:43] cases and not shove us off somewhere
[18:46] else, then we could have a discussion
[18:49] that might help everyone because what
[18:51] he's done is he's thrown down a gauntlet
[18:54] and he's not going to change his
[18:56] position,
[18:57] you know,
[18:58] and that's this is exactly the weeds I
[19:01] don't think the zoning board needs to
[19:03] get into.
[19:04] Okay.
[19:04] Uh if there was
[19:09] if the lots weren't separated before 99,
[19:13] then the driveway governs the driveway
[19:15] bylaw governance. Is that correct?
[19:18] Say that again. If the
[19:19] those lots weren't separated before 99.
[19:22] No, they're saying the uh the 99 is is
[19:26] when the existence of the bylaw came
[19:28] into place. the the the n the whole 99
[19:34] for four for or 944
[19:36] was was created back in what late 80s
[19:40] early 90s?
[19:41] No, I mean the uh when was the bylaw
[19:43] changed?
[19:44] November of 99.
[19:46] Of November of 99. So this lot wasn't
[19:49] separated before then?
[19:52] No, it was not.
[19:53] The person is saying that. Right.
[19:54] Right. So, doesn't that driveway
[19:57] thing govern regardless?
[20:03] I I some I'm missing the point of your
[20:05] question. Uh
[20:07] yeah,
[20:11] because
[20:15] yeah, this this separation occurred in
[20:18] 2014.
[20:20] So hypothetically through the chair if
[20:22] the if the if the division of land did
[20:26] happen by deed let's just say attorney
[20:28] pill is accurate not saying which
[20:30] attorney is accurate then arguably the
[20:33] driveway requirements were one but
[20:39] assuming that that ANR plan that never
[20:41] got recorded that did not have a deed
[20:44] associated with it did not convey any
[20:46] land
[20:47] is
[20:49] So it never happened. Then the driveway
[20:52] bylaw does not apply. Regardless of that
[20:54] driveway bylaw, we actually are coming
[20:57] in directly across from the curb cuts as
[21:00] required under the bylaw. So
[21:04] you're talking about the one onto 116.
[21:06] Yeah, we're right across from the one
[21:07] across the street and we're right across
[21:08] the one from Clark Mountain Road. So
[21:11] what we'd love to do is let the
[21:13] attorneys duke it out. They get they
[21:14] make a lot more money than the rest of
[21:16] us. Um, and maybe we can move forward
[21:18] with the rest of the agenda.
[21:20] Uh, that would be my preference. Uh, let
[21:24] you guys,
[21:25] yeah,
[21:26] have your fun that you enjoy. Uh but I
[21:29] uh I I don't think really the the the zoning board may even not fully
[21:35] understand and it we don't have to
[21:36] understand the nuances of this other
[21:39] than
[21:40] what is the you know the determination
[21:42] of this of this lot and does this bylaw
[21:46] apply and our our our my contention
[21:48] right now is that it does but we'll
[21:50] leave it to
[21:51] Wait. So just clarify it's our
[21:53] contention.
[21:55] That is not our contention.
[21:56] Right. Well,
[21:57] that is your contention.
[21:58] It is my contention.
[21:59] Has not reached a content.
[22:00] No, we the board was not involved in the
[22:03] discussions I had with town council.
[22:05] I would like to come back to Amanda's
[22:06] suggestion
[22:08] which if that's how it's going to go
[22:10] forward that we get either one or two
[22:14] one summary if they agree or two
[22:16] summaries of this.
[22:17] Yes. I I I would I would say
[22:21] the city
[22:22] I would say that uh you know I I think
[22:25] it's safe to say this hearing is going
[22:27] to continue. I mean and at at that
[22:30] continuence I would expect that a uh a a an agreement or a summary or decision
[22:37] between these two guys would uh be able
[22:40] to be uh announced. Does that sound uh
[22:43] reasonable, Mike D?
[22:46] It does, Steve. And um I can tell you
[22:48] just a couple of points here uh in
[22:50] summary. First um you know I always
[22:52] welcome new information. I often change
[22:54] my mind because uh what guides me is the
[22:58] law. What I don't do is try to assume
[23:00] what's in somebody else's mind or make
[23:03] assertions as to their motives and
[23:05] values. I think that's inappropriate in
[23:07] a profession such as this uh where what
[23:10] we are trying to do is to find what the
[23:13] statute says where often reasonable
[23:15] people can disagree. So it may be that
[23:18] we're able to come to a consensus myself
[23:20] uh and the applicants council. It may be
[23:23] that we're not. Um, but either way, we
[23:25] want to provide the board with full
[23:27] information from uh either both sides or
[23:30] one side depending on where we land uh
[23:32] so that the board can make an informed
[23:34] decision. And I I think that we're
[23:36] unlikely to be able to do that on a
[23:39] telephone conference right now to really
[23:42] get into the details. Um the second
[23:44] point I want to make and and and this is
[23:46] just for the board's general knowledge.
[23:47] This is an area where I agree with
[23:50] applicants council is relative to the
[23:52] law around taking it. And so one of the
[23:55] uh issues for the board to be aware of
[23:57] is in my opinion we could not apply the
[24:01] driveway separation bylaw in such a
[24:03] manner that there was no access onto the
[24:06] property. Right? We look at the the
[24:08] Lucas case out of South Carolina and
[24:10] that would basically foreclose all
[24:12] economic uses of the parcel. That would
[24:15] be a regulatory taking. And so one of
[24:17] the other questions that we have to
[24:19] consider uh where the uh driveway
[24:23] separation bylaw may apply if we
[24:26] determine that it does. We also have to
[24:28] be able to provide some access to the
[24:31] property uh in order for it to be valid.
[24:34] So I just share that with the board as
[24:36] some further context.
[24:38] Thank you.
[24:40] And I I don't know if do you want to get
[24:42] into the details of that or just let
[24:44] that be and let let you uh
[24:46] I think we can take that up along with
[24:49] uh you know the detailed legal memo for
[24:51] the board uh to consider. Again, it may
[24:53] be one memo from both of us if we're on
[24:55] the same page. It may be two separate
[24:56] memos.
[24:59] Mr. Pill, is that agreeable to you?
[25:01] Well,
[25:03] it sounds like he's as familiar as I am
[25:07] that the tenor of the US Supreme Court
[25:10] is much more favorable in recent decades
[25:13] to property rights than the
[25:15] municipalities.
[25:16] And so if the first issue becomes
[25:19] irrelevant, then that's fine and the
[25:22] second issue governs. With respect to
[25:24] the first issue, Patel versus Planning
[25:26] Board of North Andover is the
[25:28] cornerstone of my case. So I'm not sure
[25:31] how much dialogue we need. It sounds
[25:33] like he and I are both familiar with the
[25:36] regulatory taking case law especially
[25:38] from the US Supreme Court. So, and if
[25:41] obviously if your council's conclusion
[25:44] is that the regulatory taking issue
[25:46] means that the bylaw cannot be
[25:49] constitutionally applied regardless of
[25:52] what the issue is with ANR deed um
[25:56] recording or whatever, then we can both
[25:59] save our clients a lot of money and
[26:01] time. So, I guess I'd say that balls in
[26:04] his court and I hope he would, you know,
[26:08] let us know where he concludes on the
[26:10] regulatory taking issue because then I
[26:13] can sit down and shut up and you all can
[26:15] get back to work.
[26:19] Mike, I Mike D, I don't know how you
[26:22] feel about that. We have talked about
[26:24] that offline between the two of us and
[26:26] we I just don't know where did you want
[26:30] to step in that one or
[26:33] Well, I think what we need to uh know
[26:35] and this this may be a further offline
[26:37] conversation is is whether there is any
[26:41] access under uh the driveway separation
[26:44] bylaw if it were to be applied. And the
[26:46] reason for that is because you know in
[26:48] that Lucas case uh in the Supreme Court
[26:51] taking case it basically said that a a
[26:54] regulatory taking generally forecloses
[26:56] all economic value right if it
[26:58] forecloses 95 but not 100 uh% of the
[27:01] value it's not a regulatory taking in a
[27:04] way of saying you know it may not be how
[27:06] you want to use the property but there
[27:07] is an economically beneficial use is not
[27:10] a regulatory taking. On the other hand,
[27:12] if you could not access the property at
[27:14] all, you could not build any driveway to
[27:17] access it, then then that would
[27:19] foreclose all economic use and would be
[27:21] a taken. And so the question really is
[27:23] and uh this is what I think we need to
[27:26] discuss is is there a way to access the
[27:29] property if the bylaw were applied as
[27:33] written? And what I I just can't tell
[27:35] from um the existing paperwork whether
[27:38] there is um a spot between the different
[27:41] colored lines where where access may be
[27:44] possible.
[27:45] If I if I could through the chair,
[27:47] attorney, is it okay to call you
[27:48] attorney Mike because I'm not sure what
[27:49] the last name is. Absolutely. Call Mike
[27:52] D. Attorney Mike D. Um Rob Lec again. I
[27:55] don't know if you're watching on TV or
[27:58] closed circuit TV. Um we have an
[28:00] exhibit. It is dated uh 60325.
[28:04] It's provided also as a graphic on the
[28:07] memo for Green Miles Lipton uh LLP dated
[28:11] June 24th, 2025. It very specifically
[28:15] shows that all access points to the
[28:19] property would be eliminated if the
[28:22] driveway bylaw were utilized.
[28:24] uh we have separations from each of the
[28:27] driveways
[28:28] uh roadways, curve cuts, etc. across and
[28:32] on the same side of the roadways. So, um
[28:34] that that graphic I think is probably
[28:37] what you're looking for. So, if you
[28:38] don't have that already, we'll certainly
[28:40] provide that.
[28:41] He does.
[28:41] Okay, great.
[28:48] Uh thank you, Rob. And um and I I think
[28:50] I uh I think I have that uh that I have
[28:53] in front of me, but it may be helpful to
[28:55] confirm afterwards that I'm looking at
[28:56] the right one. And specifically, it
[28:58] looks like there's an area where the uh
[29:02] there's sort of a gap between two of the
[29:04] lines where there might be an access
[29:06] point, but I just can't tell it, you
[29:08] know, how wide it is. It may not be wide
[29:11] enough for a car to drive through, in
[29:12] which case it's not practical access. So
[29:14] just a little bit more um detail on that
[29:18] I want to get into.
[29:19] Yeah, absolutely. And that and I and I
[29:21] respect that question. So I believe
[29:23] you're talking about the area where the
[29:24] two 250 radi uh join each other and know
[29:29] there's not enough width for access.
[29:31] Further complicating this is that mass
[29:34] dot is the jurisdictional authority on
[29:37] you know Ammerst road. So we are going
[29:40] through the mass DOT process for the
[29:42] curb cuts. We have our traffic engineer
[29:44] that is obviously communicating with
[29:45] Mass DOT as we are. Um so yeah, so to
[29:48] clarify that graphic, there is no room
[29:50] for access anywhere on this property
[29:54] provided we respect all of the bylaw,
[29:58] which we still think don't doesn't
[30:00] apply, but there's no way in if that's
[30:03] the case, I guess, is the bottom line.
[30:05] Thank you.
[30:07] So, I I think that's worth us um uh uh
[30:10] following up on because we may well we
[30:13] may end up agreeing on the first
[30:15] question, we may end up continuing to
[30:17] disagree. Um but, you know, if we what
[30:20] I'd like to see is something showing,
[30:22] you know, whatever that distance is and
[30:24] I I don't know how many inches or feet
[30:26] it is and then the board can make a
[30:28] determination that says um
[30:32] you know, if it's 6 in, obviously that's
[30:34] not real access. um and um uh and
[30:39] therefore, you know, the bylaw can't
[30:41] apply as written. Um but having that
[30:44] level of specificity, I think will be
[30:45] helpful for the board so they can make a
[30:47] determination as to whether that access
[30:49] is or isn't there.
[30:51] Uh and that graphic through the chair
[30:53] again, that graphic is colorcoded based
[30:55] on the different required separations.
[30:58] So if it's across the street, it's a
[30:59] certain color. if it's on the same side,
[31:02] depending on the nature, if it's a curb
[31:04] cut versus a street, uh, versus an
[31:07] intersection, those are all colorcoded.
[31:09] So, we're happy to describe that. Should
[31:10] you get a chance to review that in the
[31:12] time to come, we'll have we'll be happy
[31:14] to, you know, clarify that for you.
[31:17] Great. Appreciate it.
[31:19] Thank you.
[31:20] So uh what we would like is uh for the
[31:25] two mics to take this uh discussion
[31:28] argument or whatever uh offline and uh
[31:33] address those two issues. And uh at the
[31:36] time of our next continuence, whenever
[31:39] it may be, uh we had hoped to get uh uh
[31:44] some legal opinions that the board can uh
[31:51] deal with.
[31:51] Well, I've he's got apparently
[31:54] he does have that. I I I I did send that
[31:57] and he's got the citation that I gave
[31:59] him and so I look forward to receiving
[32:02] whatever town council has to say or
[32:05] write and we can take it from there.
[32:07] Thank you very much.
[32:08] I suggest you guys set up a date and uh
[32:10] well, I need to get I need to get he's
[32:13] got our side of the story between what
[32:15] I've said tonight and what I put in
[32:16] writing. So I I I've just waited. We can
[32:19] set a date as soon as I get his side.
[32:25] So,
[32:27] can you guys get together, pick a date,
[32:29] and then do do I mean,
[32:31] I just don't want to chew up time. In
[32:33] other words, he's he's got an argument,
[32:36] but he hasn't shared his legal authority
[32:38] like
[32:39] I understand that. Can you guys get
[32:41] together and exchange information? I
[32:43] mean,
[32:44] yes,
[32:44] is it isn't that uh
[32:46] Well, I hope he will do that. Thank you.
[32:48] Yeah, I'd be happy to talk to
[32:49] It's a two-way street. I mean, I have to
[32:52] say you you will call him or you will
[32:55] call him. I mean, come on.
[32:57] Attorney Mike D. Rob here again to help
[32:59] facilitate. Um, the best contact
[33:02] information for you is what? No,
[33:05] I let me give you my uh cell. Feel free
[33:07] to write it down. It's uh generally
[33:09] available anyways. Uh, which is 781
[33:12] 8014317.
[33:15] Uh, and I welcome a call and happy to
[33:18] talk at any time.
[33:19] Thank you, sir. appreciate it. But all I
[33:21] can do is say, "Please send me your
[33:23] memorandum and please provideations,
[33:26] which I've just done." But I'll be happy
[33:28] to call him and leave a message that
[33:29] says the same thing. That's all I can
[33:31] do.
[33:32] I hope you talk to him personally, not
[33:34] have to leave a message. You could if
[33:36] you could share your ex if you could
[33:38] change your 781.
[33:40] I I try to pick up. I will say uh but I'll add that I often find that just
[33:45] talking can can be helpful uh especially
[33:47] when you've got uh two attorneys uh you
[33:49] can work through a lot of items uh more
[33:51] quickly talking uh but you know if
[33:54] writing is preferred first I'm also
[33:56] happy to do that
[33:57] if it requires a face-toface meeting
[34:00] make it so
[34:00] I'll be happy to give him a call and
[34:02] maybe we can meet by Zoom which is the
[34:04] next best thing at least we can see each
[34:06] other
[34:06] I'll be I'll give him a call tomorrow
[34:09] thank you.
[34:13] That was fun. Okay.
[34:15] So,
[34:16] the lawyers maybe.
[34:17] Okay.
[34:19] Come on. Share the fun. Okay. So, uh,
[34:25] that issue is going to be discussed in a
[34:26] pint and like I said, I just wanted to
[34:28] share that we did find that ANR and
[34:32] I'll just make an editorial comment that
[34:36] uh, and I see it happen on filing
[34:39] uh,
[34:40] special permit uh, decisions uh, are
[34:44] supposed to be filed at the registry of
[34:46] deeds. It would shock you to see how
[34:49] many don't get spiled.
[34:52] And
[34:53] it my understanding is it it's the
[34:56] responsibility of
[34:59] the person that that receives a special
[35:04] permit. I know that's the case and I
[35:06] think it's the responsibility of the
[35:08] person who receives an ANR to file it.
[35:11] And
[35:13] sometimes they forget, sometimes they
[35:16] don't do it cuz it's
[35:19] so and sometimes plans change.
[35:22] And there's our I got exhibit A right
[35:25] there.
[35:27] Steve, can you just quickly clarify?
[35:28] They did receive the special permit. Is
[35:30] that correct? Document.
[35:32] No, no, no, no. These people they this
[35:35] special permit is still uh being
[35:38] special permit, but the the This is not
[35:41] a special permit. It is a it is a uh
[35:45] approval not required.
[35:48] It it's it's pretty much a plan that
[35:50] Yeah.
[35:51] If they brought that in,
[35:53] if they had brought that in, would that
[35:55] have been
[35:55] No. So, can I can I clarify? Sorry. um
[35:58] as a member of the um so when a when
[36:02] somebody presents an approval that
[36:03] required submission um it's essentially
[36:07] saying
[36:09] they they don't have to get a special
[36:11] permit or the approval of the zoning
[36:12] board planning board. What they need to
[36:14] show essentially is a plan that all the
[36:17] planning board looks at is whether the newly configured lots comply with
[36:24] the frontage and other requirements on
[36:26] zoning code. If they do, then we have no
[36:29] choice but to endorse the ANR.
[36:31] And when that was signed, then you
[36:33] approved that. I mean, I wasn't on the
[36:35] planning board in 2014, but the the
[36:38] planning board got that submission as an
[36:40] ANR presumably, you know, looked at the configuration of the lots as as
[36:46] contemplated, made sure that they
[36:49] complied with the the conventional
[36:51] requirements of the of the zoning code
[36:53] and then endorsed it, saying yes.
[36:56] And I I would say there's two
[36:58] disclaimers on here. It says planning
[37:00] board endorsements shall not be
[37:01] construed as either being an endorsement
[37:04] or approval of the zoning bylaws
[37:06] requirements of the town. And another
[37:08] one this that there's a second one. It
[37:10] says endorsement of this plan does not
[37:11] certify compliance with zoning of any
[37:13] time town bylaw or regulation. So
[37:16] they but they they look to see that it's
[37:19] proper and I mean I'll do
[37:21] Yeah. Yeah. And and if if we get a like
[37:23] you know I can tell our process if we
[37:24] get a plan that you know
[37:26] I'm sure you get some crazy ones,
[37:28] right? And if it's not if it's not what
[37:30] it needs to be, then we send it back.
[37:32] You don't approve it.
[37:34] Just to the chair. What what he said is
[37:38] exactly correct. And what I think
[37:40] supports what I was saying is, and
[37:42] that's chapter 183 or 184, section 6A,
[37:46] if you're creating a new lot, you cannot
[37:49] lawfully record a deed without the
[37:52] planning board approval. So, you see,
[37:54] it's not the planning board approval
[37:56] that creates the new lot. It's simply a
[37:58] precondition so that when a new lot is
[38:01] created along with the deed, you've got
[38:04] a plan that shows at least it went by
[38:08] the planning board. And I am Am I making
[38:10] sense? It's it's like a preliminary
[38:14] to the creation of a new law ID. Thank
[38:16] you.
[38:17] Okay. I I I hear your point. Okay. So,
[38:23] shall we move on to the second uh agenda
[38:27] item? And Mike D, I don't know if you uh
[38:31] if if you're if you uh are suffering
[38:34] from insomnia, uh you're welcome to stay
[38:37] and listen.
[38:38] Excuse me.
[38:39] Hold on a second. I got a
[38:40] quick question. This is
[38:42] Who uh who are you?
[38:43] I'm Jen Snaker. I've lived in for about
[38:46] 25 years.
[38:47] Okay. Um, is this uh thing we've been
[38:51] discussing uh the dollar store what they
[38:55] want store
[38:56] dollar general is is they're they're the developers for the dollar.
[39:02] Okay. Um is it appropriate tonight to uh
[39:06] a general public to voice their
[39:09] No. Uh we we've we've actually I mean
[39:11] we've actually had a lot of discussion
[39:14] and we can have more at the end but it's
[39:16] not really germanine to today's uh
[39:19] agenda.
[39:20] When you say the end, what do you mean
[39:21] like public comment?
[39:23] Well, it's not going to end today. I
[39:26] mean, we we have a lot the zoning board
[39:28] has a lot to look at in this case and
[39:32] we've already had four continuations.
[39:35] Okay.
[39:35] I I'll bet the house we're going to have
[39:37] a fifth one. So, and maybe even more
[39:40] than that. So, that would be a better
[39:43] time to uh to put on that kind of uh I
[39:45] mean that kind of uh input. So,
[39:48] okay. Thanks.
[39:49] So, Mike, I'll leave it to you whether
[39:51] you want to buck out or if you want to
[39:53] stay.
[39:54] Uh
[39:55] Mr. Chair, I'm I'm available at at your
[39:58] discretion and if you feel that I would
[40:00] be helpful later on, I'm happy to stay.
[40:01] Otherwise, I'm happy to save the town
[40:04] money and sign off.
[40:05] I got I got your I got your cell number.
[40:07] I'll call you back.
[40:08] Yeah, I'll I'll I'll be available if
[40:10] needed. And um I want to thank you, the
[40:13] board, uh the applicants, uh
[40:15] representatives and council uh for their
[40:17] time tonight. And I look forward to
[40:20] continuing this conversation tomorrow.
[40:23] Thank you.
[40:23] Okay. Thank you.
[40:24] Mike.
[40:26] Have a great evening.
[40:27] You too.
[40:28] Good night.
[40:33] Okay. Um, let's see what I have next on
[40:38] the uh this is sort of sort of a
[40:41] carryover from uh the agenda from our
[40:44] last hearing we never got to. uh you you
[40:48] uh uh have made uh a different layout uh
[40:52] and you provided us with drawings uh rev
[40:56] drawings uh I don't know if you want to
[41:00] briefly go over that uh and you also
[41:04] provided some new uh elevations.
[41:07] Yes sir. So, uh,
[41:11] this
[41:12] I'm trying to think. I I didn't even
[41:14] send it on to the I do have these in
[41:17] electronic form, but just haven't sent
[41:20] it off to you guys yet.
[41:23] Uh, this one of the just before we get
[41:25] into that, I did post documents on our
[41:29] website, the ZBA zoning board website
[41:32] for the town of Sunderland. Uh, I was a
[41:34] little late in putting it. I'd forgotten
[41:36] about it, but there are several
[41:38] documents including the latest plans,
[41:41] the Rev B plans are on the website for
[41:43] viewing. Uh the letter that Michael uh
[41:47] the two Michaels were talking about is
[41:50] up on there. Uh and the elevations are
[41:53] on there. So, uh I was a little bit late
[41:55] in get that getting it on there. I
[41:56] forgot about it, but it is up on the
[41:58] website for for those that uh that are
[42:01] interested. Rob,
[42:03] thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um again for
[42:05] the record Rob Lec associates uh
[42:08] president of Rbec and we are the civil
[42:11] survey site landscape architecture
[42:13] component of the project. We um designed
[42:17] the site originally as discussed um had
[42:20] a different orientation and talking to
[42:22] the zone board of appeals in the last
[42:24] public hearings we basically decided
[42:27] that there may be a way to be less
[42:28] impactful potentially improved on the
[42:32] circulation patterns curve cuts within
[42:33] the site. So what we did is we basically
[42:36] reoriented the building um so that it is
[42:38] 90 degrees uh to the street have would
[42:41] have less aesthetic impact um as well as
[42:45] having the parking on the side of the
[42:47] building allows us to reconfigure the
[42:49] location of the curb cut off Ammerst
[42:52] Road um specifically directly across
[42:55] from the curb cut for the plaza and the
[42:56] Dunkin Donuts to the I guess that's to
[42:58] this
[43:00] south
[43:01] west um and um also reconfigured
[43:06] slightly the curb cut uh off of Clark
[43:08] Mountain. Uh we have the parking spaces
[43:11] which are approximately actually they
[43:13] are 46 parking spaces. We have the um
[43:16] refu area and loading area at the back
[43:19] side of the building so that that
[43:20] doesn't impact um visibility from the
[43:23] street which was previously kind of on
[43:26] this side. Um generally speaking um
[43:29] we've met all of the parking
[43:31] requirements. Uh we believe we've met
[43:33] all of the access requirements. We have
[43:36] run truck turning movements through the
[43:38] site uh with regard to um drop off
[43:41] vehicle drop off. You'll see that
[43:42] there's this long apron here that is for
[43:45] the truck turning movements. As you can
[43:46] imagine, you get into the site, you want
[43:48] to be able to back into the loading
[43:49] area. Um there are on occasion tractor
[43:52] trailer trucks that will be delivering.
[43:54] A lot of times they're smaller, but
[43:56] there are tractor trailer trucks that
[43:57] will periodically be delivering. So, um,
[44:00] this is the overall layout that was, I
[44:02] guess, informally discussed previously,
[44:05] at least in in general format. This has
[44:06] been refined.
[44:08] I'd be happy to stop there. Emily Buck
[44:11] is here this evening. She is our traffic
[44:12] engineer from Bowman. I think Michael
[44:14] was here last Michael Michael was here
[44:16] last time in herstead. Um, she decided
[44:19] to go ahead and get married. Go figure,
[44:21] right? Oh,
[44:21] dare.
[44:22] Um, so anyway, so she is available this
[44:24] evening to discuss the revised storm,
[44:26] I'm sorry, revised traffic report. We
[44:28] also have a revised storm water report.
[44:29] I know that there was some questions and
[44:31] comments in the past.
[44:34] Generally speaking, we have very
[44:35] specific requirements for storm water.
[44:37] Happy to get into those should you want
[44:39] to entertain that later. Uh but for now,
[44:41] I'll probably stop there and then
[44:42] through the chair be happy to answer
[44:44] your questions about circulation and
[44:46] then I can transfer things to Emily
[44:49] or however you want to do it.
[44:54] Um, I think one of the one of the things
[44:57] I like to ask and one thing I'll note
[45:00] the at the first layout you were
[45:04] actually going to have the the tractor
[45:06] trailers pulling through the parking
[45:07] area and I see that you've made change
[45:10] where now the tractor trailer all looks
[45:13] like all deliveries will be coming in
[45:14] from Clark Mountain Road.
[45:16] Yes sir.
[45:17] And it it would negate driving through
[45:20] the parking area. There was some concern
[45:22] about driving
[45:23] separation separating passenger car from
[45:25] delivery system.
[45:26] Right. And you get nice little
[45:27] turnaround there. Uh that uh
[45:31] I just want to note that cuz you made
[45:33] that change.
[45:34] Um the new driveway location AC that's
[45:40] from 116. Now you say that's directly
[45:42] across the uh the Dunkin Donuts
[45:45] entrance.
[45:46] Yes. and also um directly where mass dot
[45:50] has requested that we shift it. Uh
[45:52] originally it was a farther up the road.
[45:55] Um so it's part of our redesign and one
[45:57] of the driving factors for the curb cut
[45:59] location um was the comment from Mass
[46:03] Dot. I think it was a 25% comment from
[46:05] Mass DOT basically addressed that asked
[46:07] us to put it at certain station point.
[46:09] That's where it is directly across.
[46:11] Again, we're we're directly across from
[46:13] the subway exit onto Clark Mountain with
[46:16] our entry exit over there.
[46:23] Board, have any questions or comments on
[46:26] this revised
[46:29] layout?
[46:34] Um, see,
[46:36] just to help me with the layout, maybe
[46:38] it's easier on the bottom.
[46:39] Sure. on that. Could you put either on
[46:41] either one? Can you put your finger on
[46:43] where the oak tree is
[46:47] on that?
[46:48] You say the oak tree.
[46:48] Yeah.
[46:50] Is it the lot or is it in the middle of
[46:53] the lot?
[46:53] The uh
[46:54] the existing
[46:57] it be in a picture.
[46:59] Got it.
[47:02] Uh somebody want to show me which
[47:05] Sorry
[47:07] to your right hand. The aerial. Is that
[47:09] the aerial photo?
[47:11] Is it?
[47:12] Yeah.
[47:16] Is it right here? I
[47:17] think that's it.
[47:19] No, it's further.
[47:23] I'm just trying to Sorry.
[47:34] Um,
[47:36] so the oak tree that I believe Mr.
[47:38] Beckley is talking about is
[47:44] okay here.
[47:47] I'm sorry. There's another one here.
[47:48] It's 26 in or 28 inch tree here.
[47:53] That's not it.
[47:53] Will they remain?
[47:56] asking right here right there. Thank
[47:58] you.
[48:00] So, is the tree in question staying or
[48:03] going?
[48:04] How it lines up on the site?
[48:05] Okay.
[48:06] As you see as you drive by today where
[48:08] the building's going to be it's going to
[48:09] be to the
[48:11] and is that that tree is going or
[48:13] I would definitely go.
[48:14] Okay.
[48:17] Regrading.
[48:21] uh one of the asks uh that I made and
[48:25] you complied with that you have some uh
[48:28] elevations that are close closer to
[48:31] scale to to this. Uh do you want to can
[48:36] you talk to that?
[48:37] Sure.
[48:39] Um,
[48:41] this is at a somewhat different scale
[48:44] than the other drawings. Actually, it's
[48:46] about, uh, this is closer to what, uh,
[48:49] you had been submitted before.
[48:51] Uh, yep. So, just to orient everyone,
[48:55] um, if you're looking
[48:58] the right one
[48:58] from 116 is
[49:00] the middle one.
[49:01] Just the middle. That's that one.
[49:02] Yeah. Looking straight across.
[49:04] This would be the view from 116. So the
[49:06] building so the building before was
[49:08] obviously longer towards 116 this kind
[49:10] of truncase thing. Uh this would be the
[49:12] view if you're coming from Ammerst. Uh
[49:15] so the crowd corner here with the
[49:17] glazing um on the far side of the
[49:20] building. Originally there was no
[49:22] right
[49:22] uh really no articulation of you know
[49:25] facade. So what we've done is we have
[49:27] they have a brick shelf here. Um they
[49:29] have uh I guess we call them shutters
[49:32] faux windows shutters etc. um along that
[49:35] hole and and then the you know the the
[49:38] roof line here. So this really is the
[49:41] only,
[49:42] you know, basic elevation which is to
[49:45] the back um at the loading area, but
[49:48] everything else is basically hardy plank
[49:50] siding trim um you know and then
[49:54] slightly taller roof but still staying
[49:55] into the requirements
[50:00] and again the materials and you know
[50:02] accommodations are you know
[50:05] malleable a little bit at this point you
[50:07] know so if there's certain questions or
[50:08] concerns concerns. I'm sure um they
[50:10] would be more than happy to try to
[50:12] address concerns.
[50:15] I I I will tell board members this is
[50:17] kind of new to you. Uh I I received them
[50:20] like late last week and uh
[50:23] I have not forwarded a lot of them to
[50:26] you. So I apologize for that and that's
[50:29] why I asked Ron to uh Rob to uh to to
[50:34] touch on that. So good. If you have
[50:37] thoughts, we're happy to take input.
[50:43] Just can I ask a question?
[50:44] Sure.
[50:45] Is there signage on the building?
[50:46] There will be. Yes. Yeah, we'll have to
[50:48] meet the sign requirements. I could ask
[50:50] the architect to show that.
[50:52] Um they they did not in this edition,
[50:54] but I certainly could.
[50:56] Do you have any idea where just
[50:58] I would believe it would be here and
[51:00] here if if permitted. So right here and
[51:04] here.
[51:06] typically where it would be. I might
[51:08] even have a picture of some recently
[51:10] built that I can show. But
[51:12] I think your notes said uh that's where
[51:15] the sign area be subject to uh
[51:19] you know zoning or something like that.
[51:23] So
[51:27] I have just another question on the
[51:29] second. Yeah, you that one down on that
[51:31] one. Can you just remind me where the
[51:35] lot line is on that one?
[51:38] So, the existing lot line is Oh,
[51:43] it's way over here. So, um right here
[51:48] would be, you know, potentially a
[51:49] proposed lot line. Um but right now,
[51:54] this is where the line is. So it's the
[51:57] red
[51:57] all attorneys conversations aside.
[52:00] So the the picture um with the
[52:03] driveways, right? That whole red section
[52:05] is the current lot.
[52:08] Well, that's that's that's right.
[52:11] That's 9 that's 9-44 and 9-00 right on
[52:16] this drawing.
[52:17] That is so that just to clarify this
[52:19] entire lot is the subject parcel at this
[52:22] point. At this point,
[52:25] that's what you're applying for the
[52:27] special appointment for is that lot.
[52:30] Correct. Yeah.
[52:31] Thank you.
[52:45] Okay. Thank you for submitting those and
[52:48] again I I will I will pass them on to
[52:50] the to the zoning board.
[52:54] And they're actually uh on the website.
[52:56] You can actually download them from the
[52:58] ZBA website. One the uh the storm water
[53:03] report is is a monster. So
[53:06] light reading
[53:07] 277 pages of light rating and about
[53:12] 35 meg of
[53:14] too big for an attachment.
[53:16] Excuse me. I have a question. Uh David,
[53:19] 20 years investment. Um, are we
[53:23] approving the removal of the vegetation
[53:25] in the watershed
[53:27] district? Is that part of the exception
[53:29] that they're applying for?
[53:31] Uh,
[53:33] I mean, as part of the demolition, I
[53:34] mean, that's going specifically into
[53:37] that.
[53:38] You know, this this this parcel is in
[53:41] the uh uh watershed district
[53:44] and it actually is subject to a special
[53:46] permit from the planning board. So, it's
[53:50] kind of weird that uh it's it's I I
[53:54] can't think of a case we've ever had
[53:55] where like
[53:57] uh you know both the planning board and
[54:00] the zoning board sort of having
[54:04] uh authority over uh the same use the
[54:08] same parcel. So, uh
[54:10] so the vegetation removal be part of
[54:13] exception that would be granted from
[54:14] either you or the planning board. Well,
[54:17] I mean, if if in the absence of this, I
[54:19] mean, if part of it would be the
[54:21] demolition and the preparing of the site
[54:23] for, you know, whatever they're they're
[54:25] doing. Uh
[54:28] I I mean that
[54:29] so through the through the chair, we do
[54:31] have to meet the performance standards
[54:33] of of the uh that district as well. Is
[54:36] there a specific question about uh
[54:38] removal that most of the most of the
[54:40] area is a field as you're aware? There
[54:43] are some mature trees that will have to
[54:45] be taken that are obviously where our
[54:47] site is going. Um, anything around the
[54:50] perimeter that doesn't need to be taken,
[54:51] we certainly not plan on taking anything
[54:53] beyond what we show on our plan. Um, so,
[54:56] but there would be some area in here
[54:59] that does have some mature vegetation. A
[55:01] lot of the perimeter plan things will,
[55:03] you know, we don't we won't control this
[55:05] area in the future, but along the along
[55:07] the edge, if it doesn't need to be
[55:09] touched, we won't touch it.
[55:12] So I don't know if there was a specific
[55:13] question about vegetation.
[55:20] I mean, one of the I mean, the hang I'm
[55:23] trying to find the criteria here, but
[55:26] you know, when when we get to the end of
[55:28] this process, the zoning board will need
[55:32] to
[55:35] decide on making a,
[55:38] you know, whether to grant or deny a
[55:40] special permit.
[55:42] And it'll be based on there's like seven
[55:45] criteria that we we take into
[55:48] consideration. Special permit shall be
[55:50] granted by the special permit granting
[55:52] authority only upon its written
[55:54] determination that the proposed use will
[55:57] not have adverse effects which
[55:59] overbalance its beneficial effects
[56:02] either on the neighborhood or the town.
[56:05] In view of partic particular
[56:07] characteristics of the site and the
[56:08] proposal in relation to that site, the
[56:11] determination shall consider each of the
[56:14] following and there are seven of them.
[56:16] Number one is the social, economic or
[56:18] community needs which are served by the
[56:20] proposal.
[56:23] Number two is traffic flow and safety.
[56:27] Number three is adequacy of utilities
[56:29] and other public services.
[56:33] Number four, neighborhood characteristic
[56:35] and social structures.
[56:38] Number five, qualities of the natural
[56:40] environment. And that's probably where
[56:43] this falls under.
[56:45] Number six, impact or potential fiscal
[56:49] impact.
[56:51] And number seven is impact on drainage
[56:54] or storm water management. So both of
[56:56] those sort of uh fall into this the
[57:01] storm water drainage report and some of
[57:03] the things that we'll be getting into.
[57:05] So um
[57:08] that's what the the board will be
[57:10] looking at uh
[57:12] that the proposed use will not have
[57:15] adverse effects which overbalance its
[57:18] beneficial effects. That's if it doesn't
[57:21] you grant. If it if it if it does,
[57:26] that's basis of denial. So that's that's
[57:28] really what the board is uh you know
[57:31] that's when judgment day comes that's
[57:34] what we'll be reviewing and so we're
[57:36] trying to gather as much information
[57:38] about these things uh to you know to
[57:42] formulate that decision. So through Mr.
[57:45] Chair, we have provided um through the
[57:48] application package a response to each
[57:50] of those items, those criteria
[57:51] specifically. Um as you are probably
[57:55] aware and in the 200 some odd page page
[57:57] report um we have addressed all the D
[58:00] storm water management standards um for
[58:03] storm water. We've addressed all of the
[58:05] requirements for treatment drain, water
[58:08] quality, storm water attenuation. All of
[58:10] those components have been met with
[58:12] regard to drainage. Uh with regard to
[58:14] the environment, um you know, this site
[58:16] is not uh necessarily unique uh other
[58:20] than the district that falls within. Um
[58:23] it's obviously a an open field that's
[58:26] maintained. Um there is some mature
[58:28] vegetation. Uh but in general, um
[58:31] there's no other criteria. We areware
[58:34] well aware where I know this was a
[58:35] comment from folks in the audience. Uh
[58:37] we're well aware of where groundwater
[58:39] is. We do test pits before we even start
[58:41] our drainage. Our drainage efforts are
[58:43] typically 100 plus hours
[58:46] to determine the proper drainage
[58:49] associated with the site. So um we feel
[58:52] confident and certainly if you have any
[58:54] questions through the process with
[58:55] regard to how we address those criteria,
[58:57] we would be more than happy to meet
[58:59] those because we feel very confident
[59:00] that we have addressed those and can
[59:02] address each item should you have
[59:03] concerns.
[59:04] Right. the uh the next agenda item uh
[59:07] you know sort of gets into one of those
[59:09] areas that the the the board would have
[59:12] questions about, but uh
[59:19] we got a lot of pots on the on the
[59:21] stove.
[59:22] So So we just got to wait till
[59:26] they simmer out. Um
[59:30] I I I will I'll state again that it's in
[59:34] the uh it's in the watershed district.
[59:37] Uh and you know we we do have uh part of
[59:42] our criteria is qualities of the natural
[59:44] environment. So we we do have some uh
[59:47] interest there that we have to make a
[59:49] determination on. Um
[59:52] uh also uh one thing I wasn't aware of I
[59:56] discovered that actually the uh uh the
[1:00:01] Cliffside Apartments which is nearby
[1:00:04] uh they actually have a well that's uh
[1:00:09] they they they don't use town water they
[1:00:11] use well water and uh uh and I think
[1:00:16] part of the their aquifer field is goes
[1:00:21] under this area. So, uh that's something
[1:00:23] that uh uh the the board would be be uh would be, you know, cognizant of
[1:00:32] this. This parcel, even though it's
[1:00:35] changed hands many times and it's been
[1:00:37] chopped up and combined and all sorts of
[1:00:39] things, uh has essentially been vacant
[1:00:43] and in that state since uh the mid70s.
[1:00:48] Uh so
[1:00:51] uh you know that sort of serves as you
[1:00:54] know not and I I don't pretend to be a
[1:00:57] uh you know any sort of biologist or
[1:01:01] what whatever the proper uh whatever the
[1:01:05] proper
[1:01:06] uh discipline that goes over this but
[1:01:08] it's uh you know this this has it it's
[1:01:12] been sort of a acryer recharge area and
[1:01:15] so again I'm wandering into areas where
[1:01:18] I'm going get over my head, you know, so
[1:01:19] I I'll stop there. But uh but
[1:01:25] you know, so the board is concerned
[1:01:27] about uh potential impacts uh of, you
[1:01:32] know, runoff and whatever of uh of this.
[1:01:36] So
[1:01:37] can just speak to the well uh comment.
[1:01:40] So public water supply in Massachusetts
[1:01:43] is required to have a a well radius for
[1:01:46] the zone one uh ranging anywhere from a
[1:01:49] minimum of 100 ft um to 400 ft based on
[1:01:53] the the draw of the well or the you know
[1:01:55] the product productivity of the well who
[1:01:57] was provided to. Um so that well radius
[1:02:00] we can certainly show on the plant. We
[1:02:03] are not the well radius in any way for
[1:02:05] the zone one. Uh we are obviously we're
[1:02:08] in the water resources protection
[1:02:09] district. We're in the recharge area. Um
[1:02:11] that's why we've designed the storm
[1:02:13] water management system um to meet the
[1:02:16] requirements. Um so we have met all
[1:02:18] those requirements. I invite you to
[1:02:20] review the the drainage I'm sorry the storm water report um which details
[1:02:25] all of that um provides all of that
[1:02:27] information for you. Could I ask
[1:02:32] the storm water drainage report is a a
[1:02:36] further agenda item. Uh I I'm
[1:02:39] particularly interested in the uh the
[1:02:43] subsurface infiltration basin design and
[1:02:49] never asked
[1:02:50] what's that you never asked
[1:02:51] and how and how it works and
[1:02:56] you know assume I don't know I mean
[1:03:01] I'm not a you know I
[1:03:04] is this is this basically the same as
[1:03:06] the original but flipped
[1:03:07] similar.
[1:03:08] Yeah.
[1:03:08] Uh yeah, I think fair to say yes.
[1:03:11] Um so in in basic terms, I can explain
[1:03:15] the requirements for what we need to do.
[1:03:17] Um and what we've generally done and if
[1:03:19] there's specifics, I can certainly ask
[1:03:21] those questions or our our engineers can
[1:03:23] certainly answer some of those
[1:03:24] questions. But generally speaking, we
[1:03:27] are required to look at the
[1:03:29] pre-development condition. Right now,
[1:03:31] it's a grass field, right? In the
[1:03:33] postdevelopment condition, there's going
[1:03:34] to be impervious surfaces. So it's
[1:03:36] generating more runoff during storm
[1:03:38] events. So they want us to one, we'll
[1:03:40] call it attenuate flow, right? So slow
[1:03:44] down, detain, slowly release that water,
[1:03:47] right? They also want us to look at
[1:03:49] water quality. There's stand 10
[1:03:51] standards they have to meet. Um they
[1:03:53] include recharge, they include, you
[1:03:55] know, water quality. The water quality
[1:03:57] is achieved through what they call a
[1:03:59] treatment train. So that treatment train
[1:04:01] starts typically in a traditional
[1:04:03] drainage system with catch basins.
[1:04:04] Everybody knows it's a touch basin
[1:04:06] great, right? The water goes into the
[1:04:07] top of it. Well, what you don't see
[1:04:09] below that is typically those structures
[1:04:11] and now they're required to have a deep
[1:04:13] sump. So there there's a 4ft sump below
[1:04:15] the pipe that comes out of it that the
[1:04:18] water goes into. Uh it settles into that
[1:04:22] uh sump, right? And it's supposed to be
[1:04:23] clean. There's periodic requirements um
[1:04:26] throughout the year. They're supposed to
[1:04:27] be clean, street sweeping, etc. So
[1:04:30] that's the first order of business in
[1:04:32] the treatment train. Then it typically
[1:04:34] goes prior to going into the subsurface
[1:04:36] system, it would go into a water quality
[1:04:39] unit. So be a proprietary water quality
[1:04:41] unit that essentially swirls the water
[1:04:43] around for lack of a better term. Uh
[1:04:45] separates total suspended solids,
[1:04:47] floatables, etc. gets removed from that
[1:04:50] water and then ideally you're you're
[1:04:53] introducing clean water or remove 80%
[1:04:57] TSS from the system. And then we have
[1:05:00] within the system, we have what's called
[1:05:02] an isolated row that's basically
[1:05:04] isolated the fabric so that if that row
[1:05:07] got fouled in some way that that row
[1:05:10] could be cleaned out without fouling the
[1:05:11] rest of the system. There's ports over
[1:05:13] the top of the system that were allowed
[1:05:15] to I'm sorry that that are provided for
[1:05:18] maintenance and you know inspection etc.
[1:05:21] Um the system itself you think of like a
[1:05:23] big septic system it's kind of like that
[1:05:25] right? So you have drainage that's gets
[1:05:27] the water gets cleaned then it goes into
[1:05:28] the big septic system. Um we have an
[1:05:30] outlet control. So the water goes in
[1:05:32] there it's controlled if you think of an
[1:05:34] hourglass right the sand through the
[1:05:36] hourglass it's the same thing. The water
[1:05:38] through our drainage system it's slowly
[1:05:40] metered out just like it would be
[1:05:41] metered out through a water glass.
[1:05:42] That's the attenuation component. And
[1:05:44] then we're discharging through a
[1:05:47] discharge pipe through an outlet point.
[1:05:49] So we're basically
[1:05:51] collecting, cleaning,
[1:05:54] slowly detaining, and then metering out
[1:05:58] at the same rate
[1:06:01] that it was already going to that same
[1:06:03] design point. So we can't increase the
[1:06:05] amount of water going to that design
[1:06:06] point. We're not supposed to, you know,
[1:06:08] if it was a wetland, you wouldn't want
[1:06:09] to decrease. Uh, in this case,
[1:06:11] obviously, it's already wetland, so it's
[1:06:12] not an issue, but that's what's
[1:06:13] happening. So this rectangle you see
[1:06:15] here is getting all the water. We're
[1:06:17] cleaning it before it gets here. The
[1:06:19] catch basin here, catch basin here, runs
[1:06:20] into a water quality unit into our
[1:06:22] system, out the control, allows it to go
[1:06:24] out slowly out of our system, and then
[1:06:26] just discharge. Um, we also have the
[1:06:29] roof water, which has slightly different
[1:06:31] requirements because it's not, you know,
[1:06:32] it doesn't get floatables and sand and
[1:06:34] grit and everything in like a parking
[1:06:36] lot would do. So, we have a an outlet
[1:06:39] pipe from our roof bleeders that goes
[1:06:41] into the storm water basin here. They
[1:06:43] both provide recharge. They both which
[1:06:47] they want the water to one of the
[1:06:48] requirements is that the water be
[1:06:49] allowed to recharge especially in the
[1:06:51] Nackquifer area recharge clean water
[1:06:53] back in reactive. Um we are I think it
[1:06:57] was a question that we're required to
[1:06:58] have uh certain separation above
[1:07:01] groundwater. So two two in most cases
[1:07:04] sometimes three feet of separation from
[1:07:07] groundwater for an infiltration basin.
[1:07:10] So these basins are we we do test fits.
[1:07:13] We look for seasonal high ground water
[1:07:15] which are redoxorphic features in the
[1:07:17] soil that determines ground water based
[1:07:19] on soil evaluation done by a certified
[1:07:21] soil evaluator. And then our civil
[1:07:23] engineers then design the system based
[1:07:25] on that elevation. So everything's got
[1:07:27] to be above that. So that's how it's all
[1:07:29] designed. That's what you see here. Uh
[1:07:32] in plan in report describe the
[1:07:34] pre-development conditions described the
[1:07:36] post-development conditions described
[1:07:38] all the CFS and different design points
[1:07:40] pre and post development the treatment
[1:07:42] train the water quality how we're
[1:07:43] meeting all the 10 standards is all in
[1:07:45] that report. Get some popcorn, grab a
[1:07:47] beer. It's exciting stuff.
[1:07:50] The where the the where the water is
[1:07:54] discharged.
[1:07:56] That's right. Is that like a perforated
[1:07:58] pipe or is it just like
[1:08:00] it's a solid HDP pipe and it just
[1:08:03] discharged at a flared end with
[1:08:06] discharge service?
[1:08:07] Yes sir.
[1:08:08] Yeah.
[1:08:09] So all the all the runoff from the uh
[1:08:14] parking lots uh and the rooftops
[1:08:18] does the uh the water from the roof go
[1:08:20] through the same
[1:08:22] filtration separate. Uh so the rooftop
[1:08:25] runoff goes to a basin here a surface
[1:08:27] basin. Okay. The water here not all and
[1:08:30] you said all the water. I just want to
[1:08:32] clarify most of the water is handled in
[1:08:35] the subsurface system and then it
[1:08:36] exfiltrates through the bottom of the
[1:08:38] system. Um there are there is a certain
[1:08:41] amount of flow matching the
[1:08:43] pre-development condition. That same
[1:08:45] amount of flow is sent to this design
[1:08:48] point here. So it's it's pretty well
[1:08:51] described. There's a table in our front
[1:08:53] order report that says pre-development
[1:08:54] CFS to the design point postdevelopment
[1:08:57] CFS which describes all that.
[1:09:00] Now this you say you got a a filtration
[1:09:05] system that's going to require some kind
[1:09:07] of maintenance.
[1:09:07] Yes, sir. So the entire system requires
[1:09:10] maintenance. There's a long-term on& and
[1:09:12] M as part of the D requirements. There's
[1:09:14] a long-term operation and maintenance
[1:09:16] plan that has has to be executed by the
[1:09:19] owner slash uh you know tenant um and
[1:09:23] responsible parties are identified very
[1:09:26] specific schedules for maintenance for
[1:09:28] different BMPs so best management
[1:09:30] practices like catch basins you know
[1:09:32] water quality unit um you know
[1:09:34] inspection of subsurface systems street
[1:09:36] uh or parking lot sweeping should it be
[1:09:38] required all of those are folded in and
[1:09:41] that is all based on the guidelines for
[1:09:42] mass DV
[1:09:44] So who's going to be responsible for the
[1:09:47] maintenance?
[1:09:48] Um I mean
[1:09:50] there will be an individual identified
[1:09:53] that is responsible
[1:09:54] but I mean the the this is going to be
[1:09:57] sold.
[1:09:57] So this is developed by Cleo Development
[1:09:59] Group. So hypothetically speaking, Cleo
[1:10:02] Development Group will have a tenant
[1:10:03] that would be Dollar General and Cleo
[1:10:05] Development Group would charge them a
[1:10:07] triple net lease and either they will be
[1:10:09] specifically responsible for their their
[1:10:12] lease premises or if Kid Toledo
[1:10:15] Development does a different agreement
[1:10:17] with them, Kid Toledo Development could
[1:10:19] be responsible and then they pay Toledo
[1:10:21] Development to be responsible. Um have
[1:10:23] not seen that document but either way
[1:10:25] there is a responsible party and that
[1:10:27] has to be identified. Uh and how good is
[1:10:31] this filtration system with automotive
[1:10:34] what's like petroleum products
[1:10:38] and you know antifreeze and all other
[1:10:41] salt and
[1:10:42] well not so much salt but
[1:10:44] so um everything that you're talking
[1:10:47] about uh gets picked up on the asphalt
[1:10:50] right so this is curved asphalt there's
[1:10:52] collection areas the catch basins
[1:10:54] themselves everything is graded at a at
[1:10:55] a minimum of a 1% slope to those catch
[1:10:58] basins. The the the uh catch basins not
[1:11:02] only have the deep sump, but I also
[1:11:03] failed to mention there's something
[1:11:04] called a hood. Um there's very specific
[1:11:07] proprietary hoods that if if you
[1:11:10] envision a pipe, this is my hand is the
[1:11:12] pipe come coming leading out of the
[1:11:14] catch basin. So you're inside the catch
[1:11:16] basin. This is inside the catch basin.
[1:11:18] There's a hood that sits over the top of
[1:11:20] the outlet pipe that actually prevents
[1:11:23] floatables from getting into that pipe.
[1:11:25] So that's what allows things to settle
[1:11:27] out either in solution it'll settle out
[1:11:29] in solution or uh eventually as the
[1:11:31] water goes down um it can be then taken
[1:11:36] out later. Um there's very specific uh
[1:11:39] street sweeping companies that have back
[1:11:41] trucks. They remove that material in the
[1:11:43] back truck. It gets disposed of at a
[1:11:45] very specific location. It can't just go
[1:11:47] anywhere. Um and they they're doing that
[1:11:49] on a you know daily weekly basis on
[1:11:51] sites.
[1:11:54] Mr. chairman.
[1:11:56] I no uh at this point I'm going to have
[1:12:00] any questions come from the board and
[1:12:01] then we can open it up to from the
[1:12:04] public. Um
[1:12:13] now the the water that eventually comes
[1:12:16] out of the discharge uh are the is there
[1:12:20] some specification on how clean it is
[1:12:22] relative to the
[1:12:24] Yes. uh prior actually prior to going
[1:12:26] into our subsurface system there's very
[1:12:29] specific requirements that D has for
[1:12:31] total suspended solid removal and
[1:12:33] there's there's certain credits that you
[1:12:35] get for deep subcatch basins for water
[1:12:38] quality units etc and that all gets
[1:12:39] calculated that's all part of the
[1:12:41] calculations
[1:12:42] will the discharge be monitored I mean
[1:12:44] does it is it tested
[1:12:45] uh the discharge will not be monitored
[1:12:48] manually by a person um but during the
[1:12:51] operation and maintenance review that is
[1:12:56] described in the operation and
[1:12:57] maintenance document that's part of the
[1:13:00] stormwater report. Absolutely. So, I'm
[1:13:02] going to be checking the entire system
[1:13:04] out falls for, you know, more so for
[1:13:06] erosion or some sort of scouring, that
[1:13:09] type of thing. Uh, again, it's a fairly
[1:13:11] flat site, so it's not like we're
[1:13:13] dropping this onto a 3 to1 slope or
[1:13:14] something like that. This is literally a
[1:13:16] low area, you know, adjacent to the
[1:13:18] property.
[1:13:21] So, it's going on to almost like a lawn,
[1:13:23] call it a lawn area.
[1:13:25] Very subt if you drive around, you'll
[1:13:27] see these all over town.
[1:13:32] I mean, it sounds like this thing is it
[1:13:35] is going to require some sort of
[1:13:37] maintenance schedule that's fairly
[1:13:39] rigorous.
[1:13:39] Absolutely. Yeah, that that is that is a
[1:13:41] requirement for any new site. This is
[1:13:44] not a lupple uh land use with a higher
[1:13:46] pollutant load. Um like for example an
[1:13:48] industrial use or something like that.
[1:13:50] Um this is pretty standard stuff. Um so
[1:13:55] you know this is what you would see in
[1:13:57] any commercial parking lot. Um the DP
[1:13:59] requirements aren't drastically
[1:14:01] different for you know an aquifer area.
[1:14:04] They're they're belts and suspenders
[1:14:05] already which is good. Um so you know
[1:14:08] it's what's typically required for a new
[1:14:12] construction site or new commercial
[1:14:14] development.
[1:14:17] Mr. Chairman what what you can do is
[1:14:21] make that have you ever seen the on&m
[1:14:24] plan become like a condition?
[1:14:26] It always is.
[1:14:27] Yeah. The on andm plan is is typically
[1:14:30] uh on a planning board decision or on
[1:14:32] the ZBA decision
[1:14:34] they would it would all be referenced
[1:14:36] into the decision um in a condition
[1:14:38] certainly could be provided. Same thing
[1:14:41] if we had conservation which we don't
[1:14:42] hear often times they will incorporate
[1:14:44] all of that into their uh decision
[1:14:47] document
[1:14:48] which means the town can it it's it's
[1:14:51] another belt and suspenders in addition
[1:14:53] to whatever other requirements there
[1:14:55] are. It means the building inspector can
[1:14:58] go in anytime and say
[1:15:01] the documentation.
[1:15:04] There is also a construction phase um
[1:15:06] anytime you're disturbing over an acre
[1:15:08] of land. There's a construction phase
[1:15:10] nifty stormwater pollution prevention
[1:15:11] plan that's more construction related,
[1:15:14] but that also is um impactful in making
[1:15:17] sure that there's no issues during
[1:15:19] construction.
[1:15:20] Are these kind of details included in
[1:15:22] the storm water and drainage?
[1:15:25] Absolutely. Every single one.
[1:15:27] Okay. Absolutely.
[1:15:28] That's why
[1:15:29] and we can tab or and or you know help
[1:15:33] you know break it out and actually the
[1:15:35] index the index of the stormwater report
[1:15:37] should it should show all the different
[1:15:38] exhibits. Um, it's pretty
[1:15:42] about half of it is interesting to look
[1:15:44] at. Maybe less, maybe third, but in the
[1:15:46] first part of the report before you get
[1:15:48] to all the hydrocad calculations, that's
[1:15:50] where the meat of what you're probably
[1:15:51] going to be looking for is
[1:15:58] questions from the board. Any thought?
[1:16:00] Happy to. Is there a is there a zone
[1:16:06] um around the discharge area
[1:16:10] where um any type of use is restricted?
[1:16:15] So my question is you're going to you're
[1:16:17] going to divide this lot off again and
[1:16:20] your discharges are very close to the the newly proposed property line for
[1:16:26] the the new lot.
[1:16:27] Yeah. um
[1:16:30] you know what's what kind of uh
[1:16:34] safeguards there preventing the outflow
[1:16:36] from flowing onto that other lot and
[1:16:38] becoming the next tenants's problems
[1:16:40] down the street.
[1:16:40] Good question. Um so one is discharging
[1:16:44] on a very uh flat area so it's not a
[1:16:46] steep slope where we're running out of
[1:16:48] the neighbor's property. Two uh we
[1:16:50] calculate the apron of the you know
[1:16:53] there's a flared end familiar with a
[1:16:54] flared end looks like. So the you know
[1:16:56] this will be likely an HDPE flared end
[1:16:59] connected to the HDPE pipe. And then
[1:17:01] from there we calculate an apron energy
[1:17:03] dissipator. Um that's calculated based
[1:17:06] on the velocities of the of the pipe
[1:17:08] that are anticipated. And that is a
[1:17:10] certain distance off of so these aprons
[1:17:13] that you see these are rip wrap aprons
[1:17:15] angular stone 4 to 6 in angular stone
[1:17:18] that's placed um at the end of the pipe
[1:17:21] to dissipate any sort of velocity. So
[1:17:23] then it and then from there it could
[1:17:25] basically sheet flow um and dissipate
[1:17:27] out into you know the sandy soils that
[1:17:29] we have
[1:17:31] again already treated
[1:17:33] up here you know here and here
[1:17:35] is it sort of like a swale is there like
[1:17:37] a basin I mean
[1:17:39] uh so there's a basin here but this area
[1:17:41] this discharge here so first of all the
[1:17:44] discharge from the roof leaders is
[1:17:45] pretty straightforward in that it goes
[1:17:47] just into that basin and exfiltrates
[1:17:49] through the bottom. Um, this here is a
[1:17:51] discharge. And again, that's just that's
[1:17:53] just metering flow out at a certain rate
[1:17:57] to this point based on what's already
[1:17:59] generally going there from the site um
[1:18:01] pre-development conditions.
[1:18:03] Would you expect that like if we have a
[1:18:06] uh a thunderstorm with with heavy rain,
[1:18:09] say we got a a 4 in thunderstorm over
[1:18:13] couple hours is not that unusual. I
[1:18:16] mean, if you're lucky, you don't get
[1:18:17] them, but if you do, would that fill up?
[1:18:20] Would that would there be a
[1:18:21] good question,
[1:18:22] a leaking effect there?
[1:18:23] Um, so that's the attenuation component
[1:18:26] of the subsurface. Um, there are very
[1:18:29] specific storm events that D has us
[1:18:31] designed for and they do have uh
[1:18:34] rainfall data in the report associated
[1:18:36] with each one of those items. So, say
[1:18:38] it's the 100red-year storm based on the
[1:18:40] requirements for calculation of the
[1:18:41] 100red-year storm. We use the same storm
[1:18:43] event pre-development, post-development,
[1:18:45] obviously different conditions. Those
[1:18:47] two numbers generate a CFS for for that
[1:18:50] design point. Pre-development and
[1:18:52] post-development. And then again, the
[1:18:54] size of this is based on those numbers.
[1:18:57] How big this gets is based on how
[1:18:59] quickly it exfiltrates through the
[1:19:01] bottom of the system, what's coming into
[1:19:03] it, and what we're allowed to to
[1:19:06] discharge based on the pre-development
[1:19:08] condition.
[1:19:09] And CFS is
[1:19:10] cubic feet per second. It's a
[1:19:12] measurement of the amount of water
[1:19:13] coming out. Sorry.
[1:19:16] Well, in the storm water report, I'm
[1:19:18] imagining there's probably
[1:19:21] um
[1:19:22] reporting criteria and reporting
[1:19:25] requirements that um have to be filed
[1:19:28] with with certain entities, probably the
[1:19:30] D and all that. Um,
[1:19:34] are there provisions that someone would
[1:19:37] notify the town of Sunderland if this
[1:19:40] system somehow started not performing up
[1:19:43] to par? Is the town going to know that system is faulty?
[1:19:47] It's a good question. Um, I would say
[1:19:49] that you could add a condition. The
[1:19:51] enforcement of that condition or
[1:19:53] understanding that condition is going to
[1:19:56] be based on the inspections. So, um,
[1:20:00] it's a good question. I think it's a
[1:20:02] good question for any site. Um to be
[1:20:05] fair, it's monitoring of the system
[1:20:07] properly and it's also communicating
[1:20:10] with the town properly. U for example,
[1:20:12] let's say you had a somebody spilled
[1:20:15] oil, change their oil in the parking
[1:20:17] lot, spill oil, right? Then they would
[1:20:19] have to, you know, whoever's operating
[1:20:21] the store would have to um review that,
[1:20:24] call Clean Harbors or somebody, you
[1:20:26] know, have that handled properly, you
[1:20:28] know, file all the proper paperwork. The
[1:20:30] good news is if that happens, it gets
[1:20:32] caught in our system. It gets caught in
[1:20:34] our net, so to speak, right? Gets caught
[1:20:36] in the in the um treatment train before
[1:20:39] getting to the subsurface system. Um if
[1:20:42] for some reason somehow it got there, um
[1:20:44] you know, they would need to address
[1:20:46] that accordingly. Um but these
[1:20:48] safeguards that are in place are likely
[1:20:51] not in place on anything developed prior
[1:20:54] to 2008. C certainly not to this extent.
[1:20:58] These these regulations came out in
[1:21:00] 2008. These are the newest storm water
[1:21:03] regulations that we're adhering to. And
[1:21:05] there's also some recent rainfall data
[1:21:07] that we've increased the calculations
[1:21:09] based on because a lot of people are
[1:21:11] talking about what what is really the
[1:21:12] 100red-year storm. There's some more
[1:21:14] conservative estimates rainfall data for
[1:21:16] the 100red-year storm which is based on
[1:21:18] a 24-hour um time frame. So a lot of the
[1:21:22] new calculations that are done are
[1:21:24] assuming those that new rainfall data.
[1:21:30] So it's pretty thorough process that we
[1:21:33] end up having to go through.
[1:21:34] The but the enforcement agency is going
[1:21:36] to be the town building inspector.
[1:21:40] So the enforcement agency there's
[1:21:42] multiple enforcement agencies depending
[1:21:44] on the nature of the anticipated
[1:21:46] problem. So I'm not sure.
[1:21:48] Does the D have authority over this or
[1:21:51] absolutely
[1:21:52] in some regard? Yes. From a wetlands and
[1:21:54] waterway standpoint, no.
[1:21:56] But there are certain aspects that could
[1:21:59] potentially trigger a D review or
[1:22:02] response if there was something
[1:22:03] catastrophic that happened. Otherwise,
[1:22:06] it's proper maintenance. if they end up
[1:22:08] having, you know, if they end up having,
[1:22:10] you know, um, you know, over time, if
[1:22:13] they're not maintained, you know, if
[1:22:15] things aren't maintained 20 or 30 years
[1:22:17] from now, you could start to have, you
[1:22:18] know, it's just like a septic system,
[1:22:20] right? They have sometimes have a shelf
[1:22:21] life depending on how well people take
[1:22:23] care of them or if you have 17 kids like
[1:22:25] I do.
[1:22:26] So, that that's the point of my question
[1:22:28] on the ongoing maintenance. Are there um are there reporting
[1:22:34] requirements for the ongoing maintenance
[1:22:36] where you have to prove that you're maintaining it and
[1:22:40] okay ongoing the on maybe I'm sorry I'm
[1:22:43] not describing it well
[1:22:45] the on andm plan has ongoing reporting
[1:22:48] requirements that are required and your
[1:22:52] board uh as well as the planning board
[1:22:55] could condition their decision to to
[1:22:58] have those provid provide either to your
[1:23:00] board or to the building inspector or
[1:23:03] whoever you uh designate as your
[1:23:06] So in the absence of that where do those
[1:23:08] reports go?
[1:23:10] um one they're they uh defense depends
[1:23:14] specifically but a lot of times they go
[1:23:16] to the conservation commission uh
[1:23:18] typically they would go to the permanent
[1:23:19] granting authority here there's no
[1:23:20] conservation commission jurisdiction so
[1:23:23] I think that probably would you know if
[1:23:25] you guys want them you guys could get
[1:23:26] them but they're required to do them
[1:23:28] based on the D regs in reporting for
[1:23:31] that
[1:23:32] I don't know that D necessarily reviews
[1:23:35] that stuff I can't imagine
[1:23:36] I I I just I just know that and I mean
[1:23:40] things tend to sound great at the design
[1:23:42] stage and the pre you know man pre
[1:23:46] construction phase but maintenance is
[1:23:49] the first thing that goes out the window
[1:23:51] and uh
[1:23:52] yeah I don't
[1:23:53] and he's saying you know you you cited
[1:23:54] an instance well somebody dumped their
[1:23:56] oil in the thing I mean who's going to
[1:23:58] report that I mean the employees at
[1:24:01] Dollar General I mean
[1:24:02] or or who that's
[1:24:05] yeah so any so I can't design for stupid
[1:24:08] I Don't I could I you know somebody
[1:24:11] asked me once we were we were putting a kiosk up and somebody asked me you
[1:24:16] know what if somebody parks in the
[1:24:18] middle of the street and runs out of
[1:24:19] their car into the ATM and leaves their
[1:24:21] car running
[1:24:22] arrest them.
[1:24:24] So I mean we can we all the safeguards
[1:24:27] are in place. The mechanism would be to
[1:24:30] connect the D requirements that are in
[1:24:32] the on andm to your permits. That's the that's the protection. I
[1:24:36] would have you uh confer with town
[1:24:39] council with regard to how to do that
[1:24:40] the best way.
[1:24:44] You know, I know that you you say uh you
[1:24:47] know, I know there's a big fat uh storm
[1:24:50] water and drainage report that we
[1:24:52] haven't even got into on some of these
[1:24:55] situations and are covered in there. Uh,
[1:24:59] I'm thinking that uh I'm just thinking
[1:25:02] out loud for the board that we may want
[1:25:04] to have
[1:25:06] some outside review or paper somebody. I
[1:25:09] mean because this a lot of this is Greek
[1:25:12] to me, you know, but the common sense of
[1:25:16] part of me says that
[1:25:20] I fear that uh the water that's going to
[1:25:23] get discharged into the ground is going
[1:25:26] to is is going to be compromised by this
[1:25:28] use. And you can say, hey, when when
[1:25:32] first installed, all the filters work
[1:25:33] great, everything works great. uh you
[1:25:36] know what happens when maintenance falls
[1:25:38] down and uh you know something happens
[1:25:40] and uh
[1:25:44] that that is a concern for me.
[1:25:46] So I will tell you we have been through
[1:25:48] hundreds of peer reviews. If it wasn't
[1:25:51] for the cost of my client I would be so
[1:25:53] bold as to welcome that because frankly
[1:25:55] it gives you the data you need to make a
[1:25:57] proper decision. We stand by our storm
[1:25:59] water report. for some reason they can
[1:26:01] find some little detail in our
[1:26:03] calculations that can be improved upon
[1:26:05] or clarified we you know they have to
[1:26:08] they they have to justify their um you
[1:26:11] know their job in in doing the peer
[1:26:13] review but we've been through hundreds
[1:26:14] of them and I will tell you not one has
[1:26:17] changed the drainage system it might it
[1:26:19] might we might be revising little calcs
[1:26:22] or maybe there's you know make sure
[1:26:23] somebody signs the elicit discharge you
[1:26:25] know statement or something like that
[1:26:26] but you know as far as you know peer
[1:26:29] reviews is it will slow the process but
[1:26:32] it actually will you know frankly all
[1:26:34] these questions that you're asking and
[1:26:36] we're talking about hypotheticals kind
[1:26:37] of go away when the peer review happens
[1:26:39] so in a way it's you know fairly
[1:26:42] reasonable
[1:26:42] well I I know that uh you know the this particular uh drainage report
[1:26:49] arrived late last week and I I forwarded
[1:26:53] it to the conservation commission to you
[1:26:55] know local experts uh to to take a look
[1:26:58] at it and quite frankly frankly they
[1:27:00] didn't have the time uh to provide a
[1:27:02] response for today's hearing. So, uh, I,
[1:27:07] you know, maybe, you know, if we get to
[1:27:09] it, maybe just a superficial, uh,
[1:27:13] you know, presentation on the storm
[1:27:15] water devel. I mean, I don't know if
[1:27:17] it's even presentable. I mean, it is,
[1:27:20] you know, maybe kind of is what it is,
[1:27:22] but it certainly, uh, we don't have
[1:27:24] experts on this board that can look at
[1:27:27] this thing and say
[1:27:29] that doesn't sound right or that looks
[1:27:31] too small. You know,
[1:27:32] we fully respect that. I guess all we
[1:27:33] would ask is if if you feel that way,
[1:27:36] it'd be nice for you to come to that
[1:27:37] determination this evening. So, if there
[1:27:39] is a peer review that is going to be
[1:27:41] requested, we're not just kicking it
[1:27:43] down the road. Um, to me, you know, we
[1:27:45] have the traffic information, we have
[1:27:46] the site information. If there are
[1:27:48] questions related to that, we're happy
[1:27:50] to address those. And frankly, we
[1:27:52] welcome that. I really in a way it's
[1:27:54] going to when they write you a letter
[1:27:56] saying that we have no further questions
[1:27:58] on the stormwater report there's nothing
[1:28:01] better for guys like this to address if
[1:28:04] there was ever a concern about that so
[1:28:06] might be prudent
[1:28:08] right I I I mean Stuart
[1:28:10] well I I I agree that it's not our
[1:28:13] expertise um I would have a question as
[1:28:16] to whether the planning board has
[1:28:17] started their hearing
[1:28:19] no
[1:28:20] okay what what I think would be a shame
[1:28:22] is both boards asked for it. That would
[1:28:24] be a waste of somebody's money,
[1:28:26] but I think it's very reasonable to ask
[1:28:28] for peer review on storm water.
[1:28:32] Um,
[1:28:33] and even though he referenced that it
[1:28:36] might cost us, it should be the
[1:28:37] applicant's cost.
[1:28:38] Correct.
[1:28:39] No, that that we have,
[1:28:43] you know, my client just use TP4
[1:28:49] there. There's a point that that needs
[1:28:51] to be made that he was too modest about
[1:28:55] and I've litigated this issue.
[1:28:57] Massachusetts stormwater standards still
[1:28:59] just use TP40, right? US Geological
[1:29:02] Survey technical paper 40 which only has
[1:29:06] drainage data I think from 1936
[1:29:10] or 37 up to like 1956.
[1:29:14] and more than one engineer has told me
[1:29:17] an engineer can come in here and or or
[1:29:20] somebody like Rob and say, "Oh, we
[1:29:22] satisfied all the legal standards."
[1:29:24] Well, the problem is given what's
[1:29:26] happened in the last 80 years, that
[1:29:29] 100red-year storm is now a 25-ear storm.
[1:29:31] So, what Rob has done, and he wasn't
[1:29:34] legally required to do it, is used
[1:29:37] modern precipitation data.
[1:29:41] But not to bore you, the reality is
[1:29:43] you're using modern precipitation data
[1:29:45] for the pre-development condition and
[1:29:47] the post-development condition. You're
[1:29:48] designing for the delta between the two.
[1:29:50] So it actually doesn't change that much,
[1:29:52] believe it or not.
[1:29:54] Darn. I'm glad you weren my opponent
[1:29:56] when I litigated that last. Okay. But
[1:29:59] it's good to know that in other words,
[1:30:02] he's doing it he's doing it right. And
[1:30:04] certainly what I've seen um and I've
[1:30:07] used them you know Tai and Bond um Bucky
[1:30:12] Sparkle and Ammeris uh Brookshire Design
[1:30:15] I mean any anybody the guy at Tai and
[1:30:18] Bond is named Tim Grace he's found in
[1:30:20] East Hampton um in other words there's plenty of people around who they
[1:30:26] do these storm water reports and they
[1:30:28] also do
[1:30:31] peer
[1:30:31] review with with the university we have
[1:30:33] I I think uh the conservation commission
[1:30:36] is very much aware of the wealth of
[1:30:39] one of the items through the chair is if
[1:30:41] in fact the board does feel that a storm
[1:30:44] water peer review is appropriate which I
[1:30:46] don't necessarily disagree um I would
[1:30:48] want to make sure that you know in a
[1:30:50] perfect world there was a vote taken
[1:30:54] we haven't been before the planning
[1:30:55] board so to to Mr. Beckley's, you know,
[1:30:58] comment. We would like that this
[1:31:00] stormwater report is designed and the
[1:31:03] review process is designed so that it is
[1:31:05] suitable to the planning board as well
[1:31:07] as zoning board of appeals. Uh in
[1:31:09] addition, I think we want to resolve
[1:31:12] some of these legal questions hopefully
[1:31:14] in short order before we you know you
[1:31:17] know some if there's a legal battle
[1:31:19] happening over some basic zoning
[1:31:21] something else.
[1:31:22] Yeah. Yeah. you probably want to get
[1:31:23] just beyond
[1:31:25] I think fundamentally I'm in agreement
[1:31:27] with what you say uh that and usually
[1:31:30] the the planning board chair is here but
[1:31:33] I think uh you know any sort of peer
[1:31:36] review or engineering review or whatever
[1:31:39] uh that uh it would it would satis it
[1:31:43] would satisfy both so we don't get you
[1:31:44] double jeopardy I mean we're not that
[1:31:46] mean um uh but but the plan there's
[1:31:51] nobody here from the planning board uh
[1:31:54] and or there's nobody in authority and
[1:31:56] you know I by no means I I don't think
[1:31:58] we're ready to take a vote for the
[1:32:01] reason that you say uh cuz that would
[1:32:03] pro I'd probably do that uh you know at
[1:32:07] the next hearing. I would this would
[1:32:09] probably be a lead item other than you
[1:32:12] know resolving the thing that we spent
[1:32:14] the first 3/4 of an hour talking about.
[1:32:17] uh but uh you know that would be part of
[1:32:21] it and also we'd talk about uh peer
[1:32:25] review and whatever
[1:32:28] I know there's a process for it. I'm not
[1:32:30] familiar with it at the top of my uh at the top of my head how that works but
[1:32:35] uh uh there is we we can request uh a
[1:32:39] peer review consultant review or
[1:32:40] whatever that that
[1:32:42] falls on the
[1:32:43] it's chapter 44 section 53G of the mass
[1:32:47] general laws.
[1:32:48] Okay.
[1:32:49] And that but
[1:32:50] I don't know that off the top of my
[1:32:52] head. I know it exists and when it comes
[1:32:54] time to to site it we'll have it. Thank
[1:32:57] you.
[1:32:59] Can you make any peer reviews any
[1:33:01] stipulation? So permits are granted.
[1:33:04] Let's say a permit is subject to a pure
[1:33:08] review of the water.
[1:33:09] I I I'm I wouldn't I I wouldn't I mean I I
[1:33:14] don't that doesn't sound like a good
[1:33:16] idea to me. Uh
[1:33:17] putting the car before the horse.
[1:33:19] Yeah. I mean I I think cuz I mean if
[1:33:21] we're going to make a decision on uh you
[1:33:24] know one of the things is impact of
[1:33:26] storm water and drainage
[1:33:28] storm water management and then
[1:33:30] qualities of the natural environment. I
[1:33:32] think we need to know the answers to
[1:33:34] this uh to before we say you know before
[1:33:38] we start balancing it and saying is it
[1:33:41] you know does it are the detrimental
[1:33:44] effects overbalance the beneficial you
[1:33:46] know that sort of thing. So I I
[1:33:49] especially something this complex I
[1:33:50] wouldn't you know pass it off to a
[1:33:53] stipulation grant a conditional I'm
[1:33:55] getting if you know
[1:33:57] peer reviews are always done before you
[1:34:00] grant the firm right
[1:34:01] well I think rock maybe trying to
[1:34:03] facilitate things or whatever but I
[1:34:07] think it's going to take whatever time
[1:34:08] it takes so
[1:34:11] hold on uh any
[1:34:14] story
[1:34:17] Why? Just looking for an explanation why
[1:34:19] we won't go forward tonight with that
[1:34:22] vote.
[1:34:25] Well, I mean it was I mean whether we do
[1:34:28] it at the beginning I mean we're not
[1:34:30] going to be whether we do it at the end
[1:34:33] of this session or the beginning of the
[1:34:35] next one. I mean I I I you were saying
[1:34:38] that and first of all we don't have
[1:34:40] planning board
[1:34:43] you know you know agreement on what
[1:34:46] we're talking about uh
[1:34:49] and
[1:34:51] chairman we were asked um I believe I
[1:34:54] think maybe even by town council not to
[1:34:57] apply to the planning board. actually
[1:34:59] had applied to the planning board
[1:35:00] because we felt that it was logical to
[1:35:02] do these two permits in concert and have
[1:35:05] input from the planning board. Um that
[1:35:07] was our goal. We were asked not to do
[1:35:09] that. We were asked to go directly to
[1:35:11] the ZBA first. So
[1:35:14] and that is true. I I I have I mean
[1:35:18] so we would have preferred to go the
[1:35:21] other route but we respectfully you know
[1:35:23] entered into this process. I think what
[1:35:25] would be logical and prudent would be to
[1:35:30] request that the DVA take a vote a vote
[1:35:33] I'm sorry about the peer review this
[1:35:35] evening so that you guys can then secure
[1:35:38] quotes from you know respective
[1:35:40] engineering firms right
[1:35:42] based on that and then at the next
[1:35:44] meeting you would have those quotes we
[1:35:46] would be presented to those quotes my
[1:35:48] client would be required to agree to
[1:35:50] that and pay the fee so that that work
[1:35:53] can be done because what h you know it's t it's you know time and and
[1:35:58] frankly if we're kicking it down the
[1:36:00] road you know not that we don't have
[1:36:01] other items we can continue to address
[1:36:03] those other items but at least we would
[1:36:04] be working towards a peer review you
[1:36:06] would have the information that you're
[1:36:07] talking about um so respectfully I would
[1:36:11] ask through the chair if it's possible
[1:36:13] for you if you think the members are
[1:36:15] going to want a peer review of the storm
[1:36:17] water that we you know get that agreed
[1:36:22] upon and then I believe you need to go
[1:36:24] out for quotes um and and then provide
[1:36:27] us that information and we would agree
[1:36:29] and write my client will write the
[1:36:31] check.
[1:36:32] And and one other point, I think it was
[1:36:34] actually the same young lawyer who you
[1:36:37] heard from tonight. I went to the
[1:36:39] planning board. I wrote an opposing
[1:36:41] memo. Um, I did everything I could to
[1:36:44] get them involved in the process and
[1:36:47] with the backing of that lawyer, they
[1:36:50] absolutely declined and we decided we're
[1:36:54] not going to fight with them. We're
[1:36:55] going to come to you. But since the
[1:36:57] board, the planning board adamantly
[1:36:59] backed by this same lawyer took the
[1:37:01] position that you need to decide first,
[1:37:04] I think what in effect they've done is
[1:37:06] they put it in your hands. I mean, if
[1:37:08] you hire a peer reviewer and whatever
[1:37:11] conditions the peer reviewer comes up
[1:37:13] with are incorporated into whatever
[1:37:15] decision you make, I think the planning
[1:37:18] board has quite frankly made their bed.
[1:37:21] In other words, they could have and
[1:37:23] indeed if they want to change their mind
[1:37:25] right now, so we can go forward, the
[1:37:27] application's already in to them, then
[1:37:30] that would be great and they could work
[1:37:31] with you and we'd love to see that. But
[1:37:35] in other words, and I'm trying to be
[1:37:36] frank, um they're not going to be in a
[1:37:39] very good position if you do the peer
[1:37:41] review and then they say, "Oh, now we
[1:37:43] want another peer review and we're going
[1:37:46] to start all over." After having been so
[1:37:49] adamant about saying, "We're going to
[1:37:51] wait till you make a a decision." So
[1:37:54] maybe, you know, they'd want to
[1:37:56] reconsider or else I I like Rob said
[1:37:59] because it takes time. We've both seen
[1:38:02] that, you know, you got to put out
[1:38:03] requests and then the engineers got to
[1:38:06] make proposals and and so a vote tonight
[1:38:09] would simply get the ball rolling cuz
[1:38:12] it's going to take a while. Please, please.
[1:38:16] You make some points I agree with. You
[1:38:18] make some points I don't agree with so
[1:38:21] much, but I think fundamentally uh I
[1:38:26] mean I know the planning board made their
[1:38:32] decision the way they did. I didn't
[1:38:35] understand that. But I also know that
[1:38:36] this is a unique situation. We haven't
[1:38:38] had a uh a proposal of this type that
[1:38:42] actually had
[1:38:44] elements of both approvals from both
[1:38:46] boards. So, it's it it's kind of unique and we're
[1:38:51] feeling our way through it. So, how they
[1:38:53] decided to approach it, they that's it.
[1:38:55] Um
[1:38:58] do you do you want me to try to explain
[1:39:01] why we made the decision? Well, that's I
[1:39:03] I'll say that Amanda, who is a associate
[1:39:06] member on our our zoning board, is
[1:39:08] actually a a a member of the planning
[1:39:10] board. So, we have crosspollination. And
[1:39:14] so,
[1:39:15] we um thought similar to what was said
[1:39:18] that if we were both deciding at the
[1:39:20] same time, maybe you asked for a peer
[1:39:23] review, we asked for a peer review or we
[1:39:25] put a stipulation and you put a
[1:39:26] stipulation that they would may be
[1:39:28] competing. And so it made more sense to
[1:39:30] put one first and then we would have
[1:39:33] that as that was the first step and then
[1:39:36] we would take the next step. And so, you
[1:39:39] know, whatever we come up with, whatever
[1:39:41] peer reviews, whatever stipulations that
[1:39:43] if if this goes forward, that will be
[1:39:46] taken into consideration when we
[1:39:47] I would I would think that uh I you
[1:39:51] know, I can work with the chairman of
[1:39:53] the planning board to make sure that,
[1:39:55] you know, but you know, whatever peer
[1:39:58] review would satisfy both. I mean, I
[1:40:01] think that's you just don't want to get
[1:40:02] double jeopardy, you know, and I can
[1:40:04] understand that. If it was some other
[1:40:06] type of review, we would maybe have more
[1:40:08] concern, but
[1:40:09] stormwater peer reviews are
[1:40:11] just through a quirk of the zoning
[1:40:13] bylaws is that uh projects in the
[1:40:18] watershed district fall under the
[1:40:21] planning order.
[1:40:22] Mhm.
[1:40:23] So,
[1:40:26] but we also have, you know, two of our
[1:40:29] criteria has to do with storm water and
[1:40:31] drainage and qualities of the natural
[1:40:33] environment. So, it's sort of like
[1:40:34] you're you're half pregnant. It's kind
[1:40:36] of a tough situation to deal with, but
[1:40:38] we will we'll deal with it. So, um,
[1:40:49] uh, so I think, uh, shall Okay, I'm just
[1:40:54] trying to figure out they have to make a
[1:40:56] motion to uh, request a peer review,
[1:41:00] put out
[1:41:02] quotes for peer review of the storm
[1:41:06] water and drainage report.
[1:41:08] So, I thought you were steering us away
[1:41:10] from that. So, I'm happy to make that
[1:41:12] motion.
[1:41:14] Yeah. To me, it doesn't make much
[1:41:16] difference whether we do it
[1:41:18] at the end of I'd be more comfortable
[1:41:20] doing at the beginning of the next
[1:41:21] hearing.
[1:41:23] It saves a lot.
[1:41:24] Yeah. Well, that's
[1:41:25] So, that's the difference.
[1:41:27] That's the only
[1:41:29] Well, Rob, you had expressed some
[1:41:31] concern, but maybe not.
[1:41:32] You're going if you anticipate a peer
[1:41:34] review, please now. That'd be great.
[1:41:37] Possible.
[1:41:39] Based on your experience and expertise,
[1:41:42] do you expect this to cost more than
[1:41:44] $10,000?
[1:41:48] No. But I'm sure maybe somebody puts a
[1:41:51] quote in. So the way that this
[1:41:53] someone puts one in under
[1:41:56] telling you that you don't need quotes.
[1:41:58] Well,
[1:41:59] so to so to clarify the I believe and
[1:42:02] you know this intimately the the cost of
[1:42:06] that cannot be disputed. I believe it's
[1:42:09] only qualifications that can be disputed
[1:42:11] and it's being paid for by the
[1:42:12] applicant.
[1:42:13] So I believe we're okay. And normally
[1:42:16] what the the engineering firms will do
[1:42:19] is they'll give you a written proposal
[1:42:22] saying this is what we'll do and this is
[1:42:24] what we'll charge for and then it's up
[1:42:27] to you um to pick and at least in my
[1:42:31] experience 10 grand is because they're
[1:42:33] not doing the work. They're they're
[1:42:35] reading the report and you've got like
[1:42:38] somebody with PE, professional engineer
[1:42:40] after their name who's who's essentially
[1:42:44] saying, "Yeah, this is okay, but this, and this need to be changed." And
[1:42:48] then Rob writes a response to it. And
[1:42:51] hopefully we can make whatever changes
[1:42:53] they say are needed. At which point you
[1:42:56] have your person. And and the way the
[1:42:59] statute works, say, is all we get to do
[1:43:02] is pay for it. You hire the peer review
[1:43:06] and we pay the money into an escrow
[1:43:08] account. So the engineer and and of
[1:43:11] course that's important in the real
[1:43:12] world. The engineer sees the money's
[1:43:14] coming from you all. So they know who
[1:43:16] they're working for and you're the one
[1:43:18] who picked. But that's I think part of
[1:43:20] why we're so concerned about time
[1:43:22] because after you vote, you got to ask
[1:43:25] for the proposals and then you got to
[1:43:28] pick who you're going to
[1:43:29] have to receive them. We have to figure
[1:43:31] out which one to go with. I'm trying to
[1:43:33] think the last time we did this was
[1:43:35] actually probably during the
[1:43:36] comprehensive permits. We we had to
[1:43:38] bring
[1:43:39] you we had multip
[1:43:41] we got unbelievable reports and and
[1:43:43] stuff. There's a well over our head and
[1:43:45] we got so
[1:43:47] well and you can even have the peer
[1:43:48] review engineer and I I don't know how
[1:43:50] many times I've seen this have the peer
[1:43:52] review engineer come to a meeting and
[1:43:54] that could be included and then they
[1:43:57] answer whatever questions you have.
[1:43:58] And I think that's what happened. We
[1:44:00] actually audience have questions, they
[1:44:02] can ask questions too and then both you
[1:44:06] and the folks who come to the meeting
[1:44:09] know that an expert who works for the
[1:44:11] town has also gone over it.
[1:44:15] I I I I do want to add one thing. Uh I
[1:44:19] did reach out to the conservation
[1:44:20] commission and uh uh
[1:44:23] I'm here
[1:44:24] well you're you're one of them. I mean,
[1:44:27] I reached out to Jen and I re I I
[1:44:30] received uh a a memo from from Ellie Kurt, who's also on the
[1:44:37] conservation commission,
[1:44:38] also could not be here tonight.
[1:44:39] Yeah. And Jen couldn't be here. She's
[1:44:41] the chairman. But they did come back to
[1:44:43] me and you know, they cited that, hey,
[1:44:45] this thing just arrived last we really
[1:44:47] can't give a a you know, a fair analysis
[1:44:50] and and critique of it. and they both
[1:44:53] suggested uh in in different words that
[1:44:56] a uh having a qualified engineer do a
[1:45:00] peer review. I'm putting words in their
[1:45:02] mouth that not but essentially
[1:45:05] as a whole board we're all strongly in
[1:45:07] favor of that.
[1:45:08] Yeah. So I I think uh there's there's
[1:45:10] violent agreement here. So uh I think we
[1:45:13] can go forward with that. Uh, can we
[1:45:15] have a vote on uh voting to uh uh go
[1:45:19] through the process of uh
[1:45:23] getting a peer review, putting out
[1:45:25] requests for quotes for peer reviews? Uh
[1:45:30] I mean, is that a crooked motion? I
[1:45:32] mean,
[1:45:32] did Stuart make the motion?
[1:45:35] Yeah, I would like to make that motion.
[1:45:37] I would like to make it more crooked.
[1:45:41] That's good. Tell tell a lawyer here
[1:45:42] he's listening.
[1:45:44] twist it. Is that a better word?
[1:45:47] It's not a technical thing. It's just
[1:45:49] voting just in effect just
[1:45:52] voting to authorize
[1:45:53] I mean
[1:45:57] just do it that way.
[1:45:59] voting authoriz
[1:46:09] chair and the town administrator move
[1:46:12] forward with um seeking proposals for
[1:46:16] peer review relative to storm water. Um
[1:46:19] and um just take the plain word and to
[1:46:23] particularly note uh relative to the
[1:46:26] groundwater acquered
[1:46:29] district that um I guess I'll stop
[1:46:34] there.
[1:46:35] Second.
[1:46:41] Yes.
[1:46:41] Any discussion? Any comment? Okay. Uh
[1:46:44] five uh full-time members. Oh, uh,
[1:46:48] Palace, what do you say?
[1:46:50] Stewart.
[1:46:51] Yes.
[1:46:53] James,
[1:46:54] yes.
[1:46:55] I say yes. James, number two. Uh I will
[1:46:59] work with uh the town administrator and
[1:47:04] uh and and I'll I'll incorporate the the
[1:47:07] planning board uh just to make sure
[1:47:09] they're uh you know that that that they
[1:47:12] are
[1:47:14] they will be have a part in this and
[1:47:16] that they will be satisfied. So,
[1:47:20] [Music]
[1:47:23] okay.
[1:47:27] So,
[1:47:30] okay. I'm
[1:47:33] Were there some questions from the
[1:47:35] audience that that on what we've done so
[1:47:39] far or at least on the most recent
[1:47:41] stuff?
[1:47:46] And who are you? Yes. Hi, I'm Carrie
[1:47:48] Klein. I live at 50 South Silver Lane or
[1:47:51] I got your I got your letter.
[1:47:52] In this building, it's called
[1:47:53] Silverlane. And I got your letter.
[1:47:55] First, I want to thank you for really
[1:47:58] good questions, Mr. Chair. I think and for going through the the special
[1:48:04] permitting, all seven, which included
[1:48:08] more than what was discussed tonight,
[1:48:10] really good points. It also included
[1:48:15] um economic well-being and general
[1:48:17] well-being of the community. And also on
[1:48:20] that same page, it talked about public
[1:48:22] hearings. And this is uh we've lost
[1:48:26] about half of the public that came to
[1:48:28] speak because we're almost two hours
[1:48:31] into the meeting. We have not heard the
[1:48:33] public. And I know that there's so much
[1:48:36] that has to be done. I also know that
[1:48:38] the mandate of the Dollar General right
[1:48:40] now is to have over 200,000 new Dollar
[1:48:44] Generals in the next well while we're
[1:48:47] having an economic downturn and and
[1:48:50] developers want to develop and lawyers
[1:48:53] want to talk
[1:48:54] and the public hasn't spoken and I
[1:48:56] wonder if you would consider having a
[1:48:58] public hearing to hear the public.
[1:49:01] Well, that's what we've had. We've had and I know we've had four
[1:49:05] continuences, but one of them was we
[1:49:07] opened it, set a new date, and yeah, but
[1:49:10] we and I believe at each one of those we
[1:49:12] had public input,
[1:49:13] but it's always been the same like in
[1:49:15] the last maybe one time it was an hour,
[1:49:18] but the last little bits, you know,
[1:49:19] where the developer and the lawyer most
[1:49:23] I'll say that I've received uh you know,
[1:49:27] written communication uh that uh that I you know, we got to have some sort of
[1:49:33] order to these hearings. I mean, it
[1:49:34] just,
[1:49:36] you know, we try to do, you know, stuff
[1:49:39] from the pres from the applicants and
[1:49:41] then we go back and forth and then we
[1:49:43] open it for for uh for for comments.
[1:49:47] uh we've you know I think we give I mean
[1:49:52] this is your time to to talk uh and uh
[1:49:56] you know every you know our next hearing
[1:49:58] we'll have another you know public
[1:50:00] comment
[1:50:02] uh you know session but you know we like
[1:50:04] the public comment to be pertinent to
[1:50:06] the discussion that we had today I mean
[1:50:08] we've had you know you some of the
[1:50:10] things you raised about Dollar General
[1:50:12] and their you know mandate to have some
[1:50:14] that is not a not of concern to the
[1:50:17] zoning board. I mean, uh, we we'd like
[1:50:19] comment relative to the decisions and
[1:50:23] what we have to do as a board. I mean,
[1:50:26] that's I I'm not here to, you know, say
[1:50:29] what what kind of uh retailer, you know,
[1:50:31] this this company is versus another
[1:50:34] company that this one's better than the
[1:50:35] other one that that, you know, we
[1:50:38] consider, you know, social, economic, or
[1:50:41] community needs a proposal. we can take
[1:50:43] that into into play. But, you know, we
[1:50:46] got much other bigger fish to fry here
[1:50:48] and trying to come to a decision on
[1:50:49] whether to grant the special permit. I
[1:50:51] hope I hope you understand. And I did
[1:50:53] get I believe it was you that sent the
[1:50:56] letter to the uh uh to the uh town
[1:51:00] clerk. Was it you?
[1:51:02] It was.
[1:51:03] Okay.
[1:51:06] Yes.
[1:51:07] My name is Susan Triel. I live at 43.
[1:51:09] Hi, Susan. Um, and I this is my second
[1:51:12] hearing and I don't know if these issues
[1:51:15] have been addressed previously, so my
[1:51:18] questions may have already been brought
[1:51:20] up at some point. Um, has it has there
[1:51:23] been discussion about the character of
[1:51:25] this building, what it's going to look
[1:51:28] like? Do we know
[1:51:29] what this building is going to look
[1:51:30] like?
[1:51:31] Yeah, I mean, we have the uh the
[1:51:34] drawings in
[1:51:35] Well, I know there's drawings. Those are
[1:51:37] flat drawings. But what I'm wondering
[1:51:39] about is what is it going to look like?
[1:51:40] What are the materials that are going to
[1:51:42] be made out of? Is it a flat roof? Is it
[1:51:45] going to match any of the the nature of
[1:51:48] the character of our town? That's one
[1:51:50] question.
[1:51:51] I believe on Rob on the elevations
[1:51:54] there's some details as to what the
[1:51:56] materials are going to
[1:51:57] what color is it going to look like.
[1:51:59] Those are things that we these we have
[1:52:00] no control over that Steve. These are
[1:52:02] things that are
[1:52:04] uh I mean there's been superficial
[1:52:06] discussions about it. I mean, if if and
[1:52:08] when we get to the point where you're
[1:52:10] granting a special permit, we'll get
[1:52:11] into the details. So, I
[1:52:13] So, my second question then is um about
[1:52:16] the potential fiscal impact. I'm
[1:52:19] wondering if there's going to be tax
[1:52:22] breaks for this company to bring their
[1:52:24] business to this town.
[1:52:27] I'm just asking. I don't know.
[1:52:28] We don't I'm not aware of any tax breaks
[1:52:32] being given by the town of Sunderland.
[1:52:34] Uh I I mean we we consider you know
[1:52:37] potential fiscal impacts but uh I'm not
[1:52:40] aware of any uh incentives that the town
[1:52:44] is giving to
[1:52:45] is that would that be a decision that's
[1:52:47] made here?
[1:52:48] No.
[1:52:49] Where would that be made?
[1:52:50] It would have to go through town meeting
[1:52:52] and that's not something that I I'm
[1:52:53] aware anything being applied for. Um,
[1:52:56] I'm sure they'd accept any tax breaks
[1:52:57] you want to give them, but
[1:53:00] I mean that
[1:53:02] I I don't think that applies here. So,
[1:53:05] thank you.
[1:53:06] Real quick, uh, Mr. Chairman, um, can I
[1:53:08] can give you this? I'll give you this
[1:53:10] after the meeting. Um, this is the
[1:53:11] elevation.
[1:53:12] This draw this this drawing is on the uh
[1:53:15] the website.
[1:53:17] I was wondering
[1:53:18] materials and colors and all that. So,
[1:53:20] should be pretty descriptive right over
[1:53:22] here.
[1:53:22] So, this basically going to be a box
[1:53:24] store.
[1:53:24] Yeah.
[1:53:25] Yes. with a flat roof.
[1:53:27] Yes. Uh flat with a little slope. But
[1:53:29] yes, but essentially it cut wall so it
[1:53:32] look like a flat.
[1:53:33] Is there a similar one nearby that we
[1:53:34] could go look at?
[1:53:35] Yeah, probably find
[1:53:39] plug it into your GPS.
[1:53:41] I've I visited several of these cuz I
[1:53:44] drove through Westfield says, "Oh,
[1:53:45] there's a Dollar General." So I walked
[1:53:47] in there and there's one in Greenfield.
[1:53:49] They're they're all over the place. And
[1:53:51] I mean their general motif is like green
[1:53:55] on green or green and yellow
[1:53:57] in green field.
[1:53:59] Let let me So I mean uh
[1:54:03] you know there there's a certain look to
[1:54:04] them.
[1:54:06] But in Greenfield for example is part of
[1:54:08] a shopping mall. This is going to be a
[1:54:10] standalone building in the center of our
[1:54:12] town.
[1:54:12] Y that's what's proposed. Yes. That's
[1:54:15] what's proposed. And we will act on what
[1:54:17] is prop. That's what we will act on what
[1:54:19] is proposed
[1:54:20] if it's helpful.
[1:54:21] We don't do into fine detail of color of
[1:54:23] the building and all that kind of stuff.
[1:54:25] We just don't have we don't have control
[1:54:27] over that.
[1:54:28] No, it actually it actually is
[1:54:29] presented. So the plan before you has
[1:54:31] the color. So very specifically thins
[1:54:34] thin brick ways coded you know color you
[1:54:37] know 5W7. It's like literally specific
[1:54:40] colors material types for the exterior
[1:54:43] of the building are on a schedule for
[1:54:45] that right here. and and we've put
[1:54:48] stipulations on buildings uh of you know
[1:54:51] storage buildings or whatever say it
[1:54:52] must be muted colors or you know we you
[1:54:55] know if necessary so I mean it it could
[1:54:59] be covered in the stipulation but uh I
[1:55:01] mean I think they're propo what they're
[1:55:03] proposing right there you know that you
[1:55:05] know they're they're proposing something
[1:55:07] so
[1:55:08] in their development the developer uh
[1:55:12] does have a website and I do believe
[1:55:13] they have a number of stores that
[1:55:15] they've they've showcase on their
[1:55:17] website. You might want to take a look
[1:55:18] at that as well. Give you some feel for
[1:55:20] what they've done in other communities.
[1:55:22] Again, if there's input, we'll we'll try to take
[1:55:25] I mean,
[1:55:26] because there was a a
[1:55:28] proposal for Cummington that I think was
[1:55:30] ultimately denied.
[1:55:32] I'm not that one because I didn't
[1:55:34] I I don't know what that's a material. I
[1:55:38] mean,
[1:55:39] every everyone's different and I mean
[1:55:41] it's this is ours. So,
[1:55:44] thank you.
[1:55:46] I'm Nancy Pik. I have lived at 187 North
[1:55:50] Main Street for 33 years and I've been
[1:55:53] on the conservation commission for more
[1:55:55] than a dozen years I think. Um,
[1:55:58] one question is um, Cliffside Apartments
[1:56:02] as you mentioned has a drinking water
[1:56:04] well that has a pumping zone that
[1:56:06] intersects with the property line of the
[1:56:08] development plan. A parking lot with
[1:56:10] associated automobile fluids, road salt,
[1:56:13] etc. can have an impact on their
[1:56:16] drinking water system. And I'm wondering
[1:56:18] if contact has been made with either
[1:56:20] resident association or the owners like
[1:56:22] have they been involved? Do they because
[1:56:24] they are potentially drinking the
[1:56:26] runoff. So, um
[1:56:28] I think they're drinking their own
[1:56:29] runoff too.
[1:56:32] That's fair enough. But just
[1:56:37] I'm not sure. their their uh parking
[1:56:40] lots are attached to a
[1:56:41] they're so we we can certainly show the
[1:56:44] well location. All public water supplies
[1:56:47] are listed with D. They have a very
[1:56:49] specific detail of what the well yield
[1:56:52] is. There's a radius as I had mentioned
[1:56:54] between 100 communication are you
[1:56:57] communicate like have they t you talked
[1:56:59] to them and like do they know that this
[1:57:00] is
[1:57:01] I don't you know I I would think you
[1:57:04] know I I talked to Fred Lauronitis who
[1:57:06] is the uh our water commissioner because
[1:57:09] we have a well but it's up mountain road
[1:57:12] so it's he says that's you know not
[1:57:14] really uh a factor for me but he said
[1:57:17] boy if I had you know that that that
[1:57:20] well at cliffside I mean I would I would
[1:57:23] be here. You know, I'd be very concerned
[1:57:24] about it. I'd be looking into it
[1:57:26] there. Just for a correction, there's
[1:57:28] three wells at close. Three bedrock
[1:57:30] wells, you know, maybe 600 ft deep ft
[1:57:33] total or each well.
[1:57:34] Relatively shallow.
[1:57:35] Yeah. I'm just curious why it didn't
[1:57:37] show up on on any of these,
[1:57:39] isn't it? What?
[1:57:41] Okay. See, I don't know what I'm talking
[1:57:43] about.
[1:57:43] You know, the well screens could be
[1:57:45] anywhere from near the surface down to
[1:57:47] some depth. But I'm just curious why
[1:57:50] they those locations never showed up in
[1:57:52] any of the diagrams or they're in you
[1:57:54] interim wellhead protection areas. We're
[1:57:57] not we're not required to show them
[1:57:59] outside
[1:58:00] water
[1:58:01] in the storm water. Are you saying it's
[1:58:03] not in here?
[1:58:04] So the well the well radiuses radi that
[1:58:06] you're talking about don't intersect.
[1:58:08] They do.
[1:58:08] Yeah. I can show you.
[1:58:10] Okay. So with our site
[1:58:11] Yeah.
[1:58:12] with our disturbance.
[1:58:12] Yeah. In the northwest corner.
[1:58:14] Yeah. with our with our disturbance, our
[1:58:17] work, our storm water.
[1:58:18] Yeah. In the northwest corner of the
[1:58:20] property.
[1:58:21] You want to show me?
[1:58:23] Well,
[1:58:25] we can go and we can go and look up on
[1:58:28] um on Mass GIS or
[1:58:30] So, you're telling me that with our
[1:58:32] development here in our storm water
[1:58:34] drainage?
[1:58:35] It's on the very sorry, the very
[1:58:37] northwest corner of that little solid
[1:58:41] green area there. The radius
[1:58:45] the northwest corner but
[1:58:46] not the well the radius for the well
[1:58:48] the radius okay so not within what we're
[1:58:50] doing
[1:58:51] so yeah so the way the way the railway
[1:58:53] well I'm hydro geologist so you know how
[1:58:57] it works
[1:58:58] yeah okay these are interim wellhead
[1:59:01] protection areas too so um
[1:59:03] which we're meeting the requirements for
[1:59:05] I'm not quite sure but um
[1:59:07] that's what the peer review
[1:59:08] that's why you want a peer review I mean
[1:59:10] so um what would need to be is you would
[1:59:14] need to do some kind of groundwater
[1:59:16] monitoring analysis to look at how you
[1:59:19] know your uh infiltration basins are
[1:59:22] impacting you know the contributing
[1:59:24] areas of those wells but well you know
[1:59:26] so the proper professional is a PE our
[1:59:28] PE will communicate with the PE for the
[1:59:31] town they are intimately familiar with
[1:59:33] the D stormwater management standards
[1:59:35] all these requirements mounting analysis
[1:59:36] are required in certain situations all
[1:59:39] that would be looked at through the peer
[1:59:40] review process
[1:59:42] and then provided to the
[1:59:44] I would hope that the uh the peer
[1:59:46] reviewer would be knowledgeable in this
[1:59:48] area too that would be able to look at
[1:59:50] this that critical eye
[1:59:53] the stormwater standards I don't recall
[1:59:55] exactly which volume but there is
[1:59:57] something in there about mounting
[1:59:59] analysis and when it depends very
[2:00:02] specific to the standard
[2:00:03] which isn't by any means all the time
[2:00:06] correct
[2:00:07] only usually if you're within separation
[2:00:09] of groundwater
[2:00:10] yeah yeah and if it's if those
[2:00:11] conditions aren't at the site then
[2:00:13] there's no need for an enamel. It's not
[2:00:16] required.
[2:00:16] Well, that's I think that's up to debate
[2:00:18] as well. Um it looks like your
[2:00:21] subsurface um under the parking lot.
[2:00:24] What's the depth of that infiltration
[2:00:27] uh I don't know what you call it
[2:00:29] facility
[2:00:30] your
[2:00:32] structures.
[2:00:34] [Music]
[2:00:38] I was just looking at the Sonic report.
[2:00:39] It says 3.75
[2:00:41] ft.
[2:00:42] Bottom of stone is 167.5
[2:00:46] uh inches.
[2:00:47] No, that's the elevation above sea level
[2:00:51] based on the 1988.
[2:00:53] Okay. And then how how deep is it to
[2:00:55] ground water below that point based on
[2:00:58] I have to go through the report.
[2:01:00] I don't know if I have it on this sheet.
[2:01:02] Do you want
[2:01:03] estimated seasonal high groundwater
[2:01:05] directly adjacent is 159.5
[2:01:11] I have the report if you want to
[2:01:14] yeah so well
[2:01:16] are those plates online these the
[2:01:21] associated
[2:01:22] I believe so the the they're under the
[2:01:24] rev
[2:01:25] okay
[2:01:26] package I mean there's like I don't know
[2:01:28] how many drawings there are there's like
[2:01:31] 18 I BP storm water man management
[2:01:34] handbook is very specific to the design
[2:01:36] of different types of basins.
[2:01:39] Um so yeah so the separate so if you're
[2:01:42] trying to determine groundwater we have
[2:01:43] no ground water in one of our test
[2:01:45] holes. We have another one at 159.5.
[2:01:48] Um so 159.5 the bottom of the stone uh
[2:01:53] for our chambers is 167.5. So,
[2:01:58] well, interesting because in the in the the leadup, I guess the site
[2:02:02] description I'm just looking for, it
[2:02:04] says that groundwater was found between
[2:02:06] 72 and groundwater was encountered in
[2:02:09] six of the test pits and was generally
[2:02:11] at a depth of 72 in to 120 in below
[2:02:14] grade.
[2:02:16] Yeah. So, what I'm telling you is the
[2:02:18] actual elevation, not the not the
[2:02:20] surface, which I think you're referring
[2:02:22] to.
[2:02:23] Okay.
[2:02:24] Let the peer review figure it out. I
[2:02:25] mean,
[2:02:26] yeah. I mean, seriously,
[2:02:28] we're happy to take comments. If you
[2:02:30] provide comments to the board, have
[2:02:31] specific comments, we're certainly happy
[2:02:32] to address them. We can
[2:02:33] Well, I I I do have some comments from
[2:02:36] Ellie that she sent to us and she's a
[2:02:39] member of the conservation commission
[2:02:40] that couldn't be here and I got from
[2:02:42] something from the chair. We got two
[2:02:43] people from the conservation commission
[2:02:45] here. So, um,
[2:02:48] you know, I think there's going to be a
[2:02:50] lot of attention on this and I think it
[2:02:52] it's well warranted. Uh,
[2:02:54] I think Sounds like a good process.
[2:02:56] So,
[2:02:58] I think
[2:03:00] if there's no more questions, I think
[2:03:02] it's the Yes.
[2:03:05] Bailey, you live at the social.
[2:03:07] You live? Oh, social. Okay.
[2:03:09] The social um which is across the street
[2:03:12] from where the Dollar General is
[2:03:13] proposed to go.
[2:03:15] Why Sunderland? Because you have
[2:03:17] existing empty storefronts in Hanley
[2:03:19] that would have greater traffic, better
[2:03:22] business.
[2:03:23] What?
[2:03:23] Why Sunderland? I
[2:03:25] why waste the money building?
[2:03:26] I I'm sure that you know I I it hey this
[2:03:30] arrived in our applica it application
[2:03:33] shows up. I mean
[2:03:35] we didn't pick it
[2:03:36] actually address
[2:03:39] and I mean I don't know why that how
[2:03:41] that's germanine to the special permit
[2:03:43] process. I mean that's
[2:03:46] sorry but uh you know
[2:03:48] I'm happy to explain that that's not my
[2:03:51] specific role but the developer works
[2:03:53] directly with Dollar General they
[2:03:55] identify demographics um you know
[2:03:58] population
[2:04:00] within a certain vicinity I'm sure
[2:04:01] traffic counts um and you guys met the
[2:04:05] criteria what do you guys
[2:04:07] lots of students yeah so yeah so there's there's a reason why they want
[2:04:12] to be
[2:04:15] What what you've said, by the way,
[2:04:17] before are words of wisdom that I can
[2:04:20] say I have never heard from a board
[2:04:23] before.
[2:04:24] And that's probably in trouble for it
[2:04:26] now.
[2:04:27] No, no. For example, when I represent
[2:04:30] opponents, which sometimes I do, what I
[2:04:33] say to people is for God's sakes, don't
[2:04:36] just come and spew out anything that
[2:04:39] comes to mind because the board, it's
[2:04:41] exact, what I tell them is exactly what
[2:04:43] you said. The board's criteria are in
[2:04:46] the zoning bylaw. And what you need to
[2:04:48] do, and it's online, is read those
[2:04:51] criteria, and you read them, and then
[2:04:53] you need to focus your comments on those
[2:04:56] criteria. And if, for example, you're
[2:04:58] opposed to it, then for God's sakes,
[2:05:00] make your argument, but please focus on
[2:05:04] the criteria, just like what Rob's doing
[2:05:07] in his report, which is showing how
[2:05:09] we've met those criteria, and it keeps
[2:05:13] it focused, and it avoids wasting a a
[2:05:16] heck of a lot of um time. So, thank you.
[2:05:21] I wish every board would do that. Well, respectfully, Hilda's question is
[2:05:26] under uh number one here. Social,
[2:05:29] economic, or community needs, which are
[2:05:30] being served. What are they?
[2:05:32] Well, I I can answer that too, by the
[2:05:34] way, because to the board, to the chair,
[2:05:37] um you are in between Ammerst,
[2:05:40] Northampton, Greenfield, and and
[2:05:44] basically, and and I can see this for
[2:05:47] sure. I mean, I've got a degree in
[2:05:48] economics. Okay, this type of store
[2:05:52] basically saves trips that would
[2:05:55] normally have to go to any one of those
[2:05:58] towns. And I think it's it's an
[2:06:00] excellent excellent example. And this is
[2:06:03] what Toledo does and other people and
[2:06:05] this is how the a small box retailer
[2:06:08] like this has succeeded. They look for
[2:06:10] these holds basically where the big
[2:06:14] stores are far enough away that it's a
[2:06:17] lot more convenient and that's how it
[2:06:19] serves the well-being of the community.
[2:06:22] If you need something that they've got,
[2:06:24] you don't have to slept a lot farther
[2:06:27] for it and that I think is a well-being
[2:06:30] to the community in addition to they're
[2:06:34] not getting any tax breaks. commercial
[2:06:36] property, unlike houses, benefit the
[2:06:39] town because they add to the town's tax
[2:06:42] base. There's a net gain, unlike houses,
[2:06:45] which if you got two kids in the school,
[2:06:47] the house is a is a
[2:06:50] use that we can't use that when
[2:06:52] deciding.
[2:06:53] I understand you can't use it, but I
[2:06:55] think it's it's something that people
[2:06:57] obviously are concerned about. And so, I
[2:06:59] think it's both a service, an access
[2:07:02] benefit, and a financial benefit to the
[2:07:04] town. Thank you.
[2:07:05] Uh okay. So
[2:07:13] shall we talk about continuation dates?
[2:07:15] Um
[2:07:22] so
[2:07:27] play.
[2:07:29] Do we want to do you
[2:07:33] want to continue to
[2:07:36] four or six weeks or I mean we got some homework to do. The two
[2:07:41] attorneys have some homework to do. Uh
[2:07:44] I don't know Rob you probably don't have
[2:07:46] much to do. Uh
[2:07:51] so I mean we're going to have better
[2:07:53] part of three weeks to get secure quotes
[2:07:56] I would think
[2:07:57] at least. So I I would say uh maybe four
[2:08:00] to six weeks we the time frame to the
[2:08:03] employee
[2:08:04] I mean quotes
[2:08:05] if you so right now we're when do you
[2:08:08] normally meet?
[2:08:09] We meet as needed.
[2:08:10] Okay.
[2:08:11] So in a perfect world we would like to
[2:08:13] meet in September
[2:08:15] and then if you have you know can secure
[2:08:17] quotes meet with you on on those items.
[2:08:21] Um, and I think in that time hopefully
[2:08:23] at the attorneys can pow and help with
[2:08:27] where they're at.
[2:08:31] Do you like meeting on Wednesdays? Is
[2:08:33] that what you've been to?
[2:08:35] You know, I I try to avoid Mondays and
[2:08:38] Fridays. So,
[2:08:41] um,
[2:08:43] the 24th
[2:08:46] is a Wednesday.
[2:08:47] It is.
[2:08:53] Wednesday
[2:08:55] September.
[2:09:02] No, it's August September.
[2:09:12] Okay. Board. Wednesday, September 24th.
[2:09:15] Is that is that a good day for for us?
[2:09:17] Good for me.
[2:09:18] Okay. So we'll continue this hearing at
[2:09:22] uh on Wednesday, September 24. Uh one
[2:09:27] thing I would like to request uh you're
[2:09:30] the travel study engineer, right? Uh I
[2:09:35] would like to revisit that. Uh when we
[2:09:38] were doing
[2:09:40] uh the travel study at the end of the
[2:09:41] last session, we had sort of a hard hard
[2:09:44] stop. we are in the middle of discussing
[2:09:46] things uh and so I and some further
[2:09:51] questions have been raised that we would
[2:09:53] like to to talk to the traffic sit
[2:09:56] person uh and I would ask is it one of
[2:10:00] the questions I have that uh you know it
[2:10:03] was classified as a a variety store use
[2:10:08] uh somehow that doesn't quite seem right
[2:10:12] uh I wonder what other uses are there
[2:10:15] because you know based on a a variety
[2:10:18] store use they said we're going to have
[2:10:19] x amount of cars coming in you know
[2:10:22] whatever
[2:10:23] so I do have the um and I can save it
[2:10:26] for next time but I did pull the central
[2:10:28] variety store isn't you know a standard
[2:10:30] term um the institute of transportation
[2:10:33] engineers have descriptions for the
[2:10:34] different land use codes so I did pull
[2:10:36] that and can certainly share that or
[2:10:38] send
[2:10:38] do they have other categories I mean
[2:10:41] because you know I look at Dollar
[2:10:43] General And it doesn't strike me as a
[2:10:47] variety store or like no what other what
[2:10:49] else is a variety store? I mean it's
[2:10:51] like
[2:10:51] so I can just
[2:10:53] and but I I don't I don't but I'd ask
[2:10:55] you to take a look at if uh I mean is
[2:10:59] there such it's more of like a mini big
[2:11:01] box. I mean I don't know if that's such
[2:11:03] a category
[2:11:05] variety store specifically references
[2:11:08] the similarity to a dollar store that's
[2:11:10] in the description. Um, and so that's
[2:11:12] where data has been collected at other
[2:11:14] similar uses, other dollar stores. So
[2:11:16] that's why we picked the one
[2:11:18] that that is a question I like to touch
[2:11:20] on. Again, the other thing is that I
[2:11:22] don't know uh I know
[2:11:24] how these corporations work. They took a
[2:11:27] very careful analysis of the side before
[2:11:29] they they the dollar general decided
[2:11:32] before they said I think we want to site
[2:11:34] this and you know bear the expense of
[2:11:37] you know going through and getting a
[2:11:38] special permit. So having the engineers
[2:11:42] uh
[2:11:43] do they have I mean they must look at
[2:11:46] that and they must go through and they
[2:11:47] go through a formula and they say not
[2:11:49] enough traffic not not worthy find
[2:11:52] another place does do they did did they
[2:11:56] have a a study that shows how many cars
[2:12:00] uh what kind of traffic they can expect
[2:12:03] uh I I don't know if that somehow could
[2:12:05] be factored into this
[2:12:08] you know we we talked we talked talked
[2:12:10] about and you've actually done you've
[2:12:12] reduced the amount of parking from the
[2:12:16] first set of drawings.
[2:12:18] uh you know I'm
[2:12:21] I I I don't know does does
[2:12:23] so I not that I'm aware of I don't
[2:12:25] believe Dollar General has their own
[2:12:26] data set but the Institute of
[2:12:28] Transportation Engineers trip manual is
[2:12:30] based on data collected at other dollar
[2:12:34] stores that is all into that that
[2:12:36] variety store um land use code that's um
[2:12:40] kind of what the the manual does. that
[2:12:42] it collects and summarizes data to come
[2:12:44] up with the rates. Yeah.
[2:12:46] Um based on the trips in and out of
[2:12:48] similar sites.
[2:12:49] Are you trying to established that it
[2:12:50] wouldn't be a viable location?
[2:12:52] No. No, not at all. I'm trying to it's
[2:12:55] somehow I'm trying to the the biggest
[2:12:59] question that comes out of my mind out
[2:13:01] of the traffic study. I mean, I see the
[2:13:03] cars going this way and you know, they
[2:13:04] say they show all that stuff. I says,
[2:13:06] "Okay, you know, more or less I I can
[2:13:09] understand that. I'm just trying to do
[2:13:12] we have a good handle on what how many
[2:13:15] cars are are going to you know is
[2:13:17] expected to go in there.
[2:13:19] I think it's fair to say in
[2:13:21] understanding what Bowman has done and
[2:13:23] what they've done on multiple projects
[2:13:24] we worked with them on they're relying
[2:13:27] on very specific detailed data that's
[2:13:30] collected by the premier
[2:13:33] standard industry standard. Let me just
[2:13:36] say I I'd like to take a deeper look at
[2:13:38] that and then that we can talk about
[2:13:40] when we when we get into the traffic
[2:13:42] study again.
[2:13:42] So I guess what I'm saying is that
[2:13:44] information is less than sight specific
[2:13:48] that is that is more data sets based on
[2:13:50] the industry standard. What what other
[2:13:52] solution
[2:13:53] our special permit will be sight
[2:13:54] specific. So I mean I I yeah I know
[2:13:57] but I I don't think I said it right but
[2:14:00] it's this is this is the the data that
[2:14:05] everyone in the entire country uses. Am
[2:14:07] I wrong? Maybe what we could do is, and
[2:14:10] I don't know, has Bowman done other
[2:14:13] Dollar General stores? Then maybe what
[2:14:15] you could do is look at studies that
[2:14:18] Bowman has done specifically for Dollar
[2:14:21] General for this same company stores and
[2:14:25] look, you know, compare the square
[2:14:26] footage of the store and then see if the
[2:14:28] other studies use the same Institute of
[2:14:31] Traffic Engineers category.
[2:14:33] I mean, I we have I mean that that's the
[2:14:35] most applicable lay code. So that's the
[2:14:37] one we usually we look for the one that
[2:14:39] is most consistent with the proposed
[2:14:42] land use. So it saying specifically in
[2:14:44] the description also called dollar store
[2:14:48] that that is what we should go with.
[2:14:50] Okay. I mean is I mean I I don't know. I
[2:14:54] that's that's something that troubles
[2:14:56] me. I I so I'm
[2:14:59] What specifically troubles you so we can
[2:15:01] drive?
[2:15:02] Do we have the expected number of cars?
[2:15:06] I mean the the the traffic or the the car volume that this use is going to
[2:15:11] generate. Do we have it right?
[2:15:13] Is there a similar one on the state
[2:15:15] highway? You know, with similar traffic
[2:15:18] kinds of similar
[2:15:20] I I you know I I don't know. Do they
[2:15:22] base it on square footage? That doesn't
[2:15:24] seem to make sense. I mean
[2:15:25] they flex the the in and out all the
[2:15:27] trips in and out of similar stores and
[2:15:30] they they aggregate that and generate a
[2:15:33] rate based on square footage. So x
[2:15:35] number of trips per square footage based
[2:15:37] on all the data collected and and the
[2:15:39] characteristics of those sites. So kind
[2:15:41] of what you're asking for looking at
[2:15:43] another Dollar General and the trips
[2:15:46] associated with that is what the IT
[2:15:49] generation manual does.
[2:15:51] And it's probably safe to say that the
[2:15:53] last thing Mr. Toledo wants is either to
[2:15:57] have people who can't find a parking
[2:15:59] space or pay a fortune to pave areas
[2:16:04] that aren't going to get used. I mean,
[2:16:06] that I think is part of what any store
[2:16:09] like and that's why
[2:16:10] I'm most concerned about the traffic
[2:16:12] impact. I mean, I'm not wor I I'm not I have a feeling that the parking is
[2:16:18] more than adequate. That's not the point
[2:16:21] of my question. I'm trying to I mean I
[2:16:24] got to tell you traffic flow and safety
[2:16:28] is a big problem with this. No matter
[2:16:32] where you put the driveway, I think I
[2:16:34] told you the only place that I'd feel
[2:16:36] comfortable you put the driveway is at
[2:16:37] that traffic light.
[2:16:41] But I mean I I this is and and if we
[2:16:45] underestimate the amount of cars that
[2:16:48] going to go in there, that's going to
[2:16:49] make that a traffic problem worse.
[2:16:52] So that's what I'm wrestling with. Okay.
[2:16:55] And you know may maybe it is what it is
[2:16:58] and maybe that that's truly accurate but
[2:17:00] you know in you know in my gut doesn't
[2:17:04] I'm not sure.
[2:17:05] That's why we as design professionals
[2:17:07] and traffic engineers don't rely on
[2:17:10] and I'm just asked I'd like to I'd like
[2:17:12] to revisit that. That's correct.
[2:17:14] And then if you could provide some more,
[2:17:18] you know, substantiation or, you know,
[2:17:20] something to to to reinforce it. Okay.
[2:17:23] But
[2:17:24] will be able to make a left onto 116.
[2:17:26] Are you looking to find out how much the
[2:17:30] in the traffic will increase due to the
[2:17:32] store being there?
[2:17:33] Yeah,
[2:17:34] it's on the report.
[2:17:35] I I know it's on the report. I mean, and
[2:17:37] it's based on a it's a it's a variety
[2:17:40] store use and they look it up.
[2:17:43] But I think that the hard part is that
[2:17:45] there's already a lot of traffic there.
[2:17:47] So if they if you add 10 more cars, it
[2:17:51] doesn't really
[2:17:52] increase. If you add 100 more cars,
[2:17:54] that's going to make it a heck of a lot
[2:17:56] worse. And I and I'm I'm exaggerating
[2:17:58] for effect.
[2:18:00] So I'm just
[2:18:02] Well, trying to figure out why your
[2:18:05] anticipation of a lot of extra traffic
[2:18:08] mean isn't my expectation. Well,
[2:18:10] the traffic report does say it, you
[2:18:13] know, this this use is expected to
[2:18:15] generate this much traffic.
[2:18:17] Can we just go back, Mr. Chairman?
[2:18:19] Sorry. There was a lot of lot of
[2:18:22] some a lot that was said in that
[2:18:24] statement. You said no matter what the
[2:18:28] traffic or no matter what the traffic
[2:18:30] report said, you had specific concerns
[2:18:32] with circulation, site access, safety,
[2:18:34] etc. So in the report, I just want to go
[2:18:36] on the record in the report and I'm
[2:18:38] going to ask Emily to reiterate this or
[2:18:40] clarify this, but in the reiterate,
[2:18:42] yeah, she's a traffic person. So I'm
[2:18:44] going to ask Emily the question. Is
[2:18:46] there anything in the report to support
[2:18:49] the statement that this is is a specific
[2:18:52] safety concern with the existing turning
[2:18:55] movements in and out
[2:18:57] is there and the crash data that's
[2:18:59] available for this area?
[2:19:01] No, we've reviewed the crash data. It's
[2:19:03] all below average um at our study area
[2:19:06] intersections.
[2:19:07] I understand all that and you know I
[2:19:08] don't even question that.
[2:19:10] That's what your question was. So you're
[2:19:11] saying you don't question the
[2:19:12] circulation in and out.
[2:19:15] I I mean I I understand
[2:19:18] again
[2:19:21] I have I just do we have the the the
[2:19:23] amount of traffic that's going to be
[2:19:25] generated by this use right and so I
[2:19:27] need some convincing on that. I mean,
[2:19:30] so what what if we were to solicit a
[2:19:33] specific
[2:19:34] can you go to an ID to desri for further
[2:19:38] description of the
[2:19:39] I mean they provide the manual provides
[2:19:40] descriptions. I did bring it to read. I
[2:19:43] mean I can
[2:19:43] Okay. Huh?
[2:19:44] You can send it in advance. Whatever is
[2:19:46] you I mean maybe you have no answer for
[2:19:49] my concern or but I'm just I'm just
[2:19:52] telling you
[2:19:54] something I'm I'm kind of wrestling with
[2:19:56] and you know anything you could do to
[2:20:00] you know to convince me that
[2:20:03] you know we have this nailed right. I
[2:20:04] mean that's all.
[2:20:06] Can I ask a question? if there's going
[2:20:09] to be something at the next meeting that
[2:20:12] you're going to provide us with, if you
[2:20:14] could provide it like ahead of time and
[2:20:16] then it can be distributed. You've
[2:20:17] figured out how to put stuff on the
[2:20:18] website, we can like make sure that it's
[2:20:20] available ahead of time. I think that
[2:20:22] would be helpful.
[2:20:23] The uh so we can review it.
[2:20:25] The traffic report is up there as well.
[2:20:27] Yeah. But she's saying that she has
[2:20:28] definition
[2:20:30] of the land use code. Um just to make it
[2:20:32] clear, you know, that it does
[2:20:33] specifically state the dollar store. Um
[2:20:35] it's it's just the short description,
[2:20:38] but if it's something we want to share,
[2:20:40] I can certainly provide it.
[2:20:41] So, thank you.
[2:20:43] I'm sorry. I'm I'm I'm sure I'm just
[2:20:46] bludgeoning you guys and I I had hair when I started doing this.
[2:20:53] No, but you're you're you're asking the
[2:20:55] right question because in fact,
[2:20:58] is the traffic study based on the right?
[2:21:03] Yeah.
[2:21:04] out there. I continue the hearing 15
[2:21:07] minutes ago. So, half the audience left
[2:21:10] for
[2:21:13] I was saying I want to get I'd like you
[2:21:15] to if you could address my concerns at
[2:21:17] the next at the next hearing. Maybe you can't maybe you know
[2:21:22] sounds great.
[2:21:24] Thank you. Thank you. The hearing is continued to Wednesday,
[2:21:29] September 23rd at 7:00.