001Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, please. >> So, first order of reorganization is the MAPC swap representative. Is there a nomination? >> Mr. Kellon said that he would take a nomination if someone wants to nominate. >> Nominate Joe Calajone. >> Second. >> Okay. Are there any other nominations? >> All right. So, I'll take a motion for election or appointment, please. Who wants to move? >> Oh, so moved. >> Moved and second. I got a motion from Chris. >> Second from Martha. All in favor uh roll call. Many >> I you'll have to do the roll call now because >> Oh, there's no member online. You're right. So >> Oh, yeah. >> So, all in favor? >> I opposed. It's a vote. Uh, nominations for fair housing committee representative. >> Yeah, I'm on that. >> Any nominations for
002>> nominate Babe J. >> I'll second that. >> Any other nominations? >> All right, I'll take a motion to appoint Mr. Manini as the fair housing committee representative. >> So move. >> Second. All right. All in favor? >> I opposed. It's a vote. the school. Did you do both for Joe for the school? >> Uh, no. >> I got him for the first one so far. >> Sorry. >> Uh, nominations for open space advisory committee. This committee has not been set up yet, but it's something that may come up in the future. >> I nominate Michael White. >> I'll second that. >> Any other nominations? I accept a motion to nominate Miss White as the open space advisory committee leaison. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I
003>> I >> opposed. There's a vote. Nominations for school buildings committee liaison. >> I'll nominate Joe Calgion. >> Any other nominations? >> All right. I'll accept the motion to nominate Mr. Kellion as the school buildings committee leaison. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. There's a vote. Uh, next order is to authorize the clerk and her town planner to sign correspondence and sign agenda postings. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second page. >> So all right second. >> Uh, any other discussion? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. There's a vote. Last order is authorize the town planner to sign payroll. >> Uh we're doing >> call planning board meetings, set public hearings, set planning board agenda,
004and sign and endorse ANR's 81ps. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Is there a second? >> All right. Discussion. >> Any discussion? >> Yes, please. >> Go ahead. >> Uh so BNC, um I think we started it last year. brought it up just other boards I assign on um along with where you know the the the town planner um that the chair also have the ability to uh review when the meetings are called and review um review the agendas. I think I just feel it's a good way of checks and balances. Nothing against the new town planner. I I I brought this up with the old town planner and again it's just other boards that I serve on. That's how we operate. Uh so I just kind of wanted to bring that up bring it
005to to this board and see if we would be amendable to that. Certainly, >> it's absolutely fine. I can review these with the chair every time I post one. That's just setting the agenda and putting it to the clerk's office at the right time. >> If the if the chair would like to do that, too. >> That's that's acceptable to me. >> So, I'm I'm still comfortable with the 81p and obviously the payroll. It's just again the uh those two items B and C, the the meetings and the agendas. So, >> okay. >> In coordination with the chair. Yeah. >> In coordination with the chair. Yes. >> Okay. in coordination with chair. All right. Amended motion. Uh all in favor I >> opposed as a vote. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >>
006Okay. What's the pleasure of the board on the meeting minutes from 55? >> I make a motion we approve the minutes of uh May. >> Second. >> Any discussion on that? >> One item for discussion. And just want to bring something up that I had to amend. Uh it's right under the secretary motion. The board voted on additional leaison and authorizations that were not on the agenda. So they were considered invalid. I asked the the town council about that. >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat that please? >> So you guys ended up trying to do nominations that weren't on the agenda. >> Oh yes. >> I tried to put them I didn't want Liz to have to do them in my absence. So I I put them to this meeting. So they're considered invalid. So
007they're on this agenda. That's the only note that technically wasn't in the minutes. Just want to bring that to your attention. Good. >> Do you think it should be added to the minutes? >> Yes. Okay. >> Do you want to send us? >> It's already in there. It's right under the secretary line. It's in parenthesis. >> Oh, I want to bring it to attention. >> Okay. Very good. >> That's all. >> Using the vote. >> Do we have a motion? >> Uh, yeah. And seconded, I believe. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> I >> Okay. Um as far as uh 81 PS, we have none. Uh third on the agenda, we've got the amend amendment to site plan application. It was continued for 421 31 Beaver Street, Slick City Propane Storage. What is >>
008just a board to aware Rich Gordon from Bay State uh who is the applicant is on um Oh yeah on Zoom. >> All right. Okay. So is there um has there been any um any update status on the safety issue that was uh discussed? >> Hi Rich. Did you uh did you want to make some sort of presentation or you want me to just kind of review what has transpired since the last time and see if the board has questions? >> Yeah, that's fine. Why don't you uh give an overview and I can chime in as needed? Uh so I um I sent out an email to uh basically all the um parties including the structural engineer um that was um on the building permit. Um and uh he met on the structural engineer. Um
009myself, Rich and a few other people from uh Bayate um were on site to take a look at the walls. Um the structural engineer um well the the first thing um is the the plans in front of you are revised. Um they primarily are revised to show the locations um that are the locations of the walls on the approved plans for the um for the site. The previous structural design for the walls, it's not a huge difference, but there there was a difference just to be clear. So they had the wrong set of plans when they installed the wall. >> They Yes. Um it they the it wasn't sub it wasn't a substantial change. There was one wall that was eliminated. There was another wall that was um the alignment was altered slightly. Um and
010then the one that was I guess the most significantly different hasn't been built yet. So >> even so >> yes. So um these need to be submitted to the building department. They were just submitted today. Um they need to be submitted to the building department. So that these are the um drawings of record for the building permit for the wall. In the meantime, they have been working diligently to try and um make it safer there to um to fix the wall where they can um to take it apart in areas where it needs to get rebuilt. Um I went out there yesterday and there's shims in the wall. So they left in areas they left the bottom two rows of block which are apparently not level and uh shimmed in between level two and level
011three so that level three is straight. >> It's level >> is level. the um >> one and two are not >> correct. The structural engineer um referenced this in his letter um and he hasn't been out to the site since they did this to try and decide if you know that's something he feels comfortable working with or or how. So um the the exact fix is still a little bit up in the air. Um, but I definitely feel a lot more comfortable that they're working to try and get this correct. Um, the structural engineer is, you know, now that he's completed the design, he'll be able to go out and, um, inspect the site. Um, I'm going to require photographs and, um, and reports from him. Um I will also be visiting periodically no doubt.
012Um one of the things that was my very first question really was why did the wall fall down? Because I know as we discussed here there was a concern about um the base of the um wall not being on a proper >> foundation's a little bit of an odd word because it's not really like a concrete foundation. It's like a stone foundation, but um the structural engineer didn't feel like that was um that was an issue. Uh he believes that the sort of a combination of um the back fill material against the walls was siltier than it should have been. Um >> silkier. >> Siltier. That makes much better sense. Thank you. >> It does get silky when it's silty though. >> Um the it was siltier than um it was supposed to be and
013siltier material retains water which then um allows for the um allows for movement of the material and additional pressures on the wall. Plus, they had large equipment. There were snow piles. All of these things together um led to the the wall in particular on the right side as you go in um failing. Uh that side didn't fail as badly as the left side. um where it was um with all those same things were then coupled with uh the installation of a hydrant. Um and the operator of the um machine that was working there wasn't taking proper caution and um that was a big part of why that side fell down and was in worse condition. So structural engineer feels relatively confident that um that it can be rebuilt from the bottom that they're they have
014taken off the blocks as and like I said I was out there they have taken off on the left side as you go in they had taken it down to I think possibly the very first um level and where uh where it needed to some of the ones closer to the road the you know third and fourth rows were um in in fine condition so >> um those are have remained thus far so it's just going to be a work in progress but I feel like I said much better about the about us trying to make some progress now >> progress is a good thing >> Mr. Chairman, >> please. >> I don't feel comfortable. First of all, I haven't seen it, but the she where she said that the walls weren't level. The only
015way to do that, right, as far as I'm concerned, is to take it down from the bottom. >> Mhm. >> Start over again, make it level, and make it right. Shims don't belong in those walls. Those walls aren't designed to have shims in them. They're designed to have a good base, a good course of 3/4 in stone, level, and they set level and they build they build a wall after. And the wall does a good job. This blaming the operator for doing it. Well, there's two walls, one on each side. Is there a fire hydrant on each side that they hit? Uh it just I don't think it was put up right in the beginning and I think it should be started over in my opinion. Again, I don't have any clout in this this
016matter, but I just want my opinion to be known. This is what I think and I think it's totally wrong. They should start from the beginning. Start with the f the the footing again with the the rip wrap crush stone so it's it's sturdy and hold and we'll hold the wall and then go from there and build it correctly. That's that's my opinion. But again, I'm not an engineer. I'm just I'm just a guy who built walls. I will say that I think it's reasonable for the board to not I think it's very reasonable for the board not to approve the amended site plan until after the structural engineer has reviewed these shims in the wall to determine whether or not th this is something that he can move forward with or not. Because right
017now this is just it's it's just a maybe this will work, maybe it won't. And >> so I think getting a little bit further information or guarantee from the structural engineer would would make sense. Um there is sort of a fine line because if the structural engineer is willing to sign off on the construction of it, there's not really a lot that this board can do. Um but certainly putting it on the record makes sense. >> Anybody else? >> Yes, please. Uh yeah, Babe, I couldn't agree with you more. Um obviously just listening to you, Liz, town engineer wise, you're not you're not comfortable, right? And and you are a civil engineer. um I guess where we started and where we're going to. How many original walls did we originally start with and and how
018many and then how many walls are we going I I'll read through my questions and then come back to them then. How many original walls? How many failed of those original walls? Um what was the method of failure? The mode of failure. Um describe like through like what are the changes from what failed to what's going to be new and make me comfortable. I know a lot of this will deal with this the the um civil engineer or structural engineer um and then obviously and just reading through this letter as we just got it and just what you know what's in this memorandum and then how things are going to change through. So um like you said and going back right just from the get-go just couldn't agree with Babe more that the foundation is
019just that it's the foundation. It's the building blocks of of this wall structure. And if it's already failed, I don't have a lot of confidence right now. And unless the contractor goes straight down to the base that the base layer is uh inspected and is in that part of it is is signed off and then they can be allowed to build forward from there. my in my eyes. >> Martha, >> um just looking at the minutes of our last meeting, um Joe Caljone had requested reiterated a request that to the applicant. Excuse me. I'll read it instead of trying to summarize it. It's only one sentence. Mr. Caljone reiterated the request to the applicant was for a geotechnical engineer report for repair procedure for the walls blah blah blah. Is the structural guy a >>
020well so in in this particular case it it should be a in my professional opinion it should be a structural not a geotechnical >> um if I know there's discussion about possibly eliminating one of the walls that they haven't started constructing yet um and replacing it with a rip wrap slope. If that if they do propose that then that's the appropriate application for a geotechnical engineer but the wall itself is a structural engineers um domain um there's a certain amount of geotechnical work in it because it's sitting on the foundation but nonetheless I I feel as though the um structural engineer is the correct person to to be looking at it. >> Okay. May I continue, Mr. Chair? >> Yes, please. >> Um, it feels like I I'm sorry, I don't recall any specifics at
021all, but it feels like we've been going around with this one quite a lot. Are they Do you feel like they're responding properly to what we're asking for and timely manner? And >> they are now. Okay. Thank you. >> When is now? uh as when I sent out the email and uh to all of including as at the as the board requested, I um included Mark Nelson on there. Uh and Mark uh responded to all of us, including the applicant, and said that he would not be approving the fire departments or um the his he must make a recommendation to the select board. Um, both permits are required before the propane goes in. >> Um, and he was not going to move forward on that until he heard from until he heard further from me
022or the board. >> Yeah, it just I guess I'm speaking to the applicant's representative. You know, what the board asks for, we need to be receiving as requested in a timely manner. This I mean, we're just this is not obviously going to get acted upon tonight either. time. >> Um, well, I'll if it's okay, I'd like to chime in. >> Please go ahead. >> Um, yes. So, first of all, Liz, um, that was a very fair, um, synopsis of what's happened. I appreciate that. Um, and I certainly understand the board's concerns. Um, we know that we have an issue out there. You know, I own the building and I am the owner of Bay State Engineering. Um, you know, we built the wall. Um, you know, we are, um, it's very upsetting what happened out
023there and and I understand the concern and again, I appreciate that. Um, to dive in a little bit, um, the the right hand side wall uh, is primarily good and stable. And there is just one area where we have used some shims to just correct the top course a little bit. um because it wasn't really, you know, all that much out of whack. And everywhere else we are um we do have a good base and we have good solid wall coming all the way up. The engineer has been out there as Liza said and evaluated that. And as far as this one area where we have uh some shims um just to level it up some for the capstone, uh we understand we are at the engineers's discretion on that. And so we had suggested
024it when we were out there with Richard Bushnell if we give that a try. He said okay give it a try. But you know he has the last say. He has to sign an affidavit. We 100% will adhere to whatever he says. Um we are certainly not trying to cut corners. We're just trying to correct the situation. U make it safe and get it done expeditiously. Um, I think that, you know, we'd welcome any of you to come and visit on site if you wanted to see it up close. Um, and you would see what I'm talking about and we really don't feel and I think that Liz has said that that we have um a safety issue on that right hand side of the driveway anymore. Um, and again, of course, he has to
025sign off on it. He has pictures and documentation and we have employed him to do weekly visits now. And he's out there the other day with us and Liz. um and we've kind of formulated a plan going forward and I think that he summarized it in his letter pretty well. Um, you know, the the the bigger failure out there, um, in my opinion is that left-hand side wall and, you know, it was a combination of some conditions, but ultimately we had an operator when we were installing the water line and around the area of the hydrant. Um, they were putting in some inferior fill, not to my knowledge on couple days when I wasn't there. And worst part was he was running the machine right up against that wall and basically pushed out the block.
026Um, and it created sort of a a wiggle in that wall. It pushed over a section. I didn't like what I saw, so we took it all down. And as Liz has Liz has said, just at the very beginning on the lefth hand road, there's just one small piece uh at the wetland crossing, and that's in perfect condition. So, we didn't really we didn't touch that, but we've taken everything else down. Um, we have no intention of putting a single block back on the reconstructed area, the full wall, which is a the larger of the walls. It's a it's a very big wall. It's a big undertaking. Um, at this time, we've just been working on cleanup. Um, we've been cleaning up against the silt fence, pulling all that material back, prepping the base, um,
027installed with the proper base course in lifts compacted. Um, and we are of course awaiting u, you know, the board approval to proceed. um with the permit to build the wall. And of course, I understand um propane and and electric transformer and things of that nature. Um you're holding back on approvals for that until you see this wall was reconstructed properly. I honestly couldn't agree more. I'm I'm on board. We are willing and able. We have the proper manpower out there. Um it did sit a little too long. Um, but we were waiting for apparently we found out after the fact that we didn't have the proper permit for the building building of this wall which I think fell through the cracks um maybe a little bit on all of us um that it wasn't
028connected with the building permit. So, there was kind of a series of some snafoos out there. But as far as the failure, um, you know, the the bigger failure on that lefthand wall, it was it was operator error. And I can tell you that there was a guy who lost his job over it. Um, it's, you know, really embarrassing and horrible. And, um, we've got to do it right. We've got to fix it right. And I am working with the engineer, uh, Richard Bushnell. That's all he does is wall design. is very well versed with many many years of experience. He will be witnessing every bit of it and he will have site visits. He will be putting reports together. This thing will be more than by the book. Um so that's the goal. Um
029I own the building. I plan on owning it forever. I don't want to ever have a problem like this or anything, you know, associated with it ever again. So again, I I appreciate your time and letting me come in front of you and and kind of say my piece um and and hopefully give you some reassurances that this thing is going to be done right, it's going to be safe and it's going to be permanent. Um and you know, lastly, again, as I had mentioned, um we would not proceed with anything else further or try to get any type of sign off without my engineers affidavit. Um so that's basically our plan. Uh for right now, next couple days, we're going to just continue prepping the base. Um we have not laid any blocks. Liz
030uh mentioned that as well. Um we're just trying to get the base uh set and clean up along the wetland line, proceed with going down around that corner. Uh we're going to prep all that slope. There is a slope, a one to one slope in that area. I'm getting a little bit off topic, but you mentioned it. Figured I'd address it. Um we are going to employ a geotechnical engineer um to give us some verification and and backup on slope stabilization area um so that we'll have that documented and signed off properly which um according to Jim Sullivan and um Gerrarian Hanland who I spoke with today that is something they would be looking for. Um so we're already in motion on that. And then, um, Liz, you had mentioned the other wall that goes
031around that corner. Um, we were going to try to use rip wrap. Uh, we felt that maybe the slope would be adequate to rip wrap that and eliminate that wall. After talking with Rear Handling today, uh, it looks like we can reduce the size of that wall some. It was a little overbuilt. Um, so we're going to have a redesign on that one wall, which we wouldn't do until we get our engineered drawings into you. but it's just basically a revision of what was there, but it's smaller. Um, so that's kind of the summary of where we're at and where we're going. And, um, um, I just request that we find a way forward here so that we can keep going, um, and and get this thing done and built as soon as possible. Um,
032we really don't want to stop. I have the right crew out there. We've got all the right materials. We've got the engineer. We've got everybody. Um, it's really important. I feel for everybody and for safety and for the building and for everything that that um we please be able to proceed with construction and get this thing back up and safe and secure the site. So thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> So Chris, just so that to answer your question about the number of walls and which Yeah. >> So the there are four walls shown on the plan here, >> right? the on the right hand side as you go in the kind of U-shaped wall. >> Yes. >> Is one wall. >> Yeah. Wall. Yeah. Right hand side. Wall four. >> Yeah.
033>> Left hand side. Wall three. >> Wall four. Which shade are you on? >> And the >> um this guy right here. >> One of three. >> Top one right there. >> In a light blue. It's >> the top one that you have. Yep. >> Okay. In a light blue, you can see it says proposed face of wall number four. kind of on the right hand side of >> see your this is your entrance. Sorry. This is your entrance in coming off of the the street. So wall three is on the south side of the entrance. Wall four is on the north side of the entrance. Wall five is to the west of that. >> Yeah, that one the smaller one. >> This old one. >> Yeah. >> Blue print blue. >> So wall four
034is this U1. >> Okay. Wall five is this longer one. >> Okay. This is wall three. >> Jiminy Crickets. >> This is wall two. This is the one that has not been constructed. Wall two has not been constructed and they're looking at making a revision. And wall one was eliminated >> um based on the reconfiguration of the >> Thank you. um the building and parking lot when it went from a manufacturing warehouse to the current use. >> So where was where was wall one first proposed and that's what's going to be rip wrap? >> No, wall one was eliminated >> just all together. >> Alto together. So when the original plan was um submitted to the board, >> it was for a warehouse, I think. >> Um so the building itself was shaped differently and
035it required different parking. >> Okay. >> So when they changed it to this use, the uh configuration of the site changed and no longer required that wall. >> Okay. Um, wall two is the one that they're apparently now not looking to eliminate, but are looking to alter. >> Okay. >> Um, >> but that was never that was not constructed as of yet. It's a there's a slope all the way across there. >> So, at the risk of jumping the gun, I guess I guess I'm speaking both to Matt and Liz. Um, when might we continue this too? I I mean, I don't want to keep seeing this every time and just push it right down the road. I think Rich um do you do you expect that um that Richard will be able to have
036um a a decision I guess on whether or not the the shimming is something that he's comfortable with because I think that's if that's if that's part of the repair plan that is what I think this board wants to see >> and we going to be about it. >> Excuse me. >> Uh I'm not sure what day he's coming back out to look at that. Um I'm trying to get them out before the end of the week. So um as far as the shimming and again where it's only in that one area, um I would I guess I would ask the board if we could just leave that as a contingency for the moment. um as far as what he recommends or approves for the repair on that specific spot, but if there is a
037way that we could um at least continue construction of the main big wall so that we can keep that going for all the reasons I previously stated. Um I think that really would be the best path forward. Um and I understand that we can leave the shimmed area out for another discussion. um he's going to come back to us with either some u protocol on how to handle that. That would be acceptable to him or he's going to say those in that area, just take those blocks right off. We didn't take them off in that one area because the grid and the stone were all set and it's near the transformer pad and we just um didn't want to just jump right into pulling blocks in that one section. But again, if there's, you know,
038some way that we could just keep going with the bulk rebuild um based on those >> contingencies that that that would be acceptable. >> Yeah. The the me anyway, >> the board is not trying to stop you from um moving forward on uh actually they don't have the ability to stop you from moving forward um on on the walls. So, it's just that before uh before they will and I'm don't so far so good. >> My recommendation to the board would be that you don't um that you don't approve the amendment for the propane until you have an answer on the shimmed part of the wall uh and the and the revision here. Certainly uh any the any portion of the wall that's not shimmed, you can they we they want to see it put
039together and put back together as um safely and quickly as possible. >> Okay. No, that that's that's that's fair. I I can totally understand that and that keeps us going. Um, so I would say we would be prepared to address that at whatever your very next meeting would be because I'm sure I can get him out there within the next several days. Um, if not very first of next week. Um, so we would be prepared with him on board with the recommendation and by then we could even have whatever he recommends for repair to be done so he could sign off on it. Um, I'm not sure how often you guys need. So, I guess the next meeting, even if it's a couple weeks, that would be fine. >> Yep. >> Yeah, they meet every
040two weeks. Uh, well, they meet >> if that's >> Yeah, if that's okay with you guys, um, I I' I'd be good with that. >> It would be June. I can >> I would again it's not a preview but if you're going to the structural engineer visiting weekly or something >> is not heartwarming. Uh he should have a represent him or a representative should be there when the when the foundation goes in to see that the foundation's done right. It's the most important part of the whole wall >> and they should be there watching the excavation to make sure the material below it is uh satisfactory and the foundation itself is put in satisfactory. That's that's my opinion. >> So >> yeah, I think I think the approach here is that um they are and
041this is why they've been working on it even though the structural engineer hasn't been out there. They've been taking apart the upper layers down to what and and there was discussion with the structural engineer, but they're not going to start rebuilding anything until the structural engineer approves the base. >> Yeah. I'm also he want he wants to go along with the long wall, which I again I agree with him 100%. We shouldn't hold them up, but I when we're doing that, I want to make sure I feel that we should >> Which wall? The one on the left, >> the one they uh the one he says they want to start constructing. >> Can we call them one, two, three, and four? >> Yeah, it's wall it's wall three. >> The wall three is the
042one that they're they've removed a lot of the blocks. Not the whole length, but they're but they're not going to start rebuilding until after he sees the base. >> Is there a wall that hasn't been built yet? >> The wall that hasn't Oh, okay. So when you build, you're saying wall two. >> Yes. >> When you go to construct wall two, >> he's requesting that you have the structural engineer or a representative on site during the uh construction of the foundation piece if they're if they're building it. >> Yes. If I wasn't clear on that, that is a absolutely what our plan is. He's he's we're not putting any block on the base course that we're prepping right now until he comes out and approves the base course. >> Yeah, >> that if I wasn't
043clear on that, I apologize. That is the plan. >> Yes. Uh but in regards to wall number two, which is the one that has not begun to be constructed yet. That's the one over by the wetland replication area. >> Yes. He'll have to witness the bottom of that as well. Yes, >> that that that is that was his that was his request. >> Good. >> Yes. Now that that I understand, Mr. Manini, um that that's fine and that is our plan. We will have a base inspection, bottom crush stone inspection, compacted that he will see and witness and sign off on before we put any block on it. That is the plan. >> Okay, I'm satisfied. >> Go ahead, Chris. Um, so there was also some problems with the fill, right? And there was which
044walls had >> So let me let me Yeah, let me address the fill. So um, >> as far as Phil goes, you know, there was Oh, I'm sorry if I was interrupting. As far as the bill goes, everything is being excavated out on all the walls being rebuilt um going forward and every bit of material coming back in is all brand new processed gravel and crushed stone. >> Okay. >> Nothing's being reused. We're not taking any chances with it. >> Yeah. Which they they can't they have to remove it because in order to put in the geog grid, they need to remove what's there. and the structural engineer um I believe is even um requested civ analysis of the material being brought in. >> So and my other >> correct >> question kind of to
045go back. >> So wall three failed. >> Wall four is okay. >> Wall three >> wall four wall three failed significantly. All four had some >> I don't know I it whether or not it failed is something that the the structural engineer would have to >> so wall three and wall four constructed of the same materials. >> Yes. >> Are we changing the materials of wall three >> because of the structural failure? >> Yes. >> So why isn't is wall four need to change? Because if wall three failed and wall four is made of the same materials as wall three, why shouldn't why what is to prevent wall four from from failing? >> So that that's not that's not accurate. Um there was new gravel and new stone on all the walls everywhere. The reason
046why we're saying that we had some silty material in and around it was because we unfortunately had a stockpile of the excavated material from on site very close to that wall along with a mountain of snow that got stockpiled on that area and that's where we had the trouble. Um, no, we've already shown the engineer and we've dug some bits and um, also along with the fact that he witnessed the wall being built before um, we have shown that we have new imported processed gravel everywhere. We did not use inferior materials. That's not why it failed >> strictly. That does not that doesn't even make sense. >> Um, nope. and the so the wall number four part of the reason and this is I am not a structural engineer but as a civil engineer >>
047my um my thought is that part of the reason that wall four stayed up better than wall three was there's an electrical duck bank on the wall four side of the driveway and that the geog grid under the duct bank was probably better um >> situated >> just because it it had the electrical duck bank in it. >> Um I >> that's that's correct. I don't I don't recall, and I'm not going to say one way or the other, but I don't recall there being um pavement removed on the um on the wall for side as you went in. So, I I don't know that I I don't know that I would agree that the material was removed. It may have been. I just >> and here's you know we're going to go down the
048road of of too much detail. It's in sense I know it's out of our purview I think as as we had discussed to move forward is is to making sure the other aspects of the site plan that we did approve are being done appropriately before we can even move ahead with any site plan amendments. And I think that to me is having a you know a certified letter from a structural engineer or the geotechnical engineers before we can even move forward and that that is of my opinion >> which which is required honestly no matter what. >> So please >> so it sounds like snow storage was a contributing factor to the wall failure. Where's snow storage going to be? Those storage going to be on the opposite end of the site in the future.
049Is >> it designated on the site plan? We used to do that. Do we still do that? >> Yes, we do. >> We sometimes, not always, but I' I'd like to see it on this one. >> Um I >> there's going to be um a guardrail and landscaping along the wall side. >> Yeah, I think it's um this is going to be coming back in front of the conservation commission. >> Okay. Um, >> I was thinking we don't want the snow in the wetlands. >> The conservation commission has um has become um has has started to put in signs and I think we had some on this but it was over by not by the entrance. Um but we certainly can add some no snow storage signs along the wall. >> Yeah. Um, I think
050that's I think that's a reasonable thing for me to bring to the conservation commission and ask them to add if not I mean you guys certainly can ask for it as um back in my day >> back in back back in a couple centuries ago um we used to designate it on the plans. >> Yeah. >> No storage area. I I'd like to see it on this one. >> I there we can do that. >> Yeah, there >> I think your signage here is also important on site for the guys actually doing the plowing. >> Exactly. >> Um not that they're likely to pay attention to it, but >> be covered with snow. How will they know? >> A little bit. Um I I do believe we had some sort of snow storage area on
051this one, but I'm not positive. Okay. >> Well, I'll double check. And if there isn't, then certainly they can add it. >> Thank you. Thank you. kind of beat this up as much. I make a motion that we continue it till what's the next meeting, Matt? >> June 2nd. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> Have a vote. >> I >> unanimous. Okay. >> You continue to June 2nd. June two. >> Thank you, Rich. >> Thank Thank you. Appreciate your time. Have a good night. >> Good night. >> Good call. >> Okay. Um >> been round and round on it. >> Next order of business is the uh ZVA referral to Mason Drive. I'm going to recuse myself on this one. >> Also recusing myself. All right. >> Uh, >> so given
052we have two recusals on this, we do not have a quorum. Correct. So we have to table this to our next agenda. >> Correct. >> Sorry. Is anyone here for two Mason Drive? >> Okay. Sorry folks. We're going to have to take this one at the next meeting because we only have two members and we need three for a quorum. >> It'll be June 2nd. >> Yes. >> So it's just the planning board making a recommendation to the zoning board. The zoning board is the actual public hearing for the matter and that is held uh second week second Thursday of June. >> Second Thursday of June. Okay. So >> So would that be a month later or the next week after? >> It'll be the week >> the week after. >> Yes. >> I believe
053it does. >> So you recommend we not attend? >> It's completely up to you. It's just it's not an open public discussion. So the chairman doesn't have to call on the public for comments if he doesn't want to because we're just going to make a simple recommendation whether or not they should do it or not. >> That's it. >> Thank you very much. >> I want to I cruising myself because my brother has lives >> as a ne is a director of mother. >> Right. >> So >> good call. >> Sorry big time. Sorry. >> That's too bad. Ready to go. That's fine. I'm sorry. Okay. Um, next order of business, we have the waiver of a site plan application 20 Main Street Main. >> There we go. All right. So, Mr. the chairman may
054we have here this is a waiver. Sorry, question. I put amendment in the letter. There should be waiver of site plan review for changing use from a mini mart to an office on property located at 20 Main Street. I've also printed these out if you want to take one and pass it down. Um proposed office use in the CB district subject to site plan review. So at first glance I consider this a home occupation because the bylaws as the owner intends to use a space for his own business. However, parking requirements for a home occupation are for not more than two spaces must be provided in the front yard. The plan shows two spaces. However, there no longer exist because as you see in the photo, there's a handicap ramp, an ADA compliant ramp in
055the front. So, those spaces no longer exist. So, the area of the proposed office is 300 ft. Parking requirement is four spaces per one per 1,000 square ft. So, I'm going to say it needs two spaces because it's 300. So, they could be in the rear in this case since it's not a home occupation. They could be in the rear. There are three residential units totaling six spaces. So, the property would need eight spaces. You look at the GIS map, it looks like there's a large shared parking area and with both neighbors. This plan doesn't show any striping of any kind. So therefore, unless the applicant demonstrates sufficient parking is provided in the rear, if if they can, then great. If if not, I'd recommend unfavorable and ask them to submit an amended site plan.
056So >> that's where we're at with this. If the board wants to consider this a home occupation, but there's no parking in the front. If they think they could squeeze one space out of that, then I don't think so. It' be blocking the ramp. So, it be on the sidewalk for the most part. Okay. >> Okay. >> Being treated as a as a change of use, it allows them to put the two spaces in the back. So, it actually helps. So, you guys show see if the members have other questions. Go ahead. >> My first question is obviously this um existing plot plan that is that is stamped >> doesn't show the ramp out front, >> right? >> Or the the stairway. >> This is this approved in 2003, >> right? So that needs to
057probably be updated at a minimum, >> right? So they're asking for a waiver. So that's part of the request to submit the original plan. >> Yeah. because then it is showing the two spaces which obviously is um it's changed right so we've got to we've got to keep up with the changes to this to this so yeah and then I'll back so the basically the the rear section there's really no designation on any where the parking is overall um I didn't get a chance to go by the the uh site itself out back um but based on what I'm seeing here from Ariel. I don't know if there's any difference in what I'm seeing again on the the existing plot plan. Even though it is dated, there is nothing that is showing for parking spaces.
058So, got to get some stuff updated here in my opinion. >> The board any other questions? >> Okay. Would you like to go ahead and guess quickly as far as change of use? I'm okay with that part of it. You know, changing from the from the mini mart to to an office, right? That part of it. I have no >> no no issues there. I think it's just the the site itself needs to come up to um >> come up to what it what it is shown in actual. So So from that standpoint, um >> how as far as like representing the amount of parking spots cuz I know we could definitely get to well above eight. How do we do so? I guess in this case, >> get your name for the record. >>
059Kevin Rivero. R I B E I R O. >> And your relationship to the >> uh he's my father. >> Gotcha. So, >> gotcha. So, you guys are at 20 M. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you want to talk about the plan and the change of use or what's going on? >> Um, well, so it used to be a mini mart. Uh, owner of the Mini Mart decided to close down. And, um, I work from home and we have a business that we run together separately as well. So, we kind of wanted to just condense everything into one space >> and kind of leave work at work and then home at home. Um, so as far as that, that's really the intention. And then I guess from the concerns that Chris has made, I guess
060I just want to know how we can go about doing so to show parking spaces or update any site plans. How do we specifically go about doing so so we can do so properly? >> Question for you. >> Yeah. So I reach out to this engineer if he's still in business or not. It's it's hard to say. Yeah. I don't even know what company PN Associates Framingham. I don't know if they're still in business. This is 23 years ago. >> Yeah. >> So, if they still have the data, they can use that and create parking spaces in the back. So, we need to see is eight spaces in the back. >> Spaces. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Eight. And uh the ability for a emergency vehicle to get back there if they even need that. The
061fire department didn't say anything about that. >> And I'll pay, >> right? All paid. >> Yes. Uh >> has to be all paved. >> Yeah, it's going to be a Liz question which comes back in just to ensure on that. >> Sure. >> Cuz we're talking about >> the impervious. It's partially paved. Um yeah, whether you know whether that's just going to be through the layout. Is that a land surveyor or is that a full engineer? I'm not sure, but or if you get all in one. you are going to have to reach out to that type of business to be able to uh lay out the parking spots appropriately. >> So, like a surveyor of some sort. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, >> I believe there's a question. >> Oh, sorry. >>
062Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. So, 20 Main Street, the back uh parking area. Um it's partially paved. Um we we've just said that it would in order to move this forward um definitely need to designate the eight parking spaces that would be required. Uh also the the front porch um two porches are are not designated on the current plans. So that would should also be um included because it does show two parking spaces up front. So told the applicant that that's really what we're we would be looking for. Uh there's a question now on whether that area uh what sort of upgrades do you feel may be necessary? >> This is an application for site waiver of >> Yeah. Yeah. So we're talking about amendments. So chances are >> Yeah. I would say
063my I would say my recommendation is that you don't um approve the waiver of site plan review if there's if there are these items that need to be um addressed and certainly showing the parking spaces that are required for um for the not only parking spaces but ADA parking spaces. Um so grading um that although are you making changes to the building itself? No. Or the space itself. It would just be clearing out what's there and then throwing some desks, chairs and >> so just internal >> Yeah. >> interior. So, so then um so whether or not you have to fully comply with the new with um handicap um accessibility and all that um obviously it doesn't make sense to fully require that outside the building if it's not part of what's being re when
064they have to bring the building up to code if they're spending a certain amount of money. It sounds like they're probably not having to bring the building up to code. So, it's it's a judgment call uh on the on the board's behalf and I certainly when we have a plan, it's something I can look at and >> yeah, >> make a recommendation to you on >> again with with the problems with the parking hearing. I definitely would not uh vote for a waiver. Uh I definitely you have to go for a amended site plan. As far as the handicap accessibility accessibility, that's the bullet inspector makes his the calls on all that. >> Yeah. And that's something that I typically would discuss with him. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else? I make a motion that
065we not grant the uh labor or site plan review. >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> I' I' I'd like to make sure these gentlemen know what it would mean if we that we pass the motion that's on the floor. Do do you understand if we don't grant you the waiver the basically >> you'd have to take instead or against >> I get it. >> So basically we just have to uh hire out a surveyor or reach out to them >> and then bring that documentation in and okay >> and prove that we can comply. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I mean that's I mean they have a lot of what you need already on here. It's just that you need to >> the additional >> supplement it. Yeah. Think >> it was worth a
066shot? >> Absolutely. I mean, prior to I didn't realize about the parking, but I we had discussed this and I thought it was >> a good I thought it was a good um candidate for No, I thought it was a good candidate for the waiver of site plan review, but I didn't realize there were issues with the parking. >> Okay. >> All right. Um we have a vote. All in favor? I >> here's a note >> we got from the fire department >> just right circled there >> and then is that uh site plan on mine? >> Yes. >> All right. Did you want a copy? >> All right. Yeah, if you don't mind. >> Not at all. Thank you. >> Is that the one you want? >> Yeah. That's the plan that they give
067us. >> Yeah. >> You all set? >> Yes. >> Awesome. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Sorry for the wait. No worries. >> Is the Okay. Um the board um So, in a case like this where they're going to come back with an amended plan, does the board entertain waiverss of application fees in cases like this? I'm just curious. Did they have did it cost them? >> Yeah, it was $200, >> which is the same as this. Yeah, I would absolut My recommendation would be to wave it. I think that's an excellent point, Matt. >> The waiver application fee and the amendment application fee are the same. >> Um, that's a good question. >> Can we just say knock 200 off? >> They are. They are
068the same because they were they were always the same thing when Larry was here. >> Sure. >> The waiver and the amended. So, say they apply within within a year, wave the fee for the amended application, something like that. >> I would say, yeah, bring it. >> So, move. >> I would just say bring it to our attention when they come back and we can make that part of the >> of the motion or or a separate line item within it. Um, just because it's not the only thing I would suggest is not voting on it now just because it's not part of the agenda. >> No call. Let let Matt know that once Matt knows that >> that doesn't do it then he we can bring it up when they come with the >>
069Right. I would say bring it up. >> So >> this way they're going to submit the check with the application. What do we just hold on to it? >> Okay. I was going to say because this check is required as part of the application. Yeah. This whole >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah. All right. Fair. >> Okay. Uh moving on. Um, such a nice >> anything on the uh planning rule planning board rules and regulations. >> I did have some zoning by amendments that I was working on. I was adding some new uses to our uh use table, including a fitness center, which is one that we don't have. Um, I have on my computer. I'll bring them to our next meeting. I was working on a few things. >> I would the zoning bylaws.
070I would like to put a zoning get a zoning bylaw in to turn the CB district back to residential and commercial like it was before. We they changed it and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing that we ever did. You got downtown. >> You Yeah. Well, all the way down East Main Street and all that. >> Oh, I got up and spoke the craziest thing I've ever seen. >> Right. And it shouldn't have been done in in this crisis. We have a crisis of residential >> y >> spots and we're knocking them off. It's It was crazy. >> I am 100% behind you. >> And I think we should go back to CB was residential and commercial. >> Yep. >> As long as I can since 1964 when they did the the original
071zoning bylaws >> here and here. >> Yes, please. >> Sounds good. Wouldn't that have just made a whole bunch of houses uh non-conforming? >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. That's Yeah, that's helpful. >> I wish I'd been better. I I was I after I spoke at town meeting, I I regretted not having been better prepared. I was the opposite of eloquent. And yet, apparently that was clear because town meeting did not take my suggestions. But um >> if I remember right, Reno spoke against that as well, didn't he? >> I know >> there was one there was something that he got up and spoke on in agreement with me. >> Obviously, I wasn't here, but uh I'm I'm assuming this was probably an economic development initiative that came forward with the community development manager. >> I
072do not know the background of it at all, but >> All right. So, let's put that on for discussion. >> Yeah, please. Thank you, babe. I I would not have thought of that. Thank you. I would Joe Cal would probably know where that came from though. >> Yeah. Yeah, I bet he would. >> I don't know. Yeah, he could be. >> What was the driving force behind that? >> It might be worthwhile just asking Joe Cal to see if he has some. >> Okay. I don't know roughly when that happened. >> Well, gee, 10 years ago. >> Oh, no. More than that, cuz I was a town meeting member. >> Okay. And I I would that was so far ago I barely remember. >> I'd say at least 60 >> years ago. >> It was
073It was definitely not two years ago. >> I got it right here. RA to CB. Uh October 2018. >> Cool. Babe, did I say this about two years ago? >> I think I jumped at six. >> You said 10. And that was 10 up in the air. >> 10 was still close enough. was on your side. >> That's a long time. Yeah. >> All right. >> Okay. Um >> Yeah, that one. Any other me wrong? >> Uh no, nothing on that right now. >> Uh town planner updates >> on the rules and regs. Uh nothing from council. We just finished town meeting. Hopefully I'll get something from them soon. Um >> as far as town planner updates, uh could talk about town meeting. I obviously wasn't there, but I'll wait for you guys to do
074that. So I don't have any updates. >> Okay. Um, town engineer. >> Uh, I don't have anything that I can think of. Uh, unless anybody has any questions. >> The only update I have is I just want to say that, uh, Chris did a wonderful job representing us at town meeting and, uh, very successful in presenting the article >> and, uh, it was approved unanimously. >> Excellent. >> Thank you, commission. >> Um, any member updates? just to go on with that. >> Welcome back, babe. >> Good to see you in person. >> Yes, sir. >> And those that just to recall that was the Mullen rule uh article. So, again, that one just allows a member uh to miss a meeting and be able to partake >> in any follow-up uh meetings, which is good.
075So, appreciate that going through. >> The other ones that we passed over because are are we going to Yeah, we got to we got to do it all again in the full. >> Yeah. No, I just Are you are you going to put it on is it do you guys want to see it right away? Do you want to wait until later? >> There's certain timelines that I have to adhere to. So, it has to be closer to town meeting. >> Really? >> Yeah. >> It's weird. Like our public hearing has to be within 65 days of town meeting. >> Yeah. >> Interesting. I didn't know that. So, >> hold that thought. It's his job. >> It's a good idea, but the >> rules are rules. Pleasure of the board. >> So that's the same.
076>> I make a motion we adjourn. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I I thank you very much, >> gentlemen. >> And we'll see you at the June 2nd will be our next meeting. Uh