001Welcome to the uh planning board meeting of um December 16th. Um just want to let everybody know that uh Babe Mini will be participating remotely. If there's uh anyone that has any questions, uh they can raise their hand. Um why don't we go through the agenda? The first order of business are the minutes from the November meeting. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion on that? >> I'd like to thank Matt for I made a couple um suggestions and thank you Matt very much. Appreciate it. I know I'm a pain in the neck. >> Great. Vote on that. All in favor? >> Yes. We have to do roll call votes since we have a >> member participating remotely. >> Oh, look at the what >> is that Dante? >> Yes. >> Okay.
002Well, we've got um >> favor five in favor. >> Is that the roll call? >> Yeah, we have to do it one by one. So, >> Joe Cal >> I Yes. I [laughter] >> that sounded like I >> I think it was I. >> Oh, he's adorable. >> Say your name and then your vote. >> Whatever. Then your vote. So, we'll do that next time. We're good. >> Okay. [snorts] >> He's so cute. >> Okay. Number two [snorts] item is uh 81P. We have um the uh McGill Lane Whale Street discontinuence. Yes, sir. This item was on our town meeting warrant. This is the discontinuence of an old section of way that was eliminated when the highway went in. This um this is the this plan meets all of our ANR requirements. I recommend endorsement
003of this plan. This would help discontinue that useless section of road. So th this is a section that go uh of um McGill Lane that goes up to that club. Thank you. Um so it discontinu there's a portion that has resident residential homes on it. We're basically drawing a line past the residence and we're discontinuing all of McGill above that and all of Wales which connects Wales actually starts over on Purchase Street, but it was cut off by 495. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> And that was actually why McIll was um constructed to reconnect that portion of Wales to a street. Um but the um fun club owns both sides of it and it's just extra work for the town to take care of it. So [clears throat] >> this is a followup to
004a prior vote of ours if I >> No, we sent we sent a favor to the board of select right do this. So effectively we've already said what this shows. >> Yes. So, this is just to make the legal document so that they can deed so they can deed it off to the >> My husband's bringing my eyeglasses so I won't have to do this. >> Make a motion we sign the 81P. >> I was trying to figure out the wording. Second. >> Okay. Any discussion on that? >> Okay. Take a vote on that. >> Joe Caljone. I >> I we we could we don't have to do this one by one. >> No, >> Chris is Yes. >> I >> Okay. >> And Joe Mariah says I as well. >> Okay. So, uh, item
005number three is the old cedar court. It's the definitive subdivision piece first. So, what we have here is we have an expired contract acts as kind of a covenant for the subdivision. This construction of the old Cedar Court way in order to give this project frontage. This was already done. And so now the propertyy's since been sold. So, an extension of the contracts in order so they can continue building the roadway in order to provide frontage for the lot. Um, the applicants here if you want any questions about it, but this is more of a formality at this point. The extension contracts been reviewed by town council and it's all set to go. After that, we can discuss the uh the next item on the agenda. This is just a contract for the subdivision itself.
006Looking for a term of extension. I recommend the two-year extension because that's what the original contract was for. And now that it has a new owner, give them the two years that the original contract was originally intended for. >> Okay. Any uh comments? Vote to vote to sign the extension to the uh OA [clears throat] court definitive subdivision >> for two years. >> Second. a quick discussion. I had I did have a conversation with town engineer about whether one year to two-year um you know I had just looked at it since this had had already been kind of in the pipeline and why the the need for a two-year extension. Um I was kind of more in line with a one-year but we did have an extensive back and forth conversation and and and certainly
007can understand why extending a two-year is is warranted in this case. >> I don't think it sets us back either way. I mean it only affects them. So >> yeah. >> Okay. It's the pleasure of the board on that one. >> Did you already have the motion? >> Motion was by Joe. Second by >> Yeah, I think I seconded. Right. >> Yeah, you did. >> You vote on that? >> I the vote >> I >> no. Yes. >> Yes. >> And uh I abstained on this one. Okay. The second portion is the actual plan for amendment. Okay, Mr. Chairman, what we have here? New owners applicants wish to make some minor amendments to the plan. Was found that the contract needed expiration, so we did that. The amendments proposed special permits decision which acted as
008site plan review in this case was not restricted the applicant therefore runs with the land. Um the applicant will review the amendments. I consider them minor in nature request uh the changes be reflected in the asill plan. That's my notes on this. So if the applicant has anything else. >> Thanks Matt. My name is Michael Dryen. I'm a senior project manager with Allen Engineering. Here on behalf of the current owner of 80 Old Cedar Court, TAC Milford LLC and I don't recall what the makeup of the board was back in um fall of 2023. I I think at least a couple of the members of are still on the board, but you'll recall that as Matt mentioned, a special permit with site plan approval was issued for a three-story self- storage facility and also as
009also mentioned the definitive subdivision for Old Cedar Court. uh the new owner uh with wishes to make some changes uh to the plan that was approved uh essentially to suit more align with their programmatic needs and their typical functionality of their self- storage facility. So, um I'm not sure if the board has my December 10th correspondence. If so, on page two and also there were plans, Matt, I don't know if those were distributed >> those. Yes, >> I do have plans here, but if you have them in front of you, it's probably easier just to follow along. >> So, on page two of my memo, uh, I outline, I don't know, eight or 10 bullet items, and I just like to quickly walk you through those changes. And again, they're as redlined on the plans
010that you have, uh, attached to that letter. So, first and foremost, the building height. Uh, the initial self- storage facility had a drivethru component. That component essentially raised the entire height of the building for clearance reasons for the drive-through component. So, we're decreasing we're removing that component and decreasing the height from 55 ft to 37 ft. So, that's about a 33% reduction in height. The building footprint does increase somewhat from 34,000 to about 37,800 ft. That's about 11% increase. And then the overall square footage same increase by about 11%. Uh but as a result of reducing the height of the building, the actual overall mass and bulk of this building is reduced. As I mentioned, the vehicular drive-thru component has been removed. And in conjunction with that, there were five interior parking spaces. There were
011also floor drains and a tight tank located outside of the building. All of those components will be removed uh as well. Just a little bit about site circulation and loading. Uh there's there was a raised loading dock in the back of this building. Uh the current owner does not need to accommodate full-size tractor trailers on this site. So that raised dock will go away. Uh and the site was designed to accommodate those larger vehicles. So, we're able to reduce, as you'll see on on the layout materials plan, uh the hatched area is a reduction in the pavement. A pretty significant reduction. We still have ample width of pavement around the building for uh life safety vehicles in circulation, but again, we just don't need that massive area of pavement behind the building for tractor trailers.
012Um, and also by reducing that pavement, we had a one one rip wrap slope for a significant portion behind the building. Now that that pavement goes away, we can flatten that slope and match the 2:1 slope uh for the rest of the site. So that rip wrap slope goes away. The approved plans showed security fencing around the entire facility with gates. The current owner does not require security fencing. So, we're proposing to remove all of the fencing around the entire facility. And stop me at any moment if you have any questions. Of course. >> Hold on. Did we lose them? >> No, it's just >> Okay. I just need to make sure that has to be on. >> Make sure he can hear you though. Ask him to >> Can you hear us? Babe, can
013you hear us? Yeah. You hear us? Okay, babe. He's on mute though. >> Sorry, >> it's on mute. It says muted, I believe. >> Says it's muted. >> Yeah, but it says no phone. >> [snorts] >> Welcome to Zoom. Enter your meeting ID followed by pound. 2656. >> Enter your participant ID followed by pound. Otherwise, just press pound to continue. You have entered the meeting as a panelist. Attendees can now hear you speak. This meeting is being recorded. [snorts] >> Just confirm that he can hear us. >> You there, babe? Can you hear us? Okay. >> The phone in the bottom left corner is is muted. Yeah. >> Yep. I'm on yours now, babe. Yeah, he can. He can. >> Yes, I can. >> There we go. >> All done. >> Yeah. All set now.
014>> The more we progress, the more we regress it. >> Sorry. Yeah. >> Shall I continue? >> Yes, please. Uh I was um I mentioned the fencing and while I'm on the subject of fencing, we did include a landscape plan. And one of the elements on the original plan is uh there's a bike path that actually runs through this site that connects uh the culde-sac at Old Cedar Court to the existing bike path. And we had a fence separating that bike path from the site plan. So, with all the fencing being removed, uh I'm showing uh the potential for some landscaping just to as a deterrent to to separate the the bike path uh from the self- storage facility. So, I'm you'll see that on sheet C5. It says shrub plantings if desired by owner.
015I just included that for your information. Um we'll work through that with the owner if they feel that that separation is important. And of course, if the board feels it's important, we can we can work through that as well. The next item on the list was lighting. On that same plan that shows landscaping, there were freestanding light poles. I believe there were 12 of them on the outside the perimeter of the parking area. We're proposing to remove those freestanding lights and mount all lighting on the building. That will not apply to the access drive that leads from Old Cedar Court uh to the parking area. Uh obviously, we can't light that with wall packs. So, the three light poles that are on the access drive would remain in place. Just a couple of other small
016items. Uh with that interior interior um drive-thru component being removed, the trash storage was also in that area. So, we'll have to accommodate an on-site 10x10 dumpster that's shown in the upper leftand corner of the building. And then finally, we're just proposing to relocate the transformer. Uh you'll note on the right side of the plan, it's closer to the access drive on the approved plan and would move to the northeast on the proposed Redline plan. So, that summarizes the changes. So, we would respectfully request that the board consider these minor changes as as Matt had mentioned. >> Also, the elimination of parking spaces. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. >> What is >> there's the bathroom? >> That's not on my list, >> but certainly should be six. >> Right. So, we had 13 spaces
017on the approved plan. Only four are required for this facility. >> [clears throat] >> So, as I mentioned earlier, we're removing the five parking spaces at the drive-thru and an additional five spaces on the left side of the plan or six spaces. So, we still have seven parking spaces where four are required. >> Thanks, Matt. Y any comments? >> I guess I just have I have one I can think of off the top of my head that the removal of the fence that for self storage you're removing all fencing. I guess I haven't seen any self- storage buildings that aren't fenced in. >> Yeah, the owner again is part of their program programmatic needs. They don't require fencing. to that point if you may. [clears throat] Um, when we originally had this come through, we
018did we had a, you know, a special permit and there was a motion with an extensive list of criteria. One of those criteria was uh, customer access to a self-unit shall be provided by PIN activated sliding vehicle access gate. So, that was part of the original motion [clears throat] and part of the special permit. So now we've removed fencing and therefore would have removed this this gate. So I guess and then to back up the motion that we set forth for the special permit and subject to the applicant, I'm assuming that the new applicant has to adhere to all of these special requirements or do we need to go back through and ensure that the applicant understands all these special requirements? And I guess is the applicant aware of all the special requirements? >> I
019am. We are. >> Okay. So I if I could uh I believe when this plan was first brought forth, we actually proposed the fencing and there was some discussion back and forth and I'm a little disappointed that it was written that way because I believe the fencing was proposed by the applicant at the time versus it being a concern or a requirement by the board. I think there was I think there was a concern from the board. I believe my recollection was there was concerns about the control of the site because there was comments from the water department in terms of of what would be stored there or not. And so that gave us some level of comfort that there would only be certain people entering and exiting the site because it was a controlled
020entrance. Um my my second actually I just thought of my second comment as we went through this is I don't I don't feel these are necessarily minor changes especially with the comments that were there and I believe that we need to go back to the boards especially the fire department with a change in in in widths and make sure that he's comfortable and I mean and to the water department to an certain extent. I mean, I I don't hopefully they've gotten over their comment that we don't believe this is an appropriate use and that we don't have the right to stop somebody from from going into a site that meets the zoning requirements. And I think we've had this conversation with them multiple times, but hopefully they can make an intelligent comment as to what
021their concerns are, if in fact a storage facility is going in here again, because I think that fence was part of what they felt a little more comfortable with. Um, I think that even I think no matter what, unless they're going to put the gate back up back into the plan and have the pin code, I think you need you would need to amend this anyway. So, I think >> Oh, you >> it's a I think it's a moot point. You either need to if you put a gate in with the keypad access, then maybe the board could consider it as a minor, but given that that's in there, they really can't because you're going to have to open it up to modify it. >> Well, I I I certainly understand if if it's the
022pleasure of the board and it's your it's your opinion that we need to keep the fencing, we'll keep the fencing. Um, and of [clears throat] course, um, if that changes your opinion versus a minor change or a major change, I'll emphasize it even more. [laughter] They'd love to see the fencing go away, but I do acknowledge that it's written in there. Um, so and and to the other point to your point, sir, regarding uh fire or water, we're happy to go meet with town officials and show them these plans. What we'd like to do is be able to move forward with construction as soon as possible and not have to refile and amend the permit. So, but we're happy to get input from town officials as you see appropriate as part of this informal amendment,
023administrative amendment if you will. >> And that's certainly something if you want us to that Matt and I can work on with the with the department. >> Yeah, I I I can't vote for it. I don't know that they anymore. I can't vote for it per se tonight, but I I think I'd like to know what department comments are before we before we agree to it. >> But I'm not saying, you know, any more than that. >> So, would it make any sense for us to consider it the requests that have been made other than the elimination of fencing and to consider it in that? Well, no, we still they still have they still have to me they still have payment that they've changed that the fire department hasn't looked at. >> Oh, okay. Yeah.
024Yeah. I forgot you mentioned that. Y >> So I I mean I don't think it's a big deal, but again until we get a letter from the from the fire chief, I'm not I'm not going to sit here and and make judgments for him. That's >> that's why we ask. >> I think that's reasonable. So, it's just I think what you need to decide is if you want them to if you definitely think this is major change and need to come back or if you're comfortable with us with Matt and I. Um I >> I don't think we can answer that until we see what the comments are, especially from from the water department. If they're again, if they we don't want this type of development, then then we've gotten nowhere and we need to
025act on it. We can't to me we can't deny it. If they come back with we're you know we're still worried about what might be in there. We'd be more comfortable with with the the fencing and I'd like to know that before I sign this >> fencing has it cannot be considered a minor if the fencing isn't put back in place. I think I I'm not saying you need to close yourself off to the possibility of calling it major later. I'm just saying that if you're going to call it major for sure, then you should just say that now. If you're willing to hear a little more information um from fire department and and get it on the on the um I guess in writing that they do intend to hold this um pin uh
026fencing. If they if they're going to do that and you get the comments, would you then consider potentially, not for sure, but potentially, could that be a minor? >> Sort of depending on the nature of the comments, >> right? If I could, in other words, assume for a moment that water and fire and other town officials are going to be okay with these changes. Uh, would the board entertain a determination of minor changes? >> I would. >> Yeah, I don't think there's anything that would stop me. What what defines major versus minor? >> Well, that's at your discretion. >> Exactly. [laughter] >> I mean, the only the only thing the only thing to me at that at that point that would >> I mean, we move we move transformers all the time, right? The you
027know, the other stuff that when they move the the amount of parking was somewhat at the applicant's discretion because of how we was going to run it, it wasn't ours. >> Um, so I don't I don't see anything else other than those that we've talked about that would that would make it a major to me. I don't have an issue with it. >> I guess, you know, to your point, there are it's a three-foot reduction in the drive aisles on in some areas, right? And >> my concern would be >> without the fire department weighing in on that to ensure that >> they get their say because if if the fire department weighs in and there is an issue and we've already >> Yeah. >> move forward with this. like this to to be honest
028to be honest I think if the fire department comes back and says they don't have an issue with it if they do it goes back to where it was and it's no longer an issue because it's going to the only way that is where it's going to go back to what it was shown >> they were they were over I'm so from a technical standpoint I'm going to tell you they were oversized to begin with >> and the reduction in that back area is not >> is is is not if they couldn't make that back corner if they couldn't make the back right corner, then they're not going to be able to make the back left corner. >> I mean, obviously, it was designed for for 18 wheelers to be able to to go through.
029It just again I'm not saying that we shouldn't check with them. I'm just saying I'm very confident that it can still meet all of the requirements. >> Babe wants to speak. >> That raised loading dock is going away, >> correct? >> Okay. So, the shortest distance is 30 feet, right? Go ahead, babe. In the back, >> Mr. Chairman, >> I got a problem with the fence going away. Uh, of all the storage facilities we've had in Milford, the one when it didn't have a fence on, we had problems with, it was uh unckempt. Uh, we had people living in uh the unused uh uh areas. And I think that the fences >> is a very important thing especially >> in that area so far removed from the busier part of the town. >> Joe, I
030don't know if you want to allow AJ uh is the property is the applicant, >> right? >> AJ's with the design build firm. >> He's with the design [snorts] build firm. He's raising his hand and would like to speak. >> AJ, uh, you have something to, uh, comment on. >> Yes. Thank you for, uh, unmuting me. So, I had two points of clarification. Uh, the first one regarding the fence. Um, as we mentioned, it's no no problem to add that back in. I think that's a perfectly reasonable um, request. One thing that's happened in my experience building these self- storage facilities all over the country is if you install a fence with an automatic gate or like a key fob reading system, a [clears throat] lot of times it has to be integrated specifically with
031whatever the fire department um like the tone of their siren is or flashing of lights system. It's kind of a complicated thing. We have to go uh integrate with them and and we do it. It's it's not impossible, but it is something that that's going to be a point of clarification with the fire marshal that I want to get resolved to understand in the case of emergency, how do they get through that gate unobstructed? Um, so from a life safety perspective, in my experience, it's better to not have a gate than to rely on some electronic way of opening that gate in the event of an emergency. That's [clears throat] just not trying to sway you one way or another. That's just a something that I've had to deal with in other places. The second
032thing uh regarding the drive aisle. So, we're getting a little bit hung up on what's changing on the drive aisle. Specifically, what happened was we eliminated the loading dock in the back of the building. So, that loading dock was a raised loading dock. It's setting sitting at roughly 40 in or so to accommodate a 18-wheel truck. This facility under this new operator is not going to need access for an 18-wheeler. Um, it's not a typical storage client. Um, and we can just simply not accept 18-wheel traffic there. There won't be a space big enough to store 18 wheels. You know, a normal semi-truck trailer. They would have to rent multiple units and it would be a whole thing. So they've eliminated the dock. Therefore, that brings in the the access around the dock. So the
033drive fundamentally is the same. You're just no longer driving around a dock station in the back, I think, is is a reasonable thing to to look at when we're looking at the plan. So it may not be obvious on the red lines, but the reduction in space is for the need of driving around that dock, not so much regular traffic around the building. You still have a full loop road and if they couldn't make the turns previously, the turns have remained the same. >> Yeah. So the that's that's correct except for >> the the building is slightly larger and so you are losing a couple of feet. >> Uh again I don't foresee any problem. They're still meeting our minimum requirements for um drive aisles. So, I don't I don't foresee any issue, but um
034obviously we need to get uh some comments from the fire department on the gate cuz I think it's pretty clear that the board feels that the um that the fencing is is needed in this case. Um, so but I I don't see it being a problem. >> Just go ahead. >> Just one thing to add. Thank you, Liz. Um, >> the building footprint does increase slightly. So if it if the desire is to keep the original pavement width around the entire building, we have the ability to adjust the opposite curb a foot or two, however much it's needed. So that's that's not an issue. >> I prefer not to have more pavement than you need. Yeah, we we I totally agree. [laughter] >> I just want to assure you that if if we're talking about
035the difference of two feet, we're going to adjust the curb line. That's not a problem. I didn't capture all of that on the red lines. >> No, I don't think that's and and again, I don't foresee it being an issue, >> right, >> per se, but for our for for us to go through, I want to make sure that all town boards because of this type of change have the opportunity to comment on it. And if you know and if if it comes down to the fire chief saying I just want to see a turning radius with the new setup that way we've given that to him and he's had that opportunity to do that. It it to me it's not again I don't believe if we go back to the fencing and the pin
036because we talked about that if we wanted to work around that somehow is being major not because that that would change what was said. The other things to me are minor, but I just want to make sure other people have the opportunity to to agree that it is in fact minor. >> More than reasonable. >> Anyone else? Yeah, just to go back to the list of conditions, right, in in with the fence and just kind of ensure that we are following these because again, there was an extensive list of of prohibited items and based on that list of prohibited items. That's why we wanted the 24-hour surveillance. We wanted to be able to understand who was coming and going. So, with that gate access, right, that gate access, I'm assuming, would have a special pin
037number for each person. So, back to the reasons why we wanted some of that kind of checks and balances was to understand what who was coming in and out from the standpoint of it's going to be the ownership of the owner to understand who's coming in and out and to make sure that any of the prohibited materials are not stored on site because again you're alongside of the Milford water supply, Milford wershed. So that is of the utmost concern and why that was an extensive list. And if you go through the rationale behind that, right, in in that there should be office hours and there should be someone that's going to be reviewing the tapes to making sure. So again, I I know that this is all listed out. I want you and the owner
038to be very very well aware of of these stipulations and why these stipulations were put in. And again, because we're next to, you know, the Milford water supply. So, so that again, the I feel like the fence and the gate to me is is going to be a condition that is is a requirement. >> Yeah. I I think the board's made that pretty clear. >> All right. What's the uh pleasure of the board on this? You bring it back. >> Make a motion. Yeah. To continue. >> So, this isn't a uh application. This is uh this is a just a request so we could table it to the next meeting if you'd like. It's not a vote for continuence. It's just a declaration from the chairman. >> That's fine. >> That's what you want to
039do. >> Okay. That's what you'd like to do. >> Your call Joe's call. >> I I have no problem with that. I uh I think in this case it'd be a good idea uh do it at the very next meeting. >> And when is that next meeting? >> That should give us enough time, right? Our next meeting >> first Tuesday in January >> January 6th. >> Excuse me if I could. The agenda says next meeting to be determined, but is there any reason um Liz or or Matt that we wouldn't read meet on a regular schedule in January? >> No, not at all. >> Okay. >> 6. >> So what is that? January. >> January 6th. >> Six. As we changed up the um location of the dumpster, does the plans need to include a
040dumpster detail as we typically do with other plans? [clears throat] >> It's not within No, because the dumpster was inside. >> Well, >> yeah, there's no >> So therefore being outside again, >> yeah, it's kind of a standard practice for us. So I'd like to see you include that and you got time to do it. >> Um I have one comment. Um, if we're getting rid of the raised loading bay in the back, could we extend the fire lane to wrap around the entire building because that was that obviously if that's coming out, you can continue the fire lane and it's in its absence. >> That seems to make sense, but we can certainly chat with the chief about that. >> Right. Okay. >> And then just one final note, you you mentioned the detail
041for the dumpster. What we would plan to do is if the board ultimately finds these changes to be insignificant, we would revise the plans and submit for your records, you know, incorporating these changes. These were just sort of an outline in red of the changes. So, we'll give you a revised plan set. >> Sounds good. >> How does the board feel about the removal of the six parking spaces? >> Obviously, it's over the minimum requirement. >> Yeah, I don't. >> Okay, fine. Joe was my Okay. Okay. >> Okay. January 6th. >> I appreciate your time. >> Oh, thank you. >> Trying to figure out what January 6 January 6 was triggering something in my head. I'm like, January, >> is it your birthday? >> No. This is the contract extension sign or whatever in Washington.
042>> Oh my god. That's right. >> I was like embarrassing days in the history. >> 16th horrific days. >> You going to hand me a copy of that hot off? >> Yeah. You're going to get the uh the original Yeah, I think 11 [clears throat] by 17. I'll go make skipped right over the I saw the 24 hours. I skipped right over it. >> Okay. The uh the next um next order of business, we've got a preliminary subdivision plan for uh Mount Pleasant Street, seven lots here to represent. >> That's me. >> Okay. >> Do I need to wait for that or are we >> No, it's not. >> Yeah. >> Right. Uh so my name is Mike Scott. I'm an engineer at Land Design Collaborative. I'm in Westboro and um the owners are here,
043Bruno and Donnie of um B&D Homes. The subject property is on Mount Pleasant Street on the uh south side of the road and we on their behalf filed a seven lot preliminary plan. This is a residential uh subdivision. It's residentially zoned property. um you have the plans. I'm just going to quick overview um of the site and then I'll field questions. So, there's a little little over 5 acres uh frontage on the south side of Mount Pleasant Street. There's a narrow corridor that was left when this property was originally subdivided and that corridor is 40t wide, has a rounding on one side. There's also a front edge on Alden Street uh which is the width of an extension of Alen Street that runs westerly to the property. There's uh the the second sheet second sheet
044of the plan set is a on the ground survey that was done by Feldman a few years ago. So the topography is legitimate. The the information in the roadway is all field located all all three frontages if you will. They also own 37 Mount Pleasant Street, which presently has a home that would be on the northwest corner of the property. It's not part of the parcel, but it is under a common ownership. There's a wetland system that runs, excuse me, from the end of that little finger of Alen Street where a town drainage system dumps onto the property, runs along sort of the south side of the site, leaves the property onto the now we're formerly um and I'm going to butcher this name uh sort of to the southwest corner and the wetland runs
045on that property and before it runs towards Hayward Hayward Street to the west. sight slopes from west to sorry east to west moderately at the top and steeply at the bottom. Uh we did soil testing out here earlier this year for storm water and found low sand, pretty decent material, groundwater. Um Elizabeth was present at the time with our soil evaluator. Groundwater was 3 and 1/2 ft plus or minus generally a little higher in places, a little lower in other places. It's a stony site. There's plenty of surficial boulders and it's generally wooded um except from the rear yard of where sort of 37 projects back into the property. Uh and it's bounded by stone walls and on the south and west side. Um so we're on the uh sheet C101. You can see a
046seven lot conventional culde-sac uh with a roadway of under 500 ft. It is a 40 foot ride of way. Uh, and as I mentioned, there's only one rounding out at Mount Pleasant Street. So, this layout would require two um waiverss from your subdivision regulations. Those are noted on the on the cover sheet and in the application. Uh, that is again for a 40ft ride of way and uh only one rounding. The width and roundings are adequate for construction of a 24ft road with one sidewalk which is the requirement for a minor road. Um, if you look at sheet C201, we're showing the grading which is associated with the profile that's on sheet C202 on the right side of the last sheet. Uh, the road grades conform to your standards for the traveling area at Pleasant
047Street and at the culde-sac. It's not We've provided vertical curves for um consistent with your regulations and um we're showing water and sewer in a general manner. So there there's water and sewer Mount Pleasant Street, both of which would be extended into this proposed roadway. Uh and we're showing the sewer exiting the south or sorry the north side of the site. Um through the neighboring lot at uh 37 uh Pleasant Street. um as we had a conversation with um your sewer department and they're not fans of pumping sewer, which I'm pretty sure everyone here has probably heard, but I heard loud and clear. Um and we're [snorts] showing a storm water management facility um as an infiltration basin. The site's steep at the bottom. It's not that we couldn't potentially design a surficial bas surface
048basin, but there's going to be fill generated. there's going to be a fill slope um under which infiltration could be provided and that's what we're showing at this time in order to meet the groundwater offsets and obviously this site would be designed in accordance with the well protection ranks. it's going to be subject to a notice of intent for the lots if not the road. Um, but we would design it accordingly. And we did receive comments from several of departments and the general theme was drainage is a concern both from the site and down uh at the exist you know the existing drainage system in Hwood Road. So we would in you know anticipate investigating that system a little farther. We I have walked the site. We do know that the the stream the neighbor's
049lot and then ends up on um one of the behind one of the homes on Hayward a makeshift drainage system that gets it out to the town road. Again, we could we could do some investigation but uh and it would require you know an NPDS permit as well. So we know that construction will be you know scrutinized and Mr. Benoy made this same comment but it is a residential project. We didn't we I felt it was beneficial to file a preliminary so we could at least talk about some of the first of all there's two waiverss and just to get feedback from the board because I haven't been before you happy to answer as many questions as I can. Great. >> Thank you. >> Any questions or comments? >> Not as of yet. >> Chris
050can go. I'll let him go first. Um yeah, I guess you know the first is the um the 20 foot 24 foot drive coming in and obviously how you know the >> I think spec 40 ft supposed to be. >> No, so the sorry the the right >> we >> talked earlier on this. >> Yeah, the right of way is 40 ft as opposed to 50 ft. Excuse me. But the pavement is this is the same as would be required is the same >> meets the requirement. >> Correct. We're showing a 24ft road and sidewalk within that 40 foot right. >> Right. >> All right. Sorry. It was >> so it's just the pro it's just the property lines are narrower. >> Narrower. That's what it was. >> Which leads into the retaining walls, >>
051right? There would be retaining walls required on both sides in that entrance. >> Segue. [laughter] >> Yes. short short walls but there are two short >> what's short walls >> three to four feet and that lengthwise long heightwise short >> I thought >> well that's for them to find out the I I mean if you want to go on for that is obviously I there's going to be a need for for an easement because I've never seen a wall constructed along the edge of somebody's property without having to get into someone else's property so I don't see any any type of easement and the rounding to me is is somewhat non-negot negotiable. The the town needs to at least have an easement, permanent easement in that area to allow for the for the sight distance
052clearance because there's no sight distance on on that side. So, I would I would be I would not be in favor of granting the request for the waiver for the rounding. >> I would be I would be in favor. Yeah, I would I would consider it if we had a permanent easement. it isn't that they have that that has to be in and this is me not the board but you know I would I would at least consider that but I would not consider not having any ability to get a um that what the rounding would provide for us let's put it that way and that would that would be accomplished by the permanent easement um the other thing as I looked at the grading on some of back lots and I have no idea
053how you're going to access the thing, but I'll leave that to a permanent plan. But you're going to need to show access and something graded at 3:1 is not adequate access. >> I'm sorry, what did you say? Three to >> I think it's three to one grading on the plan. >> The operating of the roadway is shown as 3 to1. >> Are you are you saying adequate access to the many homes >> to the homes? >> Is that okay? We have driveway requirement. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think one of the comments of Mr. Benoy was to look at grading of the site as part of the definitive which we generally do anyway. >> Yeah. >> So if that's what you're stating, yeah, it would be carried forward. I understand your concern. I >> This
054is for a road, not the lots, but I understand what you're after. They have to coexist. I would be more concern my concern at this point is [clears throat] access to I want to make sure we have adequate access to the drainage system too. >> Right. So we would we would grade the sewer easement and obviously that'd be a stairstepped sewer system. But we would grade that and we would show you a roadway down to the drainage. >> Um I don't know if >> um Martha >> No, no. I'm just listening at this point. I'm good. Thank you, Joe. >> Yes. uh on the uh the wall and the uh grading at the end of the color sack. I feel that they if we do uh give grant this uh the subdivision there should be
055a geotech design and be there as they're building both the slope and the walls there be a geotech on site. So we assured that it's uh it's built to this their specifications. And also I got a a major concern with the water uh downstream where Scott has problems already and there's no need of adding on his problems without straightening out that problem first. Okay. >> Any other comments or concerns? >> Yeah, just to kind of on the lines with what Babe had said and and what uh Scott from the highway supervisor had said basically that you know there are major concerns with flooding in that area already. you know, we talked to the town engineer on that. I don't know if you want to give them the the highlight reel that from our conversation earlier
056today and and kind of what you explained to me in and those concerns. >> Yeah. So, I um obviously having been a design engineer, I understand how I would approach this and with the pre and the post, but um I I think we're going to I'm going to be looking at it a little bit because of the problems that exist there to the point that the board of health issued a letter and they never issue a letter. Um, so it's I I want to be I want you to be cognizant of the volume of water, not just the rate. >> Who own if may I ask? Who owns the field that's on the opposite side of Hayward? >> The town. >> Okay. >> I'll talk I can talk to you about some problems that you'll
057that that may >> problems with that field. line right here. >> Yes, the town owns it and and there is drainage that goes through there and very likely this ties into that somewhere. We just don't know where >> I mean the GIS maps that the town provided and we can talk about this online but does appear to show at least two of the owners tying into the drain >> which makes sense from what I saw. Clearly one of the lots is dra which is small but it's definitely carrying So, we're aware of that drainage. I mean, all five all five letters. It was the first conversation I had. These guys aren't at the bottom of it, so you get it. >> Oh, it's just measuring the distance. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's comments. Sorry, I
058missed kind of the beginning, but um obviously the drainage thing. I I definitely recommend like a phased construction plan be submitted as part of this phasing to make sure that they're not clearcutting the entire lot. That might come out of their concom approval and that's fine, but just don't want this whole thing clearcut and then have it run off while they're building it. That's kind of my intent for a phase construction plan. Um but also we have we did get a letter from the board of health control requires the board of health to give us a letter and their concern again was the drainage that we've already discussed >> there is there is a reason why it would be >> I'm sorry if I may Joe I'm whispering with with Joe Mr. Kajjon about um
059a particular line on the plan. I just don't understand what it is. Have you figured it out? >> Yeah, I believe that's the rule of 24. Not you measured from the that back line. >> That's a um >> that's it needs to be a square at that point. >> Over here this that's what sheet do you want? >> C 101. Yeah, but why at that point >> buildable parcel? Cuz here's your buildable line. >> I'm talking about lot seven. >> Yeah, that this is this is just a dimension. It's still at this. See how it's got this little line right here? >> That is the extension of this. >> I'm lost. What's important about the width of the property at this point? Why not measure? >> It's not. It's this this is this is a
060measurement of the width of the property at this point. That's why these little see how the arrow goes to the little line. >> Okay. >> So at this dash line which is the setback. >> Yes. >> The the width of the property is 115. Okay. Thank you. >> Can you has an unusual lot with something you're probably need to look at that that regulation but >> and how it's depicted. >> Can you give a quick highlight of what you were just talking about? Um, >> I have a plan Z. So, if you want to go off of that one, [clears throat] >> of course, >> you're going to do it unless you have at it. I hope that's helping out >> for Joe and I. >> So, where were we? I was at the 115.
061>> So, see how see >> this arrow >> and the other end is that arrow and the measurement is 115.1. So, I was like, well, what is it measuring? >> Because it's behind the >> setbacks. >> Setback. Gotcha. Right. >> But it's not. It's measuring the setback from here to here. >> Got you. Okay. >> So, I just think that's a difficult way to depict it. >> Understood. Thank you. >> I thought it that the 115.1 at that point like what is it demonstrating to us? What is that? All right. It's measuring 115.1. That's in a different place on the plan. >> That's the way dimensions work. >> Okay. >> Change it to just say width [laughter] >> setback width. otherwise confusing. >> Thank you. >> So, procedurally, since we're talking about a preliminary subdivision
062plan, all this really does is trim down the amount of time that the board has to decide on a definitive plan. If they come in without a preliminary plan, it's 135 days. If they come in with one, it's 90 days. So, whether or not this is approved or not, it's totally up to you. But the thing that we're really focusing on here are the waiverss. And the waiverss are are what grounds for approval deny of this application. Am I mistaken with that? It's pretty. >> Yeah. And we're also I mean obviously it benefits us for the all the foresight and information that we're going to get if we go through the full definitive, but there were the two waiverss and I think you spoke to both of them. Actually, you spoke to the rounding I
063guess specifically. Um, but yeah, we'd love to hear what the what the board thinks of the the 40 foot width. I'm pretty much certain I heard what the rounding concern is. It will obviously demonstrate sight distance, adequate sight distance in both directions, but we we can document that on a definitive plan. >> And the parcel itself is rounded on one side, >> correct? >> Not the other. >> It's not the sight distance per se, too. It's >> you can you can do sight distance today. Somebody can because you don't own that property, somebody can put a tree out there tomorrow after we do the site distance and it goes away. That's why I'm asking for that. That's why I'm saying I wouldn't grant the waiver for the rounding. >> Anyways, I'll make a motion. I
064I actually will make a motion to uh not approve the preliminary site plan um based on the fact of the request for the rounding waiver um and would grant the 40ft roadway waiver. And then we have all the other comments. Again, those can't totally be addressed on a preliminary plan, so I'm not going to address those. But in terms of the the two requested for the waiverss, that would be my my motion. You have a second. >> Um, you begin with to not approve the preliminary. >> Yes. >> So, you don't want to approve it subject to not allowing >> the waiver of waiver. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because it's only procedural at this point. It's it it doesn't affect them whether we approve it or not approve it. It it's just giving them
065a >> heads up and it also tells them defin sort of definitively on the waiver request. >> Yeah. So the applicant from if this motion is approved would have two choices. He could come in with a different preliminary subdivision plan could he not? >> He could. There's probably no >> or move straight to definitive taking this into consideration. >> Yes. Okay. >> That's what we're here for. and and I wouldn't preclude them from filing a definitive with the same waiver request, but it we certainly would hear you and that would I wouldn't advise it, but that's not to say it won't happen. >> I'll second that motion. >> Okay. >> Any other discussion? >> Any further discussion on that? >> Anyone else, comments? Mr. Manini, anything? >> Okay. >> Roll call vote. >> Let's do
066a vote. Roll call. >> I >> Yes. Babe, >> Hi. As well put a certificate together. >> All right. Well, thank you for your time. Marching. Okay. The next order of business is the u the amendment waiver of the site plan review 40k road. &M Auto Sales Repair. The extension. All right. [clears throat] I'll take the big one. >> Martha doesn't need it. She got her glasses now. >> I've got my eyelasses on. I'm lost. All right. Good evening. For the record, John Federica with Gurer and Helman. And uh tonight I'm here with the applicants, Marcelo and Wellington. Um in case there's any um particular questions uh for them here. Uh but for this project, um we have an existing site. It's about 47,000 square ft located in the CC zone. Uh the existing uses
067for this site uh were warehouse, office, and retail. and uh and the existing conditions uh none of the parking area was striped but everything was paved. Uh for our proposal uh we're looking to do a change of use for this plan uh to allow uh two units. One of them will be an office unit and then the second unit will be a sales office with an auto repair. Uh this project has been in front of ZBA for a special permit uh and that was granted. Um and uh as part of this proposal, we will be going in and essentially striping off 26 spaces. 14 of those would be to meet our parking counts and then the other 12 spaces would be for the display spaces that uh were granted as a part of that ZBA
068approval. Um as I mentioned, there's no existing striping out there. So all this uh new proposed striping would be compliant with town regulations. Um, again, everything is existing out there in terms of the building, uh, pavement. Uh, we're not going to be cutting back any pavement, not adding any pavement. Um, so at this point, I'll turn it over to the board if there's any questions or concerns. Okay. We do have a a letter from the uh fire department. >> Sure. So, as mentioned, they're proposing sale of used cars and new office space with 10 display spaces shown in the plan. Um, there's actually going to be 12, >> correct? >> Be in zoning compliance. Property needs 12 off streetet parking spaces divided by the plan below. They're actually showing 15 spaces and 12 display spaces.
069>> So, that is actually 14 uh post spaces and then 12 display spaces just for clarity. >> 14 and 12, sorry. 14 and 12. total of 26 spaces. Um, it meets all the minimum parking requirements. I don't see uh I I definitely recommend a favorable action on this since the special permit was already granted and there's no site changes to the parking lot or the structure. >> Okay. As I mentioned, we we have letters from both the uh Milford Water Company and the Milford Fire Department indicating that there uh there is no conflict or issues. It's the pleasure of the board. >> The only the only comment I had is I don't see I mean you can count them but uh don't we usually put down the number of display number of used car sales
070spots on the plan. So the window is customer parking. >> I believe that's >> so we have it hatched off. Um dark color there. If we need to >> that means that botus selectman has to actually count spaces when because I believe they issue the permit based on the number and normally we have the number listed so that it says that you're getting a common vicular license. >> I'd be more than happy to have a revised plan with a note or specifically calling out those >> Yeah. No big deal. Just this provides for you got three. What do you >> 12? >> There's 12. Yeah. >> So, yeah, you get 12 12 spaces for >> used car sales or something. >> We can put a note or something on there to clarify that for >>
071Yeah. Otherwise, I don't have any issues. >> Babe, is that what we usually have on them? You >> number of spaces usually indicated for sale. >> Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. >> We have customer spaces and sales spaces. >> And Joe, you're saying that needs to be on this plan. So that way the plan gets submitted to to the board when they give their uh >> Yeah. >> class two license and uh it'll be it it specifically says how many spaces there are on there. >> Yeah. And I know in the past some some other applicants so for a matter of consistency we we wanted other applicants to designate those sales spaces with different painted and [snorts] colored lines or hatching or anything like that. So I think for a matter of consistency because we
072have asked other applicants to do that. So again so that way also our uh code enforcement department they can go down and they'll know the difference between what our customer spots and what are designated for sale. So I would recommend that or I would re for myself require that we designate different striping compared >> that's a display versus sign. >> Yeah or signage >> that's perfectly acceptable on my in it. Um does the town have preference on signage versus striping? And if it is striping is there any particular striping that the town is more in favor of? >> I would just put up signs. >> Yeah. Yeah. I Okay. >> Whatever works designated as castile sign, you know. whatever works best for the customer as long as it's you know >> shouldn't be a problem
073for us. There's no in a sense there's no bylaw or or that we have but we just in a sense >> okay >> to uh help out from the code enforcement side of things >> but those two >> okay >> yeah no that's not a problem for us >> I'm sorry excuse me those two plan amendments can be completed by the applicant and reviewed by staff it doesn't have to come back to us would there be agreement there >> yeah no that's fine >> um I had a question. Um the um the ZBA decision refers to spaces 1, two, and three will not be utilized for parking, but [clears throat] will be available for snow storage. >> I was not at the ZBA meeting, so unfortunately I'm not aware of what that specific condition is.
074Um spots. >> Yeah. Which three? Which three spots? >> So, I don't know. >> Feel free to come up here for the plan. >> I'm assuming it's the ones to the north. That's what I'm Yeah. Okay. These three. >> I would think the automobile display ones or >> or the ones at the very back. Where is it? >> So, does it say Liz? It's number two, I think. >> Yeah. The last time the guys recommended stuff over here, but so I changed foot over there. >> Yeah. So, I don't know that this board is going to be okay with you using park. That's I didn't like the way that that was written. It sounds like you're using >> It's like like we just lost three spaces. >> Yeah, exactly. Right. >> Yeah. Now, I will
075say that they that the the way it was calculated here, they're accounting for a lot more auto repair than um sales. >> Yeah. So the way that that's typically um isn't that >> so I believe for our >> So there's the two you have two per service bay >> but you're counting many more. No, this one's just the two service bays, right? >> Yeah. So our our numbers for that we had a specific to the sales portion 192 ft of office coming up with a rounded number of.5 spaces uh two service space at two spaces for four spaces and then uh we had about uh 26 square ft of display area total uh which was >> side >> yeah and that was equating to the uh an extra point4 spaces so my total was uh
076somewhere around about a 4.9 and we were providing six for that. So, we were one and change over. >> Right. So, I guess what I'm saying is the area for auto repair, >> even though there's only two overhead doors, >> the area is significantly more than two bays worth. >> Gotcha. Understood. So, I think it's I think they're meeting the technical requirement of the regulations for parking, but I would be I would be especially hesitant to lose spaces. >> Three spaces. Three is a lot. >> Yeah. Three is a lot when you only have nine. Whatever. >> Well, we have they have a special permit on something that is written that I got no clue on. So to me it's we can't until we until we figure out what they're actually saying knowing this I
077guess we probably shouldn't have done this at the time because I mean if they're losing spaces if those are one two and three >> right >> you can't use them they're out the number of >> displace is nine yeah but how how is anybody going to >> you know what what constitutes >> it it doesn't say that it says the decision mark space 123 will not be utilized for parking >> yeah will not. Yeah, >> we we don't have the choice to say you can use it in the summer or not. They said you can. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> It's not it's not ours to say or not say. It's not a plan. I have not I Yeah, I would agree with you that that that would be the case, but that isn't what the
078decision says. >> So, I guess we need to ask the ZBA what was the intent of condition two >> and which spaces they >> which spaces? Yeah, there's no plan. I don't see. Yeah, they say the plan, but I'm not sure which plan it is, and it's not shown [clears throat] on this plan. None of them are designated numbered. >> I know in the past they've marked the plan that they have at the meeting, but >> that didn't come with the decision, so there's just no way to know. >> Yeah. >> Um, one of the other and um the office area >> for the car sales, I think. Um, that's the office that's the unit one office, right? Uh so the unit one office is intended to be an office space and then the unit
0792 office uh it's a little hard to see but if you look at the inset detail um there is a small corner that uh will be some office space there >> for the auto sales correct. >> How are they how are customers going to get to that office space? >> Uh would you guys be able to share any information for that? Yeah, I have a space inside. I'll see >> like is there like a walkway? >> How do they get from >> Yes, I have a one. >> Okay. But in so >> accessing >> the way the way it looks is they're going to be walking through the repair garage to get to the office and I don't think that's something it's not really it's not really our purview because it's inside but um I
080was I guess I was just concerned about that. I don't know that that's allowed um a from your insurance standpoint and um the building department might have an issue with it as well because I don't know if it would be considered, you know, an accessible route, >> right? >> That depends on you can't tell >> exactly. So, >> if there's a door there and there's a walkway along one side, then it's probably fine. If you're not walking out into the Bay Area, but again, it's not our purview. It's just something that you guys need to be aware of. And >> if there isn't and you're walking through the garage doors, your insurance company's probably going to say, "No, you can't do that." >> Right? So, I just wanted to bring that to your attention. [clears
081throat] The other thing is, I don't know if there's floor drains in there. Um but if there are floor drains, there should be a um oil water separator. I mean a um holding tank. >> Uh so I personally am not aware if there is anything holding tank related there. Um I do know one of the previous uses I think was like an uh an asphalt contractor. So I'm I'm assuming they would have had proper floor drains and stuff for the type of equipment they have there. I don't remember. I don't know if they said they weren't storing stuff inside there or not. I don't remember. >> Are you guys aware of any sort of boil water separator for your floor drains? >> I have a one septic tank. >> Yeah, there's a separate >> Yeah.
082Yeah. Not septic tank. It's just the one tank inside the garage. >> The holding below ground. Above ground. >> Oh, it's in It's inside the garage. >> Yeah, inside the garage. I I guess if the I if the I assume that the I don't know I don't know how that would work with >> plumbing inspector but they're not making any changes to the inside of the building. >> Yeah, but we have to check as to usage as to what that was installed. He should >> getting beyond our view. change of use. Plumbing inspector still would need to look at it. I don't remember what the original permit was for. >> Okay. >> I don't remember what that was done under. >> Yeah. We just if if there are floor drains, which I I'm pretty certain
083there have to be floor drains when you have garage doors like that. Um then that floor drain needs to be tied into a holding tank that you pump out um when it when it's full when it Yeah. >> Um there is a there is a tank on the there's a another tank on the exterior that's connected to I believe a catch basin that but that's part of the drainage system. It can't be connected the floor drains can't be connected to that. uh dumpster enclosure. >> Uh so there is an existing dumpster pad there. Um we're just intending to use that. Um it's in between. Uh >> yeah, but there's no Is there a fence in the front? >> Um >> yeah, I have one of one gate. >> Oh, okay. I just couldn't tell from
084the plan. >> I think it's up here if I remember correctly. Is it up front, isn't it? Oh, it's over there. So, I just couldn't tell if the fence went across the floor. >> Yeah, >> if there was a gate across. >> Looks like it's partly in Courtland Street. [laughter] >> I think that's all I had. >> Yeah, actually that should be checked. >> Yeah, it it looks like the dumpster is partly in the street right away. >> Street right away. >> Yeah, check the location of the dumpster. seems to be over the property line. >> So, I I know that that was a part of our existing conditions. Um, if we need to cut out any extra pavement and pull it forward a little bit, we definitely do have some ability to work that
085without impacting the drive aisle. >> Well, yeah. And if if it's if it's fenced like it's supposed to be, that means the fence is in public property, too. It's going to need to be moved. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we can. >> We're going to need to check all those things. I >> We really This has to continue to our next meeting and clear these up. >> Yeah. >> And where's the dumpster located? >> Uh, right. Right at the opposite of the driveway where it comes in drive. >> Oh, right there. Okay, perfect. >> Oh, yeah. Assisting dump. >> Uh, so I guess my question would be as far as any of these go um I mean we can definitely make the updates for the dumpster um add in a couple things as needed for it.
086Uh would we be able to do a conditional approval for anything at all tonight or um unfortunately we are going to have to come back? >> I there's too many there's too many issues. I mean, we don't even know if those three parking spaces are are [snorts] the ones they're talking about, and you have to get rid of them because that's what it says in their decision or not. In which case, you don't have enough room to have 12 display things. So, the plan isn't correct. So, I don't know how we can conditionally improve it. >> That's a big issue. >> So, I I I don't see any way it can be improved. >> Yeah, we need to understand what three spaces ZBA was referring to. >> Us to go back to ZBA for that.
087Um, is that anything that um can be handled like departmentto department type of thing at all? Nope. >> Okay. >> Just >> I mean I guess I can ask like >> I guess was ZBA supposed ZBA should have submitted a set of plans specifying one two three. So I would go to the ZBA and say give us those plans. >> Where's the ZBA office? >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> If only. >> Well, you could trust >> Well, Matt Matt can reach out to David and see what what >> Yeah. >> I can't see these guys having to go back to the CPA. >> No, no, no, no. I I Yeah. And I only asked that just cuz I'm not sure like when the meeting is if that conflicts when your guys's next meeting would
088be if we wouldn't be able to get in front of them beforehand. So that's the only reason why I ask that. >> I'm trying to avoid these guys going and I didn't mean for them to have to go back to EBA. I just I don't know. I we he can re that's an excellent suggestion is have Matt reach out to Dave or I could as well >> I mean at the point in time when it becomes clear they may want to go back or not depending on what that actually meant but it it can't go this way because it's >> we have to follow their decisions and we don't know what their decision actually means. >> Would you guys would you be concerned about snow? >> Yeah. And that's a congested area. >> So I
089guess that's my question is if they went back to ZBA to have that removed, you guys are still going to want >> snow storage area >> removal. >> Yeah. >> I mean it sort of that whole area was that way before. We approved it this way. It looked this way before. Apparently, we didn't I I don't know if we go back to our original plans and say we and I haven't heard of any issues down here in terms of of that and we didn't specify it then. I I don't know why I would want to change that at this point. We didn't do it before. I I I I'm not going to put that all on them per se. I mean, I think they could push they could probably push it looks like they have
090it becomes a conservation issue to a certain extent. >> Yeah. They could they could push push it beyond those three spaces over the curb and and put it right before the the wetland. I mean, that's where it's going probably anyway. But >> well, I just I just don't I don't I want to give them some guidance as to whether or not it's worthwhile for them to try and get that out or if you guys are going to require a snow. >> I don't I don't I mean to get that out, it's going to have to go back. I think I think that the question more becomes what was the intent that they wrote that on more than anything. I mean, I think David has to answer this is what this is what it says. If
091it says I don't understand where he says he had the 12 spots, but again, I I I'm >> Yep. Okay. Well, we'll check with >> Yeah. to me, I mean, I think it's DBA obviously is not well defined. I mean, it I'm assuming it's those three s those three spots, but again, until it is clearly defined, I get that. Um, >> yeah, because I don't know where they're going to display 12. If he's telling if he's telling us that those three spaces are not usable, there's not enough room then >> to display 12. >> Right, babe? Do you have any other comments? >> No, I got no no comments. >> Okay, >> just and then one quick thing. If I'm looking at uh unit 2 existing office that verbiage if I go just to the
092left of that um showing a 1500gallon separator. Is that what you're talking about then or is that different one? Okay. Just wanted to >> clarify >> that's that's that's part of the drainage system. >> Yeah. >> Which needs to be different from >> yeah the garage drains >> the garage. >> Understood. >> Yes. >> Just wanted to clarify that. >> So Matt, is that something that we could get done? Get some clarification on that. I'm looking at this EBA minutes right now. >> Oh, good. >> Trying to see if I can get an answer on this. >> Oh, perfect. >> This was September 11th. This was issued, right? >> I believe so. >> Uh, October 21st. >> October 21. >> It might have been that decision back there. Okay. Now, decision was filed on October
09321st. >> Yeah. Filed October 21st hearing. >> Even Even with the >> Yeah, >> I still think you're going to need to see the >> ZBA meeting on October 21st. It was filed on 12th. Sorry. >> I've seen them do it at other meetings where they mark up on the plan. This is where we want stuff or, you know, this is where we want shrubbery or whatever. And so I I'm guessing that's what they did was They probably numbered one. Yes, they probably numbered the parking straight. >> I don't know if it's worthwhile looking through the meeting minutes. I think we need to see the >> I think we need to see the plan hearing. >> Yeah, I you need you're going to need to go back to David. I mean, the meeting was actually
094September 11th. The decision was rendered on the 21st. >> Okay. >> October 21st. Oh yeah, one or two of the petition was scheduled. >> The chair, September 11th. >> You can probably track him or her down somewhere. >> Yeah, they would hopefully recall. >> Well, at first I would just check at first, honestly, I would just check with Melissa >> in legal cuz she likely has whatever paperwork. Oh, >> so >> if she doesn't have it, then I would say we can go to Dave and get some understanding. >> Who's the chair? >> Dave can see. >> Oh, sure. Of course. Yeah, he's been chair. >> I I don't I don't think it matters at this point. I I I would I would say we continue this and get all these things and we'll just
095move on. >> Got a motion. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Okay. extension. >> Yeah. >> Go. >> The applicant needs to be okay with the extension. >> Oh, should we specify when or just >> first meeting in first meeting in January? Yeah. >> The applicant has to be okay with the extension. >> So, they need to be okay with the extension. >> Okay. >> Are you okay with that? >> The first week of January? >> Yes. That would be fine. >> Uh, that will be the January 6th meeting. Six. >> Yes. vote. >> We have to do a roll call. Chair, >> roll call. >> I Yep. Just need a roll call. >> I babe. >> Okay. I as well. >> All right. >> Babe was an I. >> Yeah. With a thumbs up. >>
096Yeah. >> I appreciate that. >> Thank you. I'm going to be on for the next hearing. Um, could I just get five minutes just to briefly recap this with my clients before we start the next one? >> Yep. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Absolutely. Man, now I'm connecting stuff. You can skip to >> to seven if you want, Joe. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And go to uh eight. Okay. We'll skip seven for now. Um >> you can go to seven. >> Okay. >> We're skipping six >> with skipping six. >> All right. The uh ZVA referral 11 Cornell Drive. So, this is more of a matter of procedure at this point because we've already uh the ZBA already heard this one because this took place during our off meeting where we didn't
097have an extra meeting in November. The ZBA already met. So, I sent them a letter asking them to weigh in without our recommendation and they did. So, this is just on our agenda if we wanted to give one anyway, but they've already done it. >> Exactly. >> I guess he hasn't been long enough. Motion to send a favorable. [laughter] >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Did they approve it? >> They did. >> Motion to send an unfavorable. [laughter] >> Okay. So, do we have a motion? >> No, we don't need to do There's no reason to do anything. There's no reason. >> So, we're good. We don't need to take any action on that. >> Eight. I guess. >> Uh, so eight. We got um ZBA referral at one ESA Drive. >> Yes, sir. So, it's
098a special permit for an um accessory use. >> Thank you. No problem. >> To allow >> animals in the RC zoning district. >> Yeah. So, my understanding here is she had um she had three dogs and two of them had puppies and they got rid of most of the puppies and they decided to keep two. So, now they have five. The the yard is entirely fenced in. It's a beautiful 6ft vinyl fence I saw today. >> The what? the the backyard entirely fenced in. It's really well done. Um I don't see where there's any issues with this. They got a large enough property for it. I recommend a favorable to the ZBA. >> Can you more than three or four dogs? >> Three. >> I hope this isn't inappropriate, but can we specify that she
099have the dogs neutered? >> I don't think we can. Well, you could add it into the >> unless it's a breed. Unless they're breeders. >> Well, >> I' I'd really like to >> you can specify you can specify the number of the the recommendation for the total number of animals. >> Right. That's it though. >> So, if they have puppies, then they're over the limit. >> Right. >> You guys don't see any way to throw that into the >> I don't I don't think we have any. >> No, >> I don't either. I don't think we have that authority, but >> I'm sure not happy. You can you can add it for a matter of formality. It just may not stick. >> So, it can at least be read at the ZBA meeting. >> I'm
100going to do that with a strong suggestion. >> Yeah, you can suggest it, but >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any uh any other comments, babe? >> No comments. make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the ZBA with a maximum of five dogs and that uh uh a suggestion that uh the dogs that are on site be uh spayed or nuted as appropriate. >> I'll second >> any I'll second it. [laughter] I'm not sure what the alternative is. >> I'll second it's fine. I sure don't want to see them. >> Oh my dear. >> I am >> I all over the [laughter] map. >> I think I I well my own personal opinion. I think we're going over the line on this one. So >> I only recommended it. It's not was it was
101a recommendation. I don't >> recommendation to the ZBA and the ZBA. >> Well, no. And the recommendation is is that they have them spay or nude. It's not that they have to. It was a recommendation, but the the five dogs maximum is a that's more than a recommendation. That's a >> Yeah, that's the maximum. >> Well, it's still only a recommendation to the ZV. >> Well, that's true, too, but >> is all I'm saying, >> but that was an actual >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> That's something that they could put in the other one. They can make the decision how they want to do it. >> Okay. Uh, any other discussion? >> I'm sorry. What What is the maximum under the zoning? Anything else? >> All right. Let's have a vote on that. >> I'm
102holding off for a moment. >> Uh yes, I >> babe. >> I I >> I vote no. >> I knew [snorts] you were going to do that. That's why I went I [laughter] I'm sympathetic to you to we're we're aligned here, Joe. I'm going to let it go forward cuz I want [clears throat] that note. Please spay them in there. Spay neuter. >> Okay. No signature for that one. >> People spay or neuter animals. queued up on the next one. >> A big issue with me clearly. [laughter] >> I get it. Yeah, it's a heavy one. >> All right. So, we have another ZVA referral. >> Yes, sir. So, >> 100 Medway Street. >> Yes, sir. This um this came to us uh earlier this year. Um so, the variance was issued by the ZBA
103and they got some of the numbers wrong with the proposed lot frontage in their decision. So they had to go back and reapply. So that's all this is is to update the numbers from the proposed lot frontage is 194 feet and the width is to be 20626. Unfortunately the number for the frontage was erroneously labeled as and the as same as the width. It was labeled at 206 as the frontage but it should be labeled as 194. That's all this is. It's all they're trying to do. So it was recorded. >> Which property is this? This is um this is the bank >> next to next to the cemetery the new >> across from Colts the old the old national bank. >> So they labeled the front the drum so they had to reapply. That's
104really all this is >> motion to send a favor to the ZBA. >> Second. >> Any discussion on that? >> No. >> Okay. >> I >> and I vote I as well. Now we can go back to six, I think. All right. Okay. Next order of business here. Um the number 10, the fee schedule amendment. >> We can go back. We want to do uh six. Joey's back if you want. You ready? Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Let's do six. Thank you. at the 336 Main Street Auto Parts Retail Repair. >> Great. Uh for the record, John Federico with Gir Helon and uh tonight I'm here with the applicants, Jan Carpentry and it's Josmeir and Greg uh that are with us tonight. Uh for this site, we have um two existing lots um under
105common ownership. Uh it is totaling about 26,000 square ft located in a CB zone. Uh the uh lot 269 has an existing non-conforming structure located on it. Uh we're not proposing any changes to the uh physical structure itself. Couple internal modifications. Um and uh lot 268 is a uh vacant parcel um that is uh currently being used for some parking. Uh for our existing uses um it's a a retail auto parts store and uh for our proposed use uh the applicant is looking to uh have a uh portion that will be small equipment repair. So we're looking at generators lawn mower type engines, nothing much larger than that. Um an office and sales space um with four display spaces for cars and a small retail portion for it. Um, as a part of this proposal,
106um, we are going to be looking to install new signage out there, uh, restripe the existing paved area located on lot 269. That's the >> And then on lot 268, we're looking to install a dumpster pad and, um, have a fence go around that area so that they can seclude that parking and shield it from any abuts. Um right now in total uh we're looking at uh eight equipment bays and a total of 880 square feet of uh retail area. Uh we have already gone in for a ZBA special permit and that was uh issued on uh September 19th. And uh in terms of our parking calcs um we have based the parking on uh automotive sales and repair as well as office space. Um we are required uh 24.8 eight spaces in total and
107uh the site will have 25 normal spaces with one handicap space for a total of 26. Uh this is going to be a change of use. Um we're not proposing anything additional um for u imperous area. Um I think uh we might have to just slightly expand the gravel parking area by approximately 100 square feet. Uh but that is a relatively negligible number um for the grand scheme of things here. >> So I I don't know if they if the ZBA tried to put in um I thought when we sent this um recommendation we I I thought you had asked for the gravel parking lot be paid. >> That's correct. Um, and I I [clears throat] think they almost tried to put it in here because they there was something in here. Oh, no parking
108shall be allowed on the grass areas as shown on the plan, but I don't I don't know if that's what they meant or whatever. But >> yes, uh, from the, uh, discussions that they were having, um, essentially they didn't want to have, you know, additional stacking of cars over here and create a secondary parking lot. Okay. >> Um, so they just wanted to restrict that area. >> I I I you know, this this goes back to Landscape Depot. >> Uh, to me, I don't know who was on the board at the time. Dave was on the board. Um, I mean, we showed display display spaces and I don't know how those are ADA accessible in a gravel parking lot. I mean, are they going to take the grater out every day to make sure that
109it that you know, to me, they're not ADA accessible. So, I can't prove the plan is a gravel parking lot. As far as that goes, if we were to have like a um ADA accessible walking area, whether it was u small concrete sidewalk, a pavewalk car and get in and get get to the sides of each of the cars to to look at them. >> Okay. >> I see your point. >> Would you rather do you would Mayor Joe Oh, sorry. I jumped. >> Yes, please. It's an >> impervious or not impervious. >> So I I >> aside from Joe's very valid issue. >> So if you're talking about the parking lot in in my mind, you should be having impervious surface that goes to a catch basin so that it's um cleaning the oil
110and whatever before it get it gets discharged to or or infiltrates into the ground. So those issues outweigh the the valid concern of too much impervious space on our planet. Okay. Yeah, I very Yeah, I'm with you. >> Good question. >> It's a good question. >> We went we actually went through the same thing on Diller Street too with the buses. They ended up paving, >> right? >> Oh yeah. as we progress along. Then another question would be though um >> the applicants looking for >> is it auto retail sales? >> Uh yes or sorry it'll be auto sales and then there's a small retail component. >> Okay. So auto sales. So where is our where are the designated spots for so we have a four spaces shown here in the back corner and those
111are being intended to be the display spaces. >> Yeah. So again part of that whole you know, designated as display spaces that needs to be um presented. >> Yep. We can definitely put some signage up on the building if need be. That's not a problem in that case. >> Um >> was this submitted before you guys adopted the storm water rigs? >> Yes. >> To the ZBA? [laughter] >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was. >> To the ZVA was um >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Certainly to ZBA. All right. Well, because otherwise that's a whole that's a whole >> Yeah. >> I mean, I still need you to I I still need to see some treat I still want to see some treatment basin, but um I'm not as concerned with >> if we did
112have to go with anything like that. And I'll discuss with the applicants and uh the property owner about any sort of pavement out there. Um I know in the back of the property or you know, essentially the back of these lots, not back of the building, right? >> It is Godfrey Brook that's over there. Um, so like in terms of the catch basin, um, you know, is that leeching catch basin? Do you need that to go to like an infiltration system? Is that outlet to Godfrey Brook? Like what would be the, um, connection and everything? >> I think I'm generally fine with an outlook outlet to Godfrey Brook. don't want a leeching catch basin for the same I don't like leeching catch basins um because it it the catch basins collect the um oil and
113sediment. So if you're infiltrating oil that's not good >> not good. So that's gen that's my gen and not that's not necessarily the right answer but because um as far as storm water design is concerned they're pushing a lot more of the basically leeching catch basins because you're distributing >> the infiltration throughout the site better but and again in my mind it's not worth the trade-off but um yeah I would be look I would be looking for at least a catch basin um with a hood. >> Mhm. >> Um and then >> and then discharged to the um >> I don't know. Do you have access to do you actually have access to to the brook? >> Uh so um our property line does cut right through the middle of the brook here. Um so
114we do have a small portion of this little retaining wall here that potentially we can work with within our property. I would really love if you would put some infiltrations, even if it's like an offshoot of the catch basin in the grass [clears throat] area. >> That would be fantastic. >> Sounds like a good plan. >> Does this then trigger conservation in any way? >> Um, >> yep. >> It's it really it's conser [snorts] Well, it's definitely conservation once you pave the back. probably >> well I don't I it probably would have been anyways because >> I don't believe that that's a level area back there now totally. I mean >> me worrying about ADA is minor compared to driving trying to put the cars back in there and actually having potholes and stuff to
115begin with and I don't believe it's graded that well but that's just my recollection. >> So I think they would have to get out and do construction to to get to this point to make it look like >> problem with conservation but I do think it's going to need a filing. >> Okay. Would you require a RDA in that case or >> I have to look into I'll look into it and let you know. >> And then in this case here with it being Broadfrey Brook um I don't know if that is classified as riverfront in any way. >> That's what I need to find out cuz if it's a river at that point then an RDA can't >> okay >> happened. And then with that being um like channelized as well with the walls
116kind of defining the edge, does that affect how that gets viewed at all in any way, shape or form or um any offsets or buffers are just taken from >> considered a river then? Yeah, they're they're from the channel walls. >> Okay. >> Either way, step back to a couple of the basics. Can you go over the fence relocation? >> Sure. Um, so, uh, as a part of, uh, this project and I believe all the work has already been done for it. Um, this a butter here, um, has constructed a portion of their home on to this parcel, >> right? >> Uh, they were the ones that had put in this fence area and this was their shed. Um, Mr. [laughter] who is the uh, property owner has already spoken to them about that and
117they were relocating it to as what we have shown here. And that shed was going to be brought onto their property so that everything would be compliant for it. Um so essentially all it is is just a um I think it's a wooden fence that they are putting in that's just going to be removed closer to that lot line. >> I think it's already done. >> Um in terms of anything that we're proposing, we are going to be asking for a fence that would go around the rest of the property with gate. >> Right. So that's why so that existing fence [music] is going is on >> I see that [snorts] fence was put in by the abuter but is on the property of the applicant. >> I see. So that's why so what is
118the distance and I believe right now that again this this fence that's shown here that has already been corrected out in the field. It's no longer in place. >> Yes. Okay. I thought you that little bit this fence here is no longer there. It's now just this fence here. And that's the newly proposed fence. >> So that fence does exist. This the what you're saying newly proposed on the plan >> new to this project does exist from my understanding. >> So yeah and my only question was how far off the the side of the house is that fence and is there >> I don't have an exact dimension but I could >> provide one for you guys. >> Pretty pretty close. >> The house is on the property is over the property line. Well, yeah,
119exactly. And from my next series of questions would be, has the fire department weighed in on that? And does it cause any level of concern there? Because now you have a fence right up against the house from an adjacent property. >> It's just a >> No. And it's not the it's not the adjacent properties fence. It's their fence. I well the adjac the adjacent structures on the A again I'm just bringing up >> it's not our street >> it's not a fire um >> just yeah I I would like for the fire department to weigh in on something like that to just to give their two cents. I'm not you know again it just to me there's something that just >> and neighbor's house has a different entrance on [snorts] the left side has two
120entrances. Yeah, it's a multi family house. >> So on the left, if you're looking towards the house, the left side has another entrance where he parks his um cars there. >> There was two entrances. >> Okay. Um and then just another question regarding the doorway, garage door on the side on Green Street. >> Yeah. >> So she can see that. Sorry about that. >> That's okay. Um so yeah, the intention obviously from the pictures that is just a boarded up um boarded up opening uh is the intention to you to reconstruct that into a garage door. >> And then my question then to kind of the two two town people is whether or not there's an issue with having a garage door right on basically the rightway and and it there's no queuing area for
121any equipment going in and out. So, >> have you uh gone over to uh >> the the the building department? >> No, no, no. [laughter] I thought you were pointing towards John's office. >> Yes, I I was point I was >> You were pointing in that direction. Pointing in that direction, but no, further. >> Um the um I I can't think of Spruce Street. Um the one on the corner of Spruce and um >> School Street. And what's on school? >> The garage door is on the property line and >> there every so often is >> I know what you're talking about. >> Very every so often is a truck half parked in the garage and half out. >> That is so that's what I'm concerned with. >> Trying to avoid >> this avoid anything
122internal to the building. Um we're looking at a uh each bay to be about 10 ft wide, 20 ft deep. Uh so there would be essentially like a a main access aisle like a drive aisle that essentially would be interior interior to the building. >> So um you know >> it's a very it's it's it's a much more accommodating. So, this and this was part of the reason I brought up with the last um site plan. They they were only going by the number of garage doors, which technically you can, but in this case, they're showing the bays as spaces in the um inside the building. So, I think in this case, the intention is for them to just use it to get in and then park, whatever. And I think they've made a good
123faith effort to to propose that as well as >> the garage doors shall not be left open at any time during repair of vehicles or equipment is in the special permit. >> Correct. Again, I don't think we there's not much we can do from our side. I just want to make note of that. Um, and then with that and and again along that side of the building, what sort of uh, you know, >> pedestrian access? >> Yeah, pedestrian access because now we're going to have parking in the back, entrances in the front. Joe, you talked about, you know, just the ADA requirements. And if you look at the picture here and the uh kind of that >> what you call a walkway sidewalk concrete or sidewalk just make note of are there are there more
124concessions for the applicant that are that are going to need to be considered. >> Well they they with the plan that comes back they should if those are the display areas they need to show from the building to the display areas an ADA accessible walkway. >> That's yeah. So that may be there. It it just needs to be shown. So they're going to have to look at the slopes of those things and make sure that >> Yep. >> There's a 4 foot space on the side of the building. >> It's flat towards >> Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's flat enough, but it's going to have to I mean, you're going to need to show some some spot rates or whatever to make sure that that's >> between the building and the >> street. >> So
125much that lines, they park their trucks [snorts] on the other side. >> Yeah. Yeah. But if you look at one of the pictures, >> maybe we should get some more this back corner. I mean, you can see slow. So, again, >> you know, yeah, I I'm just raising concerns, just things that you you please address those things so when the next time you come back, Yeah. >> we can, you know, be asked and answered. >> Sure. No problem. >> Babe, do you have any uh comments? >> No comments. >> Anybody else? >> No, that's all I had. >> Okay. Um I just have a It's kind of a easy one. Is there any plans to do anything in in on the uh on the main street side on the east? I'm sorry. >> Uh so
126the uh front portion of the property uh we're just going to be restriping that parking area and then uh installing a new sign out there. Uh so that sign would be brought onto our property, not located out in the rightway. >> And on the very corner there used to be looks like a light pole or something. >> That was a at least from my understanding existing signage for this building. >> Okay. Uh, so again, that's all going to be removed and then everything >> that's very dangerous the way it is right now. >> Yeah. No, no, that was one of our intentions to get corrected out there. >> Sign, are you proposing uh are you proposing a freestanding sign? >> Yeah, that's uh located in this uh front corner up over here where we have
127the call out number. >> I thought I saw it. >> Oh, it's already sh Oh, okay. Um, typically when we have uh parking on a separate parcel from the in it's in common ownership, we we have I don't know if we did it as part of the conditions or whatever, but that if they >> Yeah, we did. >> If they're sold, they >> they have to go together. >> Yeah. If they're sold, they need to come back for site plan review or something like that. >> Yeah. As far as a condition like that goes, that's fine. Acceptable on our end. Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? >> Um, oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, I don't know what's in there. I mean, it was at one point in time an auto dealership, but then again,
128that was so many years ago that I don't know that the code was the same. >> I know we do have existing floor drains in there. Um they are functioning floor drains and from our understanding everything is at least going out towards Godfreybrook. Um I have not been able to identify a final outfall though for those floor drains. >> Have we not been able to identify >> the final outfall of the floor drains >> and what treatment happens before it gets there? >> Probably none. >> If or maybe it goes into it. He's saying it the pipe in the building heads towards the brook but it could head into a leeching pit, >> right? Who knows? There's no way to determine that. >> I have not climbed down into the brook to try to see
129or anything. Um, at least from any visual observations, I couldn't see like a pipe projecting out or anything. So, at this point, I believe it is going into some type of um leeching area or something along those lines. >> All right. So, I don't know if it would be this board or the conservation, but one or the other. I'm going to at least want to know. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I don't know if you can legally do it. Can you >> Can you drop some not toxic dye in there and see where it happens? >> Yeah. So, I I think from a conservation standpoint. >> Um if if it's it's it's illegal. [laughter] It's illegal no matter what's happening. So, they probably need to put in a tank. >> Yeah. to to capture. >> It's
130not Yeah. I mean, if it's straight outfall, it's >> not good. >> And I would assume the other work definitely needs a building permit, which means they're going to need So, the plumbing code's going to come in on it. >> Yeah. >> So, >> and I will try to get some additional clarity if need be. >> That is the uh >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't know that it's ours, >> but you need to you need to be worried about it. >> Yeah. because >> it's poss depending on where if there's tight tank in there then you're probably all set but I have no idea based on I think the car owner car dealership predates me living in Milford I won't want to say how long ago that was a car dealership for a
131very long time then became carest which was a parts >> sale before that >> was a dealership for a very long time >> yeah I know but the problem was it with building was built prior to there being a code into what you could do floor what you could do with floor drains. So back in the day floor drains could have gone directly into Godfrey Brookke. That's no longer allowed. >> From what I've seen, it doesn't have nothing. It doesn't nothing connected. There's no drain pipes going to the to the stream. >> Yeah. And if that's the case, that may be fine. I again, it's going to be a question though. Someone's going to ask us to where's your floor drains go? >> If if it goes to a tight tank, then that's fine. You're
132all set. If it goes somewhere else, then that'll be an issue. >> It's just >> is this doable to get done first meeting in January or should we extend this to >> definitely do the first meeting for sure. >> Give them the opportunity. >> If we do have to continue, I'd like to ask for the first meeting and then we can always just ask for an additional continuence if need be for that. Um I know We do want to talk to property owner and the applicants about some of the things regarding the pavement areas, catch bas on some stuff. So, um just want to have a an option to either come back and give an update or um you know proceed forward with things [snorts] >> if you I I mean I guess I'll make
133a motion that we go first meeting in January. It's quite a bit of stuff to do considering you got >> holidays in there. Before we officially vote for anything, is there any questions or anything so far on your guys' end? >> No, not for now. >> Okay. >> Second, >> further discussion. >> Uh I >> I right January 6th. >> All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. extension request for you. >> That's what I was going to ask for. I didn't see this. >> It's not a bad idea. Just >> I was just curious. I I think I might assign one or two before, but I'm not sure if that was for ZBA. >> Yeah. Now, like you said, I think Larry
134would do it for um >> public hearings. >> Yeah. Yeah. Public hearings. There's a checkbox on here for site plan review. So, there you go. >> Just know that these towns have a town engineer, but they don't assist the planning. >> Okay. Schedule. >> Yeah, it could be. >> They go out to They go out to sub consultant. They they they have them. They hire us. >> Milford's got the strangest. >> Okay. Should we do the 100 men >> for that for this purpose? Yes. >> But >> no offense, but what's the towner do if they're not helping out the planning board? I mean, I realize there's a bunch of other stuff. >> They do. Yeah, they do. They >> do. Of course. >> We missed this one, didn't we? But still >> y >>
135I don't know the square >> contract clear. >> Okay, great. >> I really I like I think >> All right, why don't we get into item 10, the fee schedule >> creature? >> So there's a large spreadsheet that gave us all the fees from all our surrounding towns. What's interesting is uh all of these towns uh don't have a town engineer who reviews plans. Either they don't either they don't have one or they have one that doesn't review for the planning board. >> I did I just was speaking offline with Elizabeth and I >> that's not >> I find that kind of stunning. >> It's not particularly um surprising to me because typically the town engineer works for the is under the DPW umbrella, >> right? Um, so they're doing all that stuff and not
136I mean, >> so a lot of them have built-in um 53E and a halfs for their town engineer to do it or they do 53G fees. They have consultant fees applications on here. I didn't add those on here because I didn't think it was relevant to this. [clears throat] So anyway, >> this is stuff for us to review. I didn't make a recommendation based on anything here because there's a lot to digest. I mean, the 4A is a pretty solid across. I think 150 is pretty pretty good preliminary plan. And this is kind of all over the place. Most of them are right at 500. This one is at 1500 in Hollist. I thought that was way too much for a preliminary plan. >> Hollist's crazy. >> Yeah. But I think we're pretty good there.
137Uh, our definitive >> Oh, no. I'm thinking hope >> is >> I don't know. It's kind of low. I think >> uh Did you know that there's a per linear foot of road? I think [clears throat] it's per linear foot of road inspection fee. >> Yeah. [snorts] >> I put that on here, didn't I? Is it? >> Yep. I can't possibly I have no idea when the last time that was collected because I didn't know it was there until [laughter] >> Yeah, it's in our definitive rags. >> How long you been our town engineer? >> Three years. So, we haven't collected in three years. I mean, in fairness that there been two very small subdivisions that I've looked at, but >> yeah, we were the only town that had one of those final inspection. >>
138Interesting. [clears throat and snorts] So, but our definitive plan for at a thousand was the lowest other than Bellingham. >> Maybe we bump that up. >> Kind of think study this. >> Yeah, we can do that. >> Yeah, I I feel like I'd like to take some time to look at this and if if I should have before this evening, I apologize. >> Oh, that's okay. We'll put this on our next looked at it. I didn't evaluate it or >> okay site plan review was kind of low compared to Hollist Medway and Hotel. >> Why is site plan modification and a waiver of site plan review the same thing? >> They seem like very different things to me. >> Yeah, for some reason there was an application online that included both and that's what they
139filled out for both of these. But they should be two separate applications. >> I think so. M one may require a plan and the other may not >> right or some pre-existing plot plan without new engineering at least the waiver one anyway >> procedural question if if and when we choose to modify the this fee schedule what is the what is the procedure >> this needs to be on our agenda that's it >> so it doesn't need to go to town meeting we we are the keepers of the fees >> you have to have a public hearing Nope. >> I don't think so. No. >> No. Just needs to be on the agenda. >> All right. >> I guess looking again then at the next meeting, do you feel like you would are you going
140to propose what these fees should be? Obviously right now you you've you've kind of set the spreadsheet of where each town is. >> Um I think from my side of it, I' I'd >> like to see what your recommendations would be. >> Okay. Okay. Just to give a a starting value from sitting in your seat and any more research that you can do. >> Okay. >> Um and and you know with those starting values, >> you know, kind of the um some some backup kind of back up to to why. And if there's no change, no change. And if we need to remove things like inspection of total the uh $2.50 per linear foot of uh road funage. No, actually that >> you know like again are we keeping it or not? So again no
141>> we should start collecting it because we do do it. I mean the only other issue the only other thing you could do with that as as opposed if >> if the workload was such that it was too much was to to require the applicant to submit it from professional engineer that they had someone >> right >> go out and do the inspections themselves and certify that it was done according to the plan. That's the only other choice you have. >> Which exactly why I'd like to, you know, get your feedback on >> how many final inspections or nos I do under one final inspection, >> Right. Which becomes when someone else is certifying it and they're running up a bill, they're going to more apt to to do it right the first time than
142have some guy come out twice. But >> I mean, I don't know how many times I've been out to field pawn road like Yeah. Okay. So, I don't know how I can't count. [laughter] >> I think it's per visit. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So, by my count, we've continued four items to our next meeting. >> I Yeah, I I think we're pretty full next meeting, aren't we? >> We continued Old Cedar Court, two site plans. This is >> and our preliminary plan we we voted on. >> Um I've got items four, five, and six is continued. I >> four we voted on. We voted to >> four is out. >> Okay. My my mistake. >> So [clears throat] three, five, and six. And three is not technically continuous. Just carry over. >> And
143nine. >> Nine. We voted on. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Pardon me. Yep. Yep. >> Yeah. I just wrote it in the wrong place. It's up to you if you think uh we've got room for it. We do. >> Okay. My first uh impression looking at this, I think our fees are way too low. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> They haven't been updated in 12 years, >> right? >> 10. Yeah. 12 years. >> Would agree. >> Okay. So, >> yeah, they should be looked at every couple years at least. >> All right. >> Five years. >> So, we'll move that to January 6th. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Great. >> [sighs] >> Um, [snorts] do we have a town engineer update? >> I don't have anything in particular. If anybody has any questions about anything, I'm
144happy to >> Did we skip town planning updates? >> He does those after. >> Before Before we go to that update, actually, when we're doing this, I I'm wondering if if the wording in some of these other towns where there's no town engineer is It's it's this feeds to them plus any review by whoever they have as an engineer goes as a bill to them because I'm looking at it saying there isn't a there isn't a subconsultant in the world that's going to do a site plan review for 500 bucks. >> Yeah. That's just the application fee of the town. >> That's just the application fee. So what what we need to understand is that >> is that this is an application fee that that that we're comparing. Ours is is the actual review by
145the engineer as well. So, so for us to charge well above what this number is is not unreasonable, >> right? >> So, prior to the storm water permit fee, we definitely should have been well above what they were, >> but now that the storm water fee is in theory covering well actually not on a not >> still you still >> less than an acre. >> Yeah. And outside and outside of there is things that you that you would need to review outside of what's in the storm water. It would still be more than 500 bucks. >> Completely agree. >> So I mean I think I think the intent is to shift more of it on to the applicant than it should be for the town the town's people of the town of Milford to be
146paying for applicants to have the thing reviewed. I mean obviously we need to make sure is the town that it's being done right but that that still should be a burden on the applicant. So, you know, I think that needs to be weighed in when when we come up with an application. And that's always been the thing. Even when we upped it the last time, it was okay, let's move towards that because they were even lower. And I was like, well, yeah, and we're doing the reviews, not somebody else. >> Right. The peer reviews, they vary depending on the scope of the project. Obviously, it's a much larger cost for a much >> in the peer review. In the peer reviews for those specific items, we've said we've always had the applicant has to do
147that. But when we come to straight engineering type review, we've never done that. And that's the fee we get for the for a project no matter what the size. And that's that never has been a number that that carries >> anywhere close to to the amount of time that's spent by um staff. >> Excellent point. >> I [snorts] would definitely want to see a difference between the amended and a full site plan though. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Just We can just break them off. >> Yeah. Just that because the amended the amended generally requires much less >> Yep. >> of my time. >> Yeah. >> That's all I'm talking about. >> Um but a full site plan. Yeah. I mean really dep it it almost doesn't matter the size of the project.
148It's drainage concept and access and >> Yeah. It's just it's a >> yeah, there's a base fee that that no matter what size you're going to spend and then as it gets a little bit bigger, there's certain things that >> are going to take a little more time, but it's not proportional to square footage. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> All right. Why don't we go into the uh town planner update or if I had anything? Oh, I do. So, with this Zoom meeting, uh, apparently our board, >> I don't know if this actually happened because our IT guy told us that it did. Our board voted to discontinue the use of hybrid or Zoom, just straight Zoom meetings. We didn't say anything about hybrid meetings. So, I think in order to keep these going forward,
149we should take a vote to do these as needed in instances where the chairman can't attend or someone's unable to be here. the IT department um was concerned about the legality of the Zoom meeting. That's why it got brought up. >> Interesting. >> The IT department was >> Yes. >> Interesting. [snorts] >> They I didn't know they followed Mass General laws. >> Yeah. I didn't Yeah. Okay. >> So, it's just just belts and suspenders approach. Just looking for a motion to permit the planning board to use hybrid meetings as needed in the absence of a member. >> Motion moved. >> Second. >> I I >> So that's um we're talking about um let's talk about it a little bit more. So if we're on vacation or something, we can zoom in. >> Yep. >> Yes.
150as long as you let Matt and I know. >> Okay. >> Prior to We need to know >> at least a week beforehand. >> Okay. >> Um so that it can be properly advertised. >> Okay. >> But the IT has set me up uh so that my the meetings are recorded which is uh I guess one of the requirements. Um, and it's set up as a webinar instead of a meeting thing, so it's more secure. Um, so it it [clears throat] shouldn't be it shouldn't be a problem moving forward. Um, the only thing is like it I didn't anticipate there would be any attendees, so it wasn't I wasn't too concerned about tonight, but if there were, you know, six or seven other people from the public >> and I needed to be we the
151the board would be it would be in their best it would be in everybody's best interest to have somebody sitting at the computer to let people talk and shut people off. >> Well, this would again this would be on an as needed basis. This isn't all meetings going forward. This is an as needed. If if if the expectation is a large public participation, then I would say >> we need to be here and know there's no there's no Zoom meeting at that point in time only because it's very difficult to understand what people are saying or not and and I would I would rather have them here. So, I I think we're only we're only allowing ourselves, you know, in those situations where we truly need to to say, "Yeah, we can use this and
152have a vote on it to say that." But I don't think we want to go to >> no >> Zoom meetings for every meeting. That's not what what we're approving. >> Okay, good. >> So, you [snorts] had a motion and a second. Say a vote. >> All right. >> I >> Yes. I >> Yep. I also I in the affirmative. >> Okay. >> Chairman updates. Oh yeah. Not in here. >> I think she went kind of >> um babe. Do you have anything any updates? I just want to I want to thank you for putting up with this uh this Zoom meeting and uh believe me it's it's not a pleasure listen to do it because it's tough. >> I hope to be there in January. Thank you very much. >> We hope to see
153you here. Thank you. >> All right. >> January meetings are on regular schedule. Any reason why not? >> Six Oh, wait. >> 6 and 20. Um, >> y'all come wish me a happy birthday on the 20th, even though it's the next day. >> January 6th. >> 19th is MLK day, the day prior, so we're good. >> 16th. >> We're good. >> Yeah. [snorts] >> Seven. >> 6 and 20th. >> January 6th and 19th. >> Hope that 20th. >> 20. Okay. >> The same as when we work together. [clears throat] Just your hair is a different color. >> Yeah. Um, anything else? Anybody want to >> make a motion to >> comments? >> Would you like a motion to adjurnn, >> please? >> Are you ready for that? I make a motion. I move we adjourn.
154>> Second. >> All right. Discussion on that. Um, let's have a vote. >> I >> Yes. >> Hey, >> I also vote in the affirmative. Thank you very much. >> Thanks. >> See you in our next meeting. >> We haven't continued so many things, but they were ready. They just were ready. [clears throat]