001Good evening everyone. Welcome to the planning board meeting Tuesday, November 18th. Uh the first order of business is the minutes from the last meeting. Motion to accept the meeting minutes. >> Second. Okay. and um have a general vote I guess on that. >> All in favor? >> I unanimous. Second line item is uh 81 piece. Looks like there's none today. and we'll go right into number three, which is the uh storm water regulations. >> Um, so I'm sure you all fell asleep reading [laughter] here. Storm water regulations. >> Riveting. Riveting. >> Um, I there I guess there's a few things that I want to go over. If there's I don't know if you just want to start at the top and kind of ask questions as we go or if you guys have specific questions.
002Let me focus on the changes. >> We haven't this first time our first Yeah. Yeah. So I mean the definitions are pretty straightforward. um the um applicability. This is um basically a change from what the well this was part of what um the EPA wanted. Um anything over an acre of disturbance requires um a storm water permit. and um clarifies that the order of conditions and site plan approval don't um don't count as the storm water permit, which is how we've typically handled it. Um so there'll be a separate permit for any um site that is greater than uh disturbing greater than an acre. Um so the way I have it right now and this I can certainly change this if but um we're calling the uh planning board the storm water. So there's the
003use of the word storm water authority and planning board are strategic throughout this. The um storm water authority um is more of a whomever might be the storm water authority for any specific um [clears throat] project. So if a project is going in front of the conservation commission but doesn't go in front of the planning board, um the intention was to not make them come in front of you for just the storm water that we would handle it simil basically the same way I handle that we handle it now is it I still do all the review and but the in that case the conservation commission would be the storm water authority um for that project, >> Mr. Chair Mayor. >> So, so one might think that you as town engineer might be the storm
004water authority, but it must it has to be an entity that has votes to approve or disapprove. Okay. Yeah, that was um that was another thing that the other uh regulations were written to pretty much give the town engineer, but um I feel like especially as these things get more uh it it's becoming a bigger bigger part of of what we're doing. I it makes sense to me that we should have somebody other than just one >> voting person, right? >> Um there's >> um and the bo the planning board and the conservation commission both, you know, listen to what I have to say as it is right now and make it and make a decision. So I think I think that's the more appropriate way to do it. Um, I also, and this maybe
005in the future is something that we could do, but I think there should just be a separate storm water authority >> um that complicated. >> Yeah. that >> and and do something to wrap in. So like the highway department is partially responsible for storm water and then I'm partially responsible storm water. Now you guys are and >> the C. So, like I think having a a board that has a person from each of those entities um that is that is um you know making sure that we're doing what we need to be doing um to meet the regulations and to protect the the town's assets. And theoretically that entity would not necessarily have to meet on a regular basis. Correct. Sort of on an as needed basis. >> Yeah. >> Huh. Interesting. [clears throat] >>
006That was kind of my thought. But and and >> are other towns doing that? Do I'm sorry. I'm kind of taking >> Go ahead. Keep going. >> Are other towns doing that? Um do >> so. Is that is this a novel idea that Elizabeth Manini has come up with? Well, [laughter] um, so [clears throat] I I think, um, we've discussed it and and I and I think in a lot of cases it's going to end up in this place where you have, um, like the we have fees proposed in here, but they're not utility fees that are paid for [snorts] like you pay for your sewer bill and your water bill. um when you when you get into that kind of um structure then yes that it is common to well it's not >> uncommon
007>> it's not uncommon [laughter] >> to have it for for Milford it wouldn't be uncommon because we have a sewer board >> we have a water board so if we have a storm water utility then it would it seems as though it would follow suit and have some sort of board but that's just my thought >> I guess prior to to this revision who was considered that storm water authority was it just you or >> so the town engineer was responsible for it as far as the the applicability of storm water to designs but the highway department is responsible for all of the storm water as it relates to the infrastructure and there's overlap and using >> well you're doing the yeah I would say that yeah you're doing the engineering the oversight and they're
008doing the the infra as you said the infrastructure which makes sense >> the problem is that there's a lot more overlap now so the infrastructure um there's more engineering that goes into that and credits that we, you know, especially the big thing for us here in Milford is phosphorus because of the Charles River basin. Um and so starting to make sure we're maintaining all of these um basins and somebody has to certify them and that would be the town engineer's responsibility, not the um highway department's responsibility. Um that's so it's that's why I say it's moving in that direction. It we're not quite there yet. You know, Scott and I work together on it and He does what he needs to do and I do what I need to do and it works. So, um,
009for now >> yeah, that it's I mean storm water management I assume it's has in recent years become more and more complicated and regulated and governed and Yeah. >> Yes. >> and probably will continue to become more complicated. >> It's not going away. Um, it's a it is a big deal to our environment. So, I guess that was the first thing I wanted to make sure was that you didn't want to see every project that you were comfortable with the conservation commission um being the storm water authority on a project where they were the only ones that were seeing the project. >> And if I may, you're the constant. >> I'm the Yes. I >> Yeah, I'm cool with that. >> Sound okay to you, Mr. Engineer? >> Yeah. I mean, where we are right
010now, I mean, to be to be honest, I think, you know, I know what you're talking about to a certain extent and some of the other stuff, I I'd almost like this town, but I don't know that they're going to to go through, and this leads into it as to why we have some of the issues, is to go through a government study committee because I think the other way that we could do this is to eliminate this, but to go to a department of public works [laughter] and combine all of these things and have somebody that that heads that up. that would be responsible for all of them and then they'd be responsible for setting that out. But that obviously is not happening today and nor is that set up [clears throat] >> there.
011So where we are I you know this is fine but it would be nice if it were a precursor to a lot of other different things that we really should be looking at as this town gets bigger that we don't seem to want to address. Well, and that's I guess that was one of the things I liked about the idea of the storm water board is to try and get people from each of these different entities that are involved with storm water and and really that that could and should include um the sewer department because that that is while we don't have combined sewers um it's still there's there's a lot of um flow that goes where it >> [laughter] >> usually to the sewer and where when it should >> the thing the thing
012that I think you have a problem with again we don't have a problem with it the way it is now but if you're trying to do another board in this town and knowing where this has gone over the past 20some years is that we we have a tough time filling vacancies as is and getting people interested. going to a permanent position within the town that has this is to me the way to go because I've seen too many times where we've had people come in and out because it's advantageous for them to be now on here and as soon as that's not longer the case they're gone and you know another board that sets that up to be is not where I want to be but again that's me and that that's where I think
013we're going but where we are right now I don't have any issue with Um, I highlighted this because I'm asking for just two copies, um, hard copies and one digital copy. And we should probably revise the, um, site plan review to not So, currently, I think it asked for um, >> it asked for like nine copies, something something crazy. and it doesn't really say that. So, the storm water report is part of that package and we have had them drop off that many before. Not usually, but sometimes. So, we should just remove the storm water report from the site plan and and just let it be um required through here. >> Um so, that was just >> I don't think that was ever ever the intent for site plan anyway. No, >> but even even
014with if when it goes to planning board and conservation, I get it I get at least four copies cuz they give two to planning and to [snorts] um there the uh consultants working on a application. Um that's what was a question for me. These are the proposed fees. Um which actually when you were looking at the um did you guys review the filing fees at the last for the planning board? I don't know these the consultant proposed these just based on what they have in other towns basically. >> Um these these fees haven't changed. Those fees haven't >> changed in 12 years. >> Yeah. >> Wow. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Like site plan review was probably way too low. But >> have we I'm sorry. >> But if we But taking the storm water out
015of there, I think is it's not as bad. >> So I don't know if you guys think these are high comparatively to those. Well, the town has traditionally they've never tried to recoup staff's time with the fees, which may be an incorrect process, but that that has been where we where we've been. It's not it's not been a to offset. We we realize that, you know, between you and town planner and secretary that we spend way more dollars than what we collect in the fees. The only time that, you know, we make sure is that if we go out for a for a peer review of any type, they pay for that. But other than that, staff review has always been considered something that the town the people of the town of Milford pays for
016effectively. [clears throat] you know, to, you know, maybe it's something that we want to look at in terms of I'm not saying necessarily totally change that, but but should there be a higher percentage that's met by by the applicant on those, but we we haven't done that. Um, and you know, looking at this, I would imagine you're going to spend more time than what's in there in that point. So that you know, again, this is not to that level. Um, >> yeah. And and certainly like this says in here that it allows for I think two um two revisions. I mean I very on big projects it's more >> and I'm not getting any we're not getting any fees >> for [clears throat] the storm water review. >> Right. >> So I just I guess
017that's this is one of the bigger things that I I want your thoughts on. um because I do need to adopt the we do need to adopt these tonight um to meet our December 1st deadline. >> Well, I I to me I would say my own opinion is leave them the way they are right now and leave open a further discussion of of fees maybe in the new year to look at fees for planning board submitts as well as this and and say, okay, how do we want to do it going forward? But I I you know I couldn't tell you to change that right now to a different number and be confident that that's what I wanted to do anyway. So >> you know, [laughter] excuse me, pardon me. Um I'd like to see
018a survey of other towns. Did have we talked about that? So >> yeah, it's a little bit harder to do with storm water because it it there it's kind of all over the board the way people the way each town is is dealing with it. But um but yeah, >> and that's worthwhile, Liz, is to to give us the all over just so we know that where they are with it. >> Yeah. >> Um >> but definitely we should take that >> and it's and it's very easy for us to that was that was the other big the as far as I'm concerned the most important change we made was um all the the storm water regulation was a general storm water bylaw was only a bylaw. All all of the regulations were in included
019in the bylaw. So any change any change had to go to town meeting. Um and that was one of the things that we changed here was um the bylaw is more broad and covers the legal um issues and then the it references the regulations which are amended by this board. >> Yeah. So that answer that because I know yeah we did that at the last town meeting we had a vote. So that's where that pathway >> was created. >> Created to get to here. So again, being that this is just a regulation, this we don't need to go to town meeting. >> Yeah. And it makes sense to do it that I I until I was on this side, I guess I never really understood why you have two sets of what seemed to me
020like two sets of regulations, but um town meeting shouldn't be voting on the technical changes of of what's in here. that's you know that's more appropriate for a board like yourself um revolving fund for consultants. So this you know this is again standard practice is if it's a very large project or complicated project then um you have a peer review uh engineer work on it instead of me. um the they would still kind of report to the town engineer in throughout the process and then back to you guys. >> So my question there is the 53E and a half versus the 53G. 53G is more for consulting services. 53E and a half is to pay internal is to pay you for the revolving fund. If they go off peer review, it should be 53G. That's
021my That's I just noticed that. Sorry. >> No, no, it's fine. I'll um >> Where is >> the towns have the ability to build for extra services through 53E and a half if they use the in-house engineer? >> I just don't think town's been doing it that way. >> No. >> So, we're talking about outside consultants since 53g. No, that would go back to instead of doing fees, we would have 53g for review of site plans and things like that, >> right? Yeah. [clears throat] >> Um this was initially written to really require a public [clears throat] hearing which um Matt and I thought was excessive. Um so we took out any um reference to a public hearing and just has it um as a public meeting. That was something public the public hearing will
022be I mean for any of those that that come down to that you know conservation there isn't I can't imagine that many most of them are going to be because of site plan where somebody's doing something worried about drainage. They're going to have a chance to do that anyway. So I I think a public meeting is more than adequate for this portion of of any development. >> Yeah. I mean, so as as as it stands now, site plan does not have a public hearing. >> It's only a public meeting. So it's it's sort of in line with what we're doing. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm just saying that people at least will have their chance to to comment on it in in terms of of drainage issues and stuff anyway. So whether they're here or
023at the >> plan, it's going to >> and generally that conservate there's very few instances where you have storm water that's not a conservation. We don't because the the storm water gets handled and it's almost always being discharged to a wetland basically. >> Um we don't generally tie it into the town system or there's >> there's just it's almost always goes to to uh >> to conservation where the abutters are notified. And >> that's where I was going was a butter notification. [snorts] That's that that was >> that's what that look on my face was [laughter] wanting to make sure there was Joe was saying there's definitely there's definitely still it it wouldn't be you know >> if it's of any significance it's going to end up in front of concom in a hearing with
024a butter okay yeah I just didn't want >> and it'll still be on these agendas so it's not like you know >> um >> can you think of an example where it had come to us for site plan review and this storm water management was potentially controversial somehow but it wasn't going to end up in front of concom like that that's not a likely >> scenario re redevelopment redevelopment in of a existing site that um that doesn't I'm I'm trying to think like >> No, it doesn't happen very often. >> No, it would seem like it would. Yeah, >> there's just the um even where they did the car wash down on South Main Street, there's no drainage, >> per se in that area, and that's a redevelopment, but it's still >> um it still
025needed a conservation fire. So I it's it would I would say it's pretty rare if you're doing some So across the street here um >> I want to say Spruce Street and I know that's not right. >> Spruce Street. >> Yeah, Spruce Street where they're redoing um the garage and turning it into the parking lot right across from 89. >> Yeah, it's going to be a meat market. >> Oh, the meat market. Yeah. >> Yep. >> The what? >> The meat market. >> Meat. >> Rosenfeld tired. going to be a meat market. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Cross meat and meat. >> Okay. >> Um so that came in front of the planning board for site plan review and there's no wetlands anywhere. So there's that's >> right. No [laughter] there >> but it's you know
026the the storm water isn't going to affect any neighbors. >> Right. What's the trigger then to to ensure that if it doesn't come to us that then com conservation commission checks it over and they give their seal of approval. >> So I I already I already review it >> okay >> on their behalf. Um so it's it's really not it's not changing anything that currently happens. It's really just taking it really I I I do my storm water review as a separate piece and then I report to this board and to the conservation commission and sometimes one of you votes to close a hearing before the other and I you know whatever I just work as long as as long as they don't both get approved before I'm done with my storm water that's pretty
027much how I handle it. So >> make sure that [laughter] >> and that and that's how so it's it comes it gets submitted to me and I have to issue so I have to issue a um a permit. >> So it's it actually is going to formalize it a little bit. >> I would imagine I would imagine this board for ones that come before us this is going to be part of our review when we do a site plan review. We're going to also be doing storm water if you know if it falls under that. We're going to be doing a storm water approval at the same time as what we would be doing I would assume if if it's applicable for that >> if it's ours for the site plan. Right. So obviously as
028we just talked about the >> the meat market because there are no >> lands around there we you know it was just a site plan no conservation uh in comparison may you know >> um well >> even when it's with even when it's with both even all mo which most of the projects like that you're dealing with storm water are in front of both boards >> in that case you you remain the storm water authority so basically it takes it away from conservation. You know, they're still going to act they're still going to care about how it affects the wetlands, but they're they're not going to >> it just it it sort of shifts who I'm >> who I'm reporting to. That's all. >> Sure. And then >> clarifies it. >> For example, the um
029the car wash then down on South Main Street that came obviously came to us. Did it all that also went to >> conservation for their their approval on on any effects of the from the wetlands. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So yeah and and you know more or less I just get asked are you good with the storm water? >> Yes. you know, depending on sometimes there's, you know, more to it. But [clears throat] um [sighs] for projects that are not otherwise uh subject to the town boards or commissions, if it's a small enough project that it let's say it's small enough that somebody's redoing uh [snorts] I don't know, say they have a really big house and they want to put a whole bunch of stuff, >> a tennis court. >> Yes. and they're
030disturbing um they're disturbing enough area that that but but it's something that doesn't fall under any board. >> It automatically comes to you for a meeting >> for storm water permit only. >> Right. Because that would being residential, it's not going to be site plan review, >> right? >> But it still has a storm water component. Yes. So a meeting, not a hearing. >> I mean I can't Yeah. I can't I don't know that I can think. I I guess >> there's ever been one. >> If you uh if you if you were >> we wouldn't know, but I mean I can't I can't envision one. >> I don't know anyone that had to disturbed enough that would be doing it. >> It would be difficult to do. >> So it's four tennis courts. >>
031It's just to make sure that there's somebody responsible. Mhm. >> So the and so let's do if we could walk through that residential tennis court concept. So is the person that wants to build the tennis court, what permit do they even need? How do we even know? How does the town even know? >> So the tennis So the tennis court is is less ambiguous now because it does require a permit. >> Um because it's a sports court. >> Yeah. Um, but if I just >> drivewood, >> if I Yeah. If I wanted to put a parking lot in my backyard because I have a lot of friends. >> Yeah. You throw parties a lot. >> Yeah. And I wanted to pave my whole backyard. I don't like mowing my grass, so I'm just going to
032pave the whole thing. >> Good example. >> Um, [laughter] that's happening all over town. >> Not. So then [clears throat] that that would [snorts] in a lot of cases that would um trigger a storm it well so >> that person does that person need a permit? >> They don't need a per no to in other words right now you can pave a driveway you can what I can >> you can pave your whole you can pave your whole backyard and there's no permit required >> as long as you as long as you don't exceed your open space. Right. That's >> okay. >> Um and and then it would be like a very >> and there's been some that's clearly have but that's besides it. >> It's really difficult. >> I've seen people come pretty close
033to pavement almost everything. >> Um >> that's talk talk [clears throat] for a different day. I I I get the feeling it's going to be tough to if that were the case. It's tough to monitor those types of things. I mean you can obviously if you see it do a cease but people are going to say I knew nothing about this. How am I supposed to know? is it's not an response, >> but that's >> and that's and that's system's perfect, >> right? Um there's >> the way that the the that we've been working with the storm water bylaw, I guess basically is we apply it when there's a problem. Um, and then we use it to say, "I need you to fix something that happened." Or, you know, like I had a house that
034the they had the downspouts um all connected to one pipe out the back which then went into somebody else's backyard. >> That's not ideal. >> Completely flooded their yard every time it rained. So, you know, thankfully we had a it was a good um there was a good contractor that was willing to, you know, help make the situation better without too much effort. But that would that's the kind of thing that, you know, where we say, "All right, you're not allowed to you're not allowed to increase your storm water runoff to >> to your neighbor." >> Shouldn't have to tell people that. I people don't people don't know, you know, they they want to >> know where that water's going. >> Anyway, that's the that that's kind of where I think this would be applied
035more so than anything else. um plan changes um that they need to notify basically me because so I can determine if the changes are um large enough to warrant coming back in front of the board. Um, [clears throat] we're allowed to go on the property. Um, project completion. This was uh from cuz he he Matt Matt sent out the original one. This was um this was a piece that was added that the the consultant added um basically at my request was they weren't um they were they were saying things needed to be done at the completion of the project but they weren't saying what completion of the project was. Um so this just more or less defines it. Good. Uh at completion of the project you have to submit an asbuilt deviations have to be
036noted. Um I was working on this this morning. Um, so the zoning bylaw requires an asbuilt plan to be submitted um for to to receive a certificate of zoning compliance. Uh, so I thought it made sense to just reference that and and have that as built be the same as this as built. He's Yeah, he's thinking. >> I know he's thinking. >> Yeah, >> something swirling around. >> Coins with the zoning bylaw. That's fine. Submit it to the [clears throat] >> I I would I would think you'd want it to come back to you. No. I do >> gas bill plans. >> I wouldn't I wouldn't have it come back to the building department. I would have it come back to the town engineer. >> I mean, I think the the requirements in in 147
037probably are fine, but >> whether they need that for for building zoning compliance, that's fine. They can submit it there. But you want to make sure you get plus the one that [clears throat] goes to building zoning compliance probably won't be done for another months could be years from when they could complete the this. So I would I would just have this come back to town engineer. >> So just say as plan in conformance with the zoning >> submitted to the town submitted to the town engineer period. >> Yep. As to how the other you know how the other one runs. Let that run by itself. But this one, just just let it go to the town engineer and get rid of the Yeah, I think that's cleaner. >> Does that make sense to everybody
038else? >> Yes. >> Uh GIS information, which is becoming more and more important. Storm water permits, three years. That's pretty standard. >> Pretty standard. I was just curious. >> Yeah. Like your site plans are for three years, right? So, >> I'm just surprised. Yeah. >> Um >> if we should tighten that up or we're we're comfortable with that. I'm just surprised that >> I mean how it depends on how often >> especially with the ever changing storm water environment. Well, this is if if you start changing if you if you think you're going to change these the meat of these regulations more often than every 3 years, then yeah, we should shrink that up. But um >> like for example, how often are we seeing things coming down from the state level that are changing?
039>> It takes it it takes them three years to accept the regulations that [clears throat] they draft, right? So >> I you know I'm I'm comfortable with 3 years but >> again you can we could leave it on to talk about later but I wouldn't change it now. >> Yeah I don't see >> yeah I don't feel it needs to be changed. I just you know point of reference and and even knowing that our site plans again are good for three years too. It might be something else to to also >> in my eyes would want to discuss. Um, so they can request an extension. Um, I put this in for the the letter request to come to the town engineer. Um, I don't know if you want it to go. I don't know if
040you want to see the permit before it gets extended or if you want me to look at it and decide. And >> yeah, >> I like the second choice. So then this should say three years. uh storm water report contents. Um this is very standard stuff. It just a lot of it is the same as what's in the um >> [clears throat] >> um and volume >> one thing was [snorts] um up above >> says low impact development in parentheses LI and then later in the document it says LI is low impact design >> low impact what's the third what's it >> low impact design shows up >> design shows up development >> shows up later in the document under LIT. >> I think they're synonymous. >> Yeah, I figured it's just >> but yeah.
041>> Yeah, be consistent. [clears throat] Page >> I would go I would change it to development. >> Yeah. Page page nine is where it says le and that's uh page 10 item C >> design but the development >> low low impact design. [clears throat] They had it for one foot contours. I hate one foot contour. So I changed it to two foot contours. >> Yeah. Um if the applicant feels they can't meet any of the storm waters management standards or other requirements then they have to provide an explanation the storm water report. That would be something we would go over. Um operation and maintenance agreement. So the what's different from what's currently required there is an operation and maintenance a a there's a operation and maintenance plan required right now uh as part of storm
042water but this um requires there is a a document um that's recorded at the registry of deeds that says that these are the people that are responsible for this project uh for uh maintaining the system and submitting reports to my office. Um I I think this it makes sense to have it in here. Um there's there's very few instances where we really go looking for the report the annual reports at this point in time. But as we look to get more and more credit for phosphorus removal, we're going to be looking at the um private properties and we're going to need to get credit for those uh for the phosphorus removal on those properties and that this will be significant then. So, it'll give us the ability to kind of go back and say, "Well,
043this was in your it's it's in your deed that you're supposed to do this." >> Is there is there anything [clears throat] town councilwise that they should review in terms of submitting something to the registry of deeds to make sure that the wording is >> uh for lack of a better word, make sure the wording is such that we're able to enforce it. What I'll do is I'll I'll work with the consultant and town council to come up with like a standard form that they can fill in. >> Um and then that can get recorded. So then the operation and maintenance manual is again already basically required. So, it's it's not um this um D here used to say something about it needed to be done before the final approval of the project and I
044was like final approval of what? [laughter] Um so this was the um ev evidence of recording shall be presented to the stormwater authority prior to the issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance. Now >> that's what that's what you're proposing. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, I don't love I don't love the war wording because it it sort of it sort of makes it sound like the um building department has the ability to [clears throat] in or like we're trying to make it the responsibility of the building department to not issue the zoning compliance until um but I I didn't know how else to >> Right. Right. What what other marker would it be? Yeah. >> Should it be presented to the stormwater agent instead of this instead of a board or committee? >> It's a document
045they'll be handing to us directly in staff. >> Should there be a new document that applies to her? Um >> well this is where it's supposed to be but you know this has been a >> somewhat of a bone of contention for everything that we've done to a certain extent is >> you know once it goes to the building department what's the control >> I I was I just said to Joe kind of offline here should should there be like a a new thing a new document that that the building commissioner needs to have before issuing the CFO [clears throat] and that that document comes from you regarding the storm water. I mean I don't want to layer >> we just have no way of making them do that. That's all >> even if it's
046in a regulation. >> Well they've we've run >> even if it the normal thing that we run into problems with is an occupancy permit. >> Occupancy permit is part of building code not part of anything else. So he he issues an occupancy permit and everybody now they should also have a certificate of zoning compliance which is not an occupancy permit. It's >> a certificate of zoning which is where this should be. >> Yeah. >> I don't know that building department in Milford uses that strongly enough to be able to stop people from >> occupying a building. >> But unfortunately that's a problem that we've had for a number of years. And this is the to me this is the proper place for it to be. It it it's correct as is. The fact that it
047doesn't function all that well is a is I I don't think having it come to you would make any more sense because it would you have no you have very limited as to what what are you going to stop somebody from? That's that's what you can stop somebody from. So >> I say it stays here. If we if we find that that we continue to have those those types of problems, I think I think the discussion needs to go somewhere else. >> Well, it's just a copy of the record too, right? And so who's the keeper of all those records? It's just the building building department sounds like. Right. >> For zoning compliance. Yes. >> Right. So which to that point would go to them and they're in charge of the enforcement aspect anyways too.
048So >> I guess yeah to that. Yeah. >> Are you good? Yeah. >> Matt, are you good with that saying >> because [clears throat] I feel like the I feel feel like the board should know when this b this basically signifies for conservation when you're done with your permit you apply for a certificate of compliance when you're same thing for board of health when you um building permit you certificate of vacuum So, um, there we don't have anything in here really that shows, you know, >> closes that loop, >> closes out the permit and, um, and maybe that's something that we should look at. I was just going to say, you know, >> adding in here, >> you know, may maybe at least for part of, you know, addressing this, but also part of we
049never come back with site plan to say we, you know, we do have a you got to submit as built and this or that, but as part of our process, we don't close out anything by saying a certificate of completion or maybe that's something we need to start looking into. So it gives us some >> well and certainly I think it makes sense from the storm from the storm water standpoint it it makes a whole lot of sense. So the planning board site plan process is advisory to the building department really. You you aren't issuing a permit [clears throat] for the site plan. You're you're um allow approving it to allow for construction or approving it which then allows the building department to issue a building permit or whatever certificate of I don't even I
050don't know what it would be without a building but it would be something. So, um, so may, you know, maybe maybe that's how we kind of I mean, not that the storm water bylaw is going to have the same meat that a occupancy permit does, but um, but at least we would have some ability to close out the project. >> Well, it's worth it it's worth looking again. And I think downstream it's worth looking into site plan approval and and closing that out and having that and is there a way for us to have some meat on that outside of the building department giving them well you gave him an occupancy but here's here's our what we want you to go through. You need to submit an asbuild. It needs to be certified by an
051engineer that says it was built to the plan. any of these things in and as part of that, you know, we we hold back. If if we have, you know, if we have some money left in, we hold we hold back or we we require them to put money in until they get that released. Is, you know, is that something that we can put into um site plan review and maybe it's something that we need to look at? I mean, we've always had this issue of of was it built to what they said it was? And we've even had we've had people certified that it was and then find out it wasn't. >> That's where it says log. >> Low impact design. >> Yeah. I I feel like those are all right. I'll I'll work
052that. I'll talk to the >> um >> that yeah that that's I'd almost change the wording because that as to what you're doing there and what you're doing in low impact development two different things. So they both shouldn't be >> LIDs. Agreed. >> Low impact design works there but it shouldn't be called >> LI which Oh, I see it. Because the the low impact design is like the they're we're talking about individual features of the >> Yeah, that's of the development. >> Design that's not development. >> You know, that could be LE or something if you wanted to keep that or or if you don't if you don't specify LI anywhere else to mean low impact design, just don't give it an L. Just call low impact design. >> Yeah. Yeah. I go that way.
053>> Yeah, let's just do that. Yes, that works. >> Yeah. Without capitals. >> Yes. >> No capital. >> That's what I took out. [laughter] >> Number six. It has to be typed out. >> Yep. That has to be just typed out now. >> LS and BMPs. >> I hate that the um BMPs refer to >> Yeah. Don't put design there, Liz. It's low impact site design. >> Oh, >> otherwise you get design site design. There you go. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Lovely. >> Then it can't even be confused with LI. >> Um, so traditionally we haven't focused a lot on LI and making people do that. Um, if that's something that this I don't see this changing, you know, dramatically, but >> there you go. out there. It's in the regulations. Um they're all
054basic for the design standard engineering practice. All right. So, uh this is another area that's um a significant um change from what was in the previous regulations. Um this outlines there's there's uh accepted calculations that are done through this um EPA region tool accounting and tracking tool. It's really complicated and most engineers don't even bother using it because it's easier to because it's so complicated um that they usually select um retaining the volume of runoff equivalent to or greater than the applicable value. Um the applicable value is set whether or not it is a new development or a um a redevelopment. Currently, um new development is a half an inch unless it's a critical area. This bumps it up to an inch, which um helps us satisfy our phosphorus removal. and um and requires not
05580% but 90% of the total sus suspended solids and 60% of the average um phosphorus which the easiest way to get rid of the phosphorus is the most efficient way to get rid of it is to infiltrate. So it it's going to be I mean pretty much everybody goes towards um infiltration basins when they can anyway. Um so it'll just be increasing the volume that needs to be infiltrated for new developments. >> [clears throat] >> So currently redevelopments don't don't have any um [clears throat] base standard uh requirement. The the way it reads right now is [snorts] um meet the standards to the maximum extent practical. Now whose practical yeah >> we're talking about I really don't know. Um, and I can tell you I argued it very strongly one way when I was on
056the other side of the table and I've argued it pretty strongly uh the other way on this side of the table. So it, you know, >> there definitely can be different viewpoints on practical. So, um [clears throat] this requires any redevelopment to um instead of the uh does this not have 08. I got to check that. If that's right, that's crazy. Uh um it's it's requiring instead of one inch across the site, it's requiring 0.8 multiplied by the total. >> Yeah. Post construction impervious surface area. >> I mean on the redevelop portion. >> Oh, >> that's why it's that. >> Okay. >> We're >> last word on redevelopment portion of the site. So they're only talking about what's redeveloped. What whatever gets developed but this site >> so if it's already if it's already impervious
057>> yeah see I I know I asked about >> but [clears throat] because I don't know that I don't know that let me see what redevelopment had I think redevelopment is in the bylaw >> it's in the you have the bylaw >> y It's lengthy. Development, rehabilitation, expansion, demolition, construction, land alteration, or phase projects that disturb the ground surface, including impervious surfaces on previously developed sites. And there's further. >> Would you like me to continue? Well, I just so using [clears throat] the car wash for as an example that was in a that was arguably a imperous area. >> Yeah, there was probably no based on that in terms of what was [clears throat] impervious before. There was no re there was no new in impervious on that site. >> Right. But but how can
058you not call that a redevelopment? projects that disturb the ground surface, including imperous surfaces on previously developed sites. >> So, it sounds to me like it's calling that a redevelopment. >> Y, >> which is what it was. You took you took a parking lot and you redeveloped a portion. I guess I guess it would to me we would want to for the lack of a better word right now I can't think of one penalize them or or put them under if they whether it was impervious or not before if it's changing. So if you have a section of a parking lot you're not doing anything to part of the site you didn't do anything to it. you added a building um that was on impervious where you where you did that work took out the
059impervious that was there put a building up that's part of the redevelopment you would be subject to whatever the water flow is in that area to the extent possible meeting what was there >> where the building's going even though impervious >> right because the building is the only >> redevelopment area whereas for the car wash it would have been the whole >> the whole thing because that's all yeah well >> the Oh, >> if they could keep, and I don't think they did, if they could keep part of the parking lot there that they didn't touch, which I don't think happened, then I would say no, you don't include that. But every part of the building plus the new grading that was associated to make that work would be part of the redevelopment site and
060would fall underneath what was said in here in terms of storm water. >> Matt, were you reading from the storm water bylaw? >> Thank you. >> I think that's where we want to go. Now, if that's what that's if that's how the definition works, then I'm fine with that. Well, that's that would I guess that would be my interpretation of it. And I >> let's make Yeah, let's make sure it's clear to everybody that way so someone else doesn't come back to you and say, "Oh, no, that's not redevelopment." >> ref pre refer. >> Yeah. So, we don't want to we don't I don't want to change that anytime soon. >> But we can we can kind of we can see about clarifying redevelopment in here. >> Let's so that they mirror each other. >>
061Yeah. Well, so they don't >> No. So, >> not so mirror, but that it's clear what that is, how we're interpreting what that says. I guess >> exactly. I mean, >> any bylaw is up for any interpretation. >> It's just ours versus the applicants and ours always stands. >> Yours matters. >> Yes. >> It's the only one that matters. >> And and I think that's the whole point. That was the whole point of de of [clears throat] EPA putting this in is they want they don't want to just let people redevelop areas like if you're if you're just repaving or re you know that's that's different, right? If [clears throat] you're if you can make it a little bit better, great. But if you're redeveloping you're in the case of the car wash, you're creating
062a whole new business, a whole new revenue source. There's no reason you shouldn't be meeting >> today's standards. >> Not not even quite today's standards, but almost >> 80%. 80 Well, and and here they say 80% is practical. >> How do you measure that? >> Well, by the by your >> Oh, it is. >> Yeah, it's legitimately um their calculations instead of having one inch, they can use 0.8. >> Okay. I thought it was sort of a conceptual aid. I >> hope you guys planned on being here all night. >> Mhm. >> Um I don't This is in here just it's a waste if you ask me, but says you guys can designate additional sensitive areas if you want to at some point in time. The only thing I could think of that might that
063you might want to consider including is the zone two. Yeah, the zone two. Um but that's kind of already covered under the um district. >> Yeah. So under the zoning. >> Mhm. >> Um >> that's fine. You can leave it in. It doesn't hurt. >> Yeah. Uh, this talks about nitrogen removal. I'm I'm still looking at these integrated list of waters and related reports. I don't think we currently have anything that is uh nitrogen impaired, but if something became nitrogen impaired, they would have to um they would have to put BMPs that could deal with the nitrogen. >> [clears throat] >> I have no idea what bofiltrate I don't know what that means. [clears throat] Any storm water management infil shall provide a level of pollutant removal equal to or greater than the level of
064pollutant removal provided with bofiltration. >> So I got to find out from the consultant what the hell that means. uh waiverss. This was the only area I wasn't sure if you guys wanted to if they were going to be asking for a waiver from what from their from these regulations. Um they couldn't meet their8. They tried as they might. Um they would have to ask for a a waiver. I don't know if that would raise you to wanting to have a public hearing. >> No. Okay. >> Not me. >> I I mean [clears throat] >> it it would seem >> I can't imagine somebody coming in from the public that would have enough >> right. Yeah. >> You know, other than the waters going in my my property, I'm not sure that >> they would
065understand what what this is asking for in terms of removal of phosphorus. So I don't think it needs to go to the level of a >> So the only hearing So the only thing I did say is that it it needs to be that needs to specifically be approved by the storm water authority, not by the town engineer. >> So that a waiver >> paragraph C is not going to read like it is right. >> Nope, that's fine. Public meeting, not public hearing. >> Okay. Mine says hearing or Oh, I'm sorry. I'm I'm on >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, >> I'm jumping back to >> Yeah, because we That that's that's one of the ones that Matt brought up to me. Um construction inspections. This is all I put everything in here I think under it's
066my responsibility to go out and do these inspections. Um >> um >> don't know if it addresses if it's big enough to have town engineer or designate and we can if if we decide that it's big enough we can charge them for the designate per you know if we had a peer review or something we may want them to do the inspection. Just throwing that out there. And again, I wouldn't stop us from approving this tonight, but it's something that we may want to think about downstream. If >> the project's under a peer review, the peer review would have in their contract inspections usually written into their estimate, but >> yeah, it should this should this should say or [clears throat] >> or designate. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. I mean I I can't think of
067a single instance where >> you haven't comment hasn't gone out. Yeah, I know. I don't know that there is any, but I'm just maybe we may want to try to >> change what we're doing too. So to the extent that we can allow that, let's try to >> Yeah, it makes sense to have it say designate. Um formalizing that when you're putting in a storm water, basically if you're putting in an infiltration basin, I need to see the bottom just like [clears throat] if it's a septic system. um which is not something that's it it's it's somewhat done with um underground detention areas but not above ground for some reason. So, and it really should be [clears throat] >> yeah this >> well to a certain extent and again that may be something we want
068to look at into that as they construct any of those those are constructed to a certain thickness and stuff as part of the asbuilt >> it shouldn't be a final grade on top it should be what was the what was the grade when you started putting in whatever you're using for gravel or whatever that's what we need to have not not just >> yeah I did it to the right grade and then nothing below it is actually right. >> Right. You have 5 ft of junk. >> Yeah. So again, that's something that we should probably think about when we talk about I don't know that we've ever addressed that, but we we >> definitely have not. >> But we probably should going forward. So we can we can pick that up in in the new
069year. But that's [clears throat] [snorts] >> I mean, you know, back in the day when people were doing roads and 12 in of gravel and if you didn't go out and look at it, had 6 in of gravel, but the final grade was right. >> Um, >> so that final inspection piece up above where it said the two years. Yeah, I'm gonna >> put a question mark on that. Yeah, >> it's like that is a long time >> for an AS bill. It should be like 90 days at most delete >> question over here. >> Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. [clears throat] >> I can't read that glasses when it gets that small. [clears throat] >> I'm I'm sorry. Excuse me, folks. Did we do I thought your comment on in section 9 paragraph E about
070figuring out who what actions bring an out of compliance back into compliance. Did we cover that yet? I thought you had a good question there. No, we're I'm jumping ahead. Yep. Sorry. Right. Fine. Elicit discharge compliance statement. That's currently that is something that and I don't know which is right or wrong. Um the property [clears throat] owner has to certify that they that they are not aware of any um illicit I don't know if discharge is the right word. I think it should be um connections, but either way, they're not aware of it. That currently is done as part of the handbook when they file the when they file it. >> Um I don't know if And this I think says this is something they want at the end. [clears throat] So when they're done
071with the project, then they certify that there's no elicit discharge. I don't it doesn't quite make sense to me, but for for rede Yeah. See, shouldn't this be done prior to the issuance of the permit for redevelopments? The elicit discharge statement shall also document all actions taken to identify and remove elicit discharges, including without limitation, visual screening, dye, smoke testing. So, if you need to do dye and smoke testing, you should be doing that before you start messing around with your drain. But before you start designing your drainage system, >> yeah, you should I guess the only the only reason why it would be after is if you went out there and started digging and you found something that you didn't know was there at all and then you had to do that after the
072fact. But if you know something's [clears throat] there, you don't know where it goes, then yeah, you should be doing that. >> Yeah. So, I like I think maybe the >> Yeah. Well, we'll have to I'll just have to we'll have to look at that a little bit >> closer um in the new year and try to put something in the beginning and then they can reertify or something in the end. >> I [snorts] don't know. So, do I interpret that conversation to mean that we're not >> I'm going to leave it how it is right now. I think it's too much for us to try and figure out right this >> I thought maybe it meant that we weren't going to finalize these tonight. >> No, we need to >> I'm sorry. >> We
073need to accept them as they are if we >> even if we even there's a couple places we might want to revisit. Okay. Good. Good. Good. Um I didn't like this um because it's saying that they I need to for me use tech or professional energy shall vote the effectiveness of the storm water during an actual storm and document the findings. >> I mean it has happened that we don't get rain for a long period of time. Yeah. >> Um, so I don't >> they can't test it if it's not raining. If [laughter] it doesn't rain. >> Um, and so that that these are some of my comments like maybe it should say something like report on storms over a certain size, say 2 in of rain over a 24-hour period, something more concrete than
074that. But again, yeah, this is it's fine for now. But um I I don't >> hang on to these comments, though, because they're all very valid points. [clears throat] >> Um inadequacy of the system. This basically says if somebody figures out that a system doesn't work even though it was designed and constructed properly, that the town can make you fix it. Good. Sounds [clears throat] crazy to me, >> but okay. >> I'm not sure. I'm not sure how you fix it if it's designed correctly, but it didn't work. It's like, okay, well, what do I change to, >> right? Where what do I look at? >> Um, this is just clarification with the town's not going to be taking care of your BMPs unless they're um unless they're in an easement that the town has
075control over. um the the subdivision, the BMPs are the responsibility of the owner until the town accepts it. >> Actually, I just thought of a situation where where it could happen [snorts] cuz you go out and you do a percolation test to do the thing. You do it in an area and you put it over the whole area, but yet 5t away the perk rates totally different. It doesn't work. Well, that's on them, >> you know? >> Right. >> Z said it should work. Well, it wasn't consistent over the area that you thought it was going to be, >> which I've seen happen. >> Yeah. So, I guess there is one. >> Took me a while to come up and >> Well, you you worked hard on that. [laughter] >> Um, this just gets more
076into the inspections mass now. >> Yeah. Uh this is where it says that if the owner fails to do the maintenance, the town [clears throat] can go in and do the maintenance and then charge them. Don't see that happening, but uh and I and I so um check with with that they can charge them. We have to find a way to make sure that that's that that money is that we can get that back. Whether that becomes whether we have to say that we can put a lean on the property or whatever. Just again, I don't think you need to change it now, but we want to change we want to think about it downstream in terms of what is the actual recourse mechanism. Is it going to be a lean on the property? Do
077we, you know, do we force how do we do that? Could >> we go back to paragraph or 11, please? I went Well, I went past your >> 11. You were right at 11, weren't you? >> Oh, I thought >> No, no, not >> you said nine. You were Yeah. >> Um, no. I'm I'm about 11. >> Okay. >> Um, and if I'm mistaken, by all means say so. But shouldn't maybe the title of 11 say elicit discharges andor connections? Because what if it's not a connection but just a discharge into a wetland? >> Yeah. I I [clears throat] didn't I didn't like elillicit discharge because as far as I'm concerned, if there's an illicit discharge, that's something that needs to cease immediately, >> right? >> Whereas an illicit connection, >> okay, >> is something
078that you you should have 60 days to eliminate. Now I that maybe I'm thinking about it too technically or something but an illicit discharge to me is is the is the physical act of it happening. No >> when someone takes their sump pump and just drains [clears throat] it onto the neighbor or into the street. >> Yeah. So then that's right. If it's if it's draining into the street some system, [clears throat] >> if it's if it's draining into the street and it's causing >> ice, >> yeah, >> that's to me that's an illicit discharge. You need to stop discharging it to the street immediately. You shouldn't have 60 days to stop discharging it to the street, >> right? Mhm. >> or a toilet [clears throat] >> without all the proper um >> um but
079if you have an illicit connection. So let's say you're not supposed to have your sump pump tied into the sewer system >> system, >> which you're not. This [clears throat] gives you 60 days or it it would really be more like um it would be more um if you had your your pool um discharge if you had a discharge from your pool directly to the drainage system in the street which does happen >> I'm sure >> crazy [snorts] uh that would be an illicit connection because and and obviously you can't just get rid of the connection immediately. You can get rid of the discharge immediately, but not the connection. >> So, but what if they're discharging into [clears throat] a a drain great thing? That was very badly worded, but um you know, they stick
080a hose in the drain >> on the top. >> Yeah. From in the street drain. >> Yeah. That's an illicit discharge in is >> then they should [clears throat] get rid of Oh, discharge >> if it's just a hole. Right. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Gotcha. >> Joe's thinking I'm working on this one. >> Well, I'm trying to think where I think for what this storm water thing would be. I think it's elicit connection >> is what we should be concerned about. >> Is what you should be concerned about. discharges are I don't think are part of this. They're part of >> this is the the >> this is where it falls kind of back into the highway department. >> Right. Right. Okay. Yeah. There's a whole other set of regulations that govern what I was
081referring to. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's I mean it they overlap and this is where they're they're converging at this point. But all right, we're going to get rid of discharge then. We're gonna leave connections. Okay. Yes. So this allows So they put it in here with both connections and discharges that we can order the elimination of elicit connections or discharges, which I guess I'm fine with it saying both. >> Or do you want me to remove discharges from there? >> That's good. [clears throat] >> You think you're going to leave it? >> I didn't hear you, Joe. >> I I think you can leave it in that particular >> It just Yeah. I mean, I don't know that. >> Again, I don't think we're enforcing it as part of here. We're never going to catch
082up to them anyways. >> Yeah. >> But the fact that you have it in there, we can get them one way or another, >> right? >> If we identify it as a >> tool. Criminal violation, $300 a day each day. Each violation is a separate offense. Blah blah blah. That's standard stuff. noncriminal $100 the end. No, what was this bad? >> I'm sorry. I'm going above par um noncriminal disposition. Can we say stormwater authority should be the enforcing entity instead of body? >> Which one? Um above severability capital paragraph E noncriminal disposition >> as an alternative the town of Milford may like to utilize >> she'll be the enforcing entity >> be the enforcing >> entity I don't know that [clears throat] Lord Bobby Young just seems weird there everybody okay with that entity >>
083that works >> it's just personal preference Yeah, I it's just personal preference. That's 12 eur body. Very thoughtful comments, guys. So, if you could uh I need a I need a vote to accept the uh the regulations as amended. >> I have a a motion that someone could read if you want to. So, move this. The motion could read to approve the storm water regulations as amended made by the town engineering consultant subject to additional amendments discussed this evening with the town engineer and subject to review by town council. >> So moved. >> Covers it all. >> I have a question. >> Oh, >> sorry. >> No. >> Certainly allowed Mr. [clears throat] >> I've been patient. Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh so so what's the next step, Liz, after we vote on this? Uh, so
084I think it says in here effective immediately someplace. Um, so I I guess that one of my questions was going to be what is this going to um for the preliminary subdivision. I think that's the only thing that >> they'll be subject to it on final anyways. >> It's only preliminary review. So, they're going to be they're going to be on the on the on the final submitt as far as I'm concerned. [clears throat] That >> Yeah. No, no, no. That makes And it's not Yeah. And it's and it's not a it's not a zoning thing. It's not a zoning bylaw. So, it doesn't get frozen >> with that. So, that's the only that um anything that has already been approved >> um wouldn't >> right >> wouldn't have to meet these. However, anything that
085has anything that isn't constructed within the time frame of the permit, >> um we could certainly um not extend a permit. So, if they did a site plan review and um and that expired, you certainly would have the ability to um bring those regulations these in. >> Yeah. I mean, I and I think you'd have to do it depending on where they are in the process, you would um figure out exactly what kind of modifications you need. But yeah, it would so anything that has a current permit is um grandfathered and until it needs um an extension >> to be to be fair to everybody. Should we do this approval subject to a date of December 1? I mean, we can prove it tonight, but in fact, you couldn't give somebody tomorrow what these regulations
086say because you got to go back and make the changes as we said, talk to a couple people. So, the document itself wouldn't [clears throat] be ready as of tonight. Yet, we're forcing somebody to to meet those regulations as of tonight. Whereas, if we were to make that Friday or December 1st, then you could say they approved it. Here it is. you submitted. Now you need to meet these. >> Honestly, I would just say the beginning of the Well, I Yeah, due December 1st just because that's the deadline. Yeah, >> that was the reason for my question. Um cuz I think the document needs to have some type of a revision or dated. >> Well, it'll be the original. So, yeah, >> you better be dated. >> Yeah, I I was I wanted to make
087a um cover sheet for it. I just didn't get to it today, but to with the seal and have a date so that effective date. actually and I'll we'll do adopted by the planning board but today's >> you can yes >> it would be adopted today >> okay >> very very good document one more uh comment if I could um and it's me I I mean I read a whole document still not 100% clear to me who the authority is [laughter] okay I understand the administration >> no no I get that But I think we need to I I know it's it's a a generic, you know, document trying to be in its regulation, but I really think we need to spell that out. >> Yes. >> They need to come to somebody when the
088state comes in. It's the >> It's It's basically you unless [clears throat] they don't need a permit from you and they need a permit from the Conservation Commission >> and then it's >> then it's the Conservation Commission. Yeah, >> it's it's it's really going to be very very rare that you're going to have the conservation commission be the um storm water authority >> bylaw in the bylaw it is the planning board. >> Okay, but can we spell that out there? [clears throat] I mean it's not >> well if if we have it as us then they would for something that we would not ever see for any reason but it does have to go to the conservation commission we then have to see it. So, what she's trying what Liz is trying to eliminate is
089is having to have to come to us for something that we would have never normally reviewed. >> Single family house or something. >> Single family houses probably neither one having to do it, but >> yeah. >> I mean, I think that's why she's going down this path, which sort of makes sense. I mean, do we really want to see, you know, the one that the one that comes to mind for me would be if the town did Godfrey Brook relining of Godfrey Brook, it needs a conservation permit. >> Well, actually, yeah, the right. We just >> Yeah, it's going to need It's going to need to meet these regulations. We would never see that. If we're the permit authority now all of a sudden, we have to do a review of the Godfrey Brook rehabilitation.
090Do we want to do we want to have that here? >> Which effectively duplicates what the con had just done. >> More than likely. >> Right. [clears throat] >> So, Matt, did you >> I I get it. I I get it. The other the other reason I wanted to try and keep the storm water authority um is that I I do think I wanted to not make I didn't want to have planning board throughout this whole document >> because I do think we're going to get to a point where you're the planning board's not the storm water authority and so I you know I wanted to just try to make it I guess a little bit easier to transition to that But um Matt, did you say the bylaw, stormwater bylaw says the storm water
091authority is the planning board? >> So are you planning on amending the stormwater bylaw? >> No. >> You want the concom to be the stormwater authority sometimes? >> Yeah. >> You see what you see >> I do. >> Okay. >> Yeah. [clears throat] And to that point and to Joe's point, you know, a lot of times when we do the site plan reviews, right, we we get the different departments, does it instead become a point where now the conservation commission becomes a department and we are that last spot where we check everything off where it still needs to come to us just as that final check off and saying, "All right, yep. You know, all these other departments have done their job." Typically when we do the site plan reviews, fire department, sewer department, water
092department, within that list does the conservation commission become another check mark. So that way to Joe's point, we are that authority. >> My understanding is these regulations allow the planning board to delegate that responsibility to another commission if it's a project that we do not have. I think the planning board, >> right, >> would the delegation tell us and again I'm not trying to create more for us. >> No, no, no. Right. Are we the last gatekeeper? >> And that makes and that makes more sense as to why this isn't in conflict with the bylaw. Okay. >> But is that the the planning board is designating? >> Yeah. So, >> what does that work? I mean, wouldn't we'd have to actually I mean, I'm just kind of a stickler for these things. If the bylaw
093says planning board is blank, then concom blank >> unless we formally delegate. >> Well, it's it is formally delegated in the regulations. >> Okay. I I missed that part. I >> was No, it's fine. There are there are a couple of instances in here where it it formally says if it's not >> okay >> going in front of the planning board for anything else >> the planning board may delegate >> basically to the conservation commission. >> No to me that means we have to make a vote to do so. That's not the way it's written in the regulation. >> The regulations make it clear that it's a commission if it's not a project that comes to us. the the regulations our our our delegation to the commission in that in those cases >> then we
094have to delegate >> the regulations do it for you by voting to agree to these regulations >> once once we if we agree to this the way that it's worded now we're making we're making a delegation now on any of them that wouldn't be coming to us >> but I go into the con >> I'll find it when we went over that part I wasn't thinking about these other aspects where we're specifically named as storm water authority. I just want to cover this concept of delegation. Sorry, I'm being a little bit pnicity. No, this was a lot for you guys to go over in one. That is an old word. >> Applic it says it someplace else, too. >> D and E. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Did you say Oh, page three. >> Yep. D
095right there. Oh. Um, five, section five, part D. I just started reading it. >> That's the delegate. >> Okay. So, it doesn't actually say the word delegate. >> No. >> Okay. I'm good. >> But it's clear. >> No, it just it it it effectively states that they are. So, >> yeah, >> we are we are delegating per se based on that. >> But now the bylaw and the regulations are sort of kind of in conflict. No, you guys are the authority >> and then in your regulations. >> Okay. All right. >> We've now delegated >> right now based on the word >> if if you fit the right criteria then you get to then you're agreeing to delegate to the >> Yeah. I mean the the choice is you either leave this to me the
096choice is you either leave this like this or you take it out and each one that comes forward we would we would have to say okay we're delegating to conservation >> or not we can be the we can be the authority through all of them if we want to but I don't I don't know that we want to do that but I guess that's the discussion [clears throat] >> I agree I just wanted to um you know when somebody's reading the document I mean >> no I apprec I appreciate appreciate that because I I I didn't think about the difference between the bylaw and the or I it's good to know that it's not they're not in opposition to each other. >> Yeah. No, it all works. >> So, thank you. >> Again, the thought
097comments were real thoughtful. Um, thank you. Good review. >> Very good. The document >> change we need to change the motion to make December 1st the effective date, I believe. So, the motion could read to approve the stormwater regulations with amendments made by the town engineer this evening, subject to additional amendments discussed this evening with the town engineer and subject uh subject to review by town council with the effective date >> December 1st. >> So moved. >> Second. [clears throat] [snorts] >> Just quick discussion. Town council is going to have time before this December 1st. So they yeah they've they've seen they have seen this um at some point and this is most most of the changes that have been made are the tech are more technical than anything else. I wrote down the things
098the town council needs to just double check but >> because obviously yeah that that December 1st date is coming fast and especially with the holidays coming. Sure is. So that's why >> so and it's part of the motion. So that's why I want to ensure that they're going to have time because if if we're if we're giving them the authority to, let's make sure that it happens before December 1st. >> Yeah. Um Yeah. I I don't I don't foresee there being any big changes or anything that would in Nothing that we we need to have it in. >> We don't have another scheduled meeting before December 1st. And that's >> No, I know. And but So we've adopt we we're adopting these as they're written now. town council has changes >> any changes then it's
099going to have to be for the next meeting >> right so then if if it's something that he feels is >> we can we can do that too this I mean the one nice thing is this is ours change it in January if we can right if there's something dramatic that needs to get changed then we change it in January >> that's fine >> and we're done anybody else >> all All right. >> We have a vote on this. >> All in favor? >> I >> thank you all. >> Thank you, Liz. >> And then a quick question as as we develop along for changes. Who's the gatekeeper for for changes and and knowing that we want to go over like the fee schedule for one? >> We have to put that on our agenda.
100>> Good point. Could we >> Yeah, we'll put our agenda. >> I would say if you want to talk about it, you need to tell him >> so that he can put it on the agenda. Even >> if it's a conversation you want us have about I mean >> most of the convers most of the information is going to be with me >> right >> but he was you know there were there were different points tonight of of like hey we need more clarity we got we at least we're looking for that December 1st implementation date with a handful of changes so just someone needs to be the gatekeeper and to ensure that we can continue to go through those, >> right? He's going to put it on the agenda >> and if you if
101you want to discuss something >> Yeah. I'm just saying if there's something that comes up then just let me know. >> Of course. >> And you know, we can talk about it whether or not it's something that needs to come to the whole be discussed at a meeting or if it's something that we can just >> if there's if you if this was going to be revised, it has to go through that process anyway. That's why. So, and it sounds like they they were >> at least from the fee side of it most likely there and then some other verbiage in here could have some potential changes also too. So, that's all. >> Yep. >> So, we'll also be discussing the um >> the schedule fees, all of that that document. >> Yeah. Well, I'll
102amend this by adding the storm water fees and then we can discuss changing any of these as >> put that on our next agenda. >> All right. Great. Moving on. need to >> finalist probably put that I mean if you we're going to discuss that you probably need to spend some time looking at these schedules from other towns and stuff so >> yeah for sure I wouldn't expect that >> you know >> six weeks yeah >> I'm going to enough time >> I'm going to tell you not in the time that I've been here not that there's been a lot of subdivisions but $100 per lot in a residential subdivision final inspection >> we haven't been charging Yeah. [laughter] >> Meaning you've been charging more. >> We haven't been charging anything. >> Oh wow. >>
103$2.50 per line. I didn't know it was on here. $2.50 per subdivision road frontage. >> If we can get the taxes down there. >> Yeah. >> We're going to charge for that right now. >> School is coming. [laughter] >> I did. Oh, Sil. Um I can't I'll wait till my turn. >> All right. So So let's move on. uh top planner updates. >> The update I had was regarding the fee schedule and we'll put that on our next agenda. Okay. >> We have some new items coming on our next agenda. We have a preliminary subdivision. >> We also have an 81P for the rotting gun club that was approved to tell Meeting. They're getting rid of that old strip of Whale Street or McGill Lane or whatever it's called. >> So, those will be on
104our next agenda. Yeah. [laughter] >> What? >> Both McGill. It's a portion of McGill and a portion of Wales. >> Yeah. So, those are coming up. >> Okay. any uh town engineer updates? >> Um, Field Pond Road, Sila, the the neverending subdivision uh up there was uh final paved on Friday, last Friday. Um they made significant um improvements to the drainage system so that we can get into the catch basins. um been working diligently with the um highway department to get that as straightened out and uh as possible. Um going to the next thing is to work on the um retaining wall on Barbara's way that is not exactly >> retaining. Yeah, it it it appears as though it was probably just not compacted as they backfilled. Um, so it caved in a bit, but
105um, anyway, just wanted to let you know there was progress on there. The residents are thrilled. >> Are what? >> Thrilled. >> Okay. >> Who's doing the work? >> Um, A1 Paving did the paving >> and Jones um, did all of the catch basin work, reset curbing. It was >> Who's the owner now? Is it part of >> it's still >> the state of that building? >> No, cuz it was it's the this was the subdivision was under Mirage, not Mujib. >> Oh, >> um Mujib had >> some of the lots. >> The lot which that's all >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Trans I don't even know it's a it's the estate cuz his son's part of the business. Majib's son is part of that business. That's all I have. >> Okay. On the chairman
106updates. Uh babe, min is not here today. I [laughter] don't have anything. I don't have anything. So, uh let's talk about the next meeting. >> So, I was looking at that and it would normally be the 9th and 16th, right? I mean, excuse me, 9th and no, 2nd and 16th. >> Yeah, I was going to say I thought it was >> I don't know where I was at there. 2 and 16 would be the normal dates. this >> when do you guys you normally only meet once um and then >> the 16th. >> So the one thing with the preliminary subdivision is they have we have 45 days to render a decision and we just got it last week. So that'll put them right up to January. If they'll agree to an extension, we could
107do that. So we'll be seeing it for the first time. I didn't put it on this agenda because I wanted our town departments to get all their feedback in and hopefully they'll have all that in for our first preliminary meeting and if the applicants not agreeable to extension that's kind of their own problem. We'll just >> When did it when did it come in madam? >> Came in last week. Uh Tuesday or Wednesday. >> So it doesn't m it's it doesn't matter which December date you choose. >> Right. >> I would say more so are is everybody available on both dates? >> Yes. 9th or 16th we said. >> No second or second or 16th. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I don't know. I just thought the 16th because it's kind of in the middle
108of the month that which is actually probably irrelevant, but >> I like it. >> 16th is fine. >> 16th. >> You got nothing else, right? So we don't have there's nothing that has to go before us on the second. >> We we have a ZBA referral. I don't know when their next meeting is. >> Oh. Oh, >> you do have one of those. >> I won't say anything. >> It is a It's a setback one similar putting a garage on. >> I'm sure they are. They usually meet the second. >> Yeah. I don't think we we the 16th will be past the meeting, I believe. >> Yeah. >> It's all right. >> Comments. You do you think you're [clears throat] going to get comments back for the second for the preliminary? >> No. >> I
109mean for preliminary. >> No, you're not going to. >> I asked for town department feedback by the what do I say 26th or the 25th? Something next week. >> I mean we're not even we're >> we're not even around. >> Yeah. >> When? >> Good point. like we we [clears throat] have time off in the next >> what? You know, [laughter] >> are you both here on the 16th? I mean, I'm I don't care. I just threw it out. >> Yeah. No, no, I think I'm I'm thinking the 16th makes a lot more sense. I'm I'm thinking the second doesn't make >> Well, it's probably more important to have to give the preliminary subdivision >> as much information as we can. So, >> I would think the 16th would be better than worrying about a
110referral to the ZBA. That's >> going to be ignored. >> Yeah. It's going to be read into the records. >> Said that one out loud, didn't you? [laughter] >> I heard that. >> Okay. 16. >> Our next meeting will be December 16th. >> Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? >> Move to adjourn. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? I >> Thank you. They can