001[Music] good evening welcome to the Milford planning board Tuesday April 1st uh first order of business is the minutes from the last meeting I'll make a motion to approve the uh March 18th minutes I'll second it we moved in second and any further discussion hearing none all those in favor opposed anous the three thank you we don't have any 81p plans uh 110 South Main Street has uh requested to be uh extended to uh the next meeting uh yeah the 15th 15th uh so we won't have that we have an amended site plan for Waters Corporation Larry um just uh do we vote for the continue side plan here no we don't have don't it okay Larry I'm going to hold up on your letter right at the beginning I'm going to let them do
002their presentation because because you got the negative part of it yep well I've got Town Council concurrence I I understand so rather than the the money the water suit right away let's let them make their presentation and then uh do you want to skip and do number five on I was going to say that okay yeah we can do that uh Street acceptance for Walter Circle so uh all the work has been completed the only um there's one area well there's two areas in the road where the uh pavement is not in it's still okay but it's not um perfect let me say and so the highway department and I um agreed have already spoken with the loas and um they are going to bring an infrared um guy in to fix that so what
003I guess I would be asking I would be recommending um that you guys send a favorable um but subject to me confirming that those two areas are taken care of prior to and the driveways would be as well well we've done this in the past the door is if it's not done by town meeting we just pass over the uh pass over the Articles so subject to completion of prepare to to Asphalt yes prare to Asphalt got the edges and uh the thing I've looked at it too it's nothing nothing major so I'll just have you look at what I WR right before I send it off have they given any indication of timeline uh um I met with two infrared guys this week one yesterday one today so as soon as they tell me
004they can do it somebody's going to be up so I don't I'm saying within the next two weeks most I'm hoping by next week first Cas two weeks so typically these are done if there's conditions that it's completed prior to the town meeting correct yeah you didn't have a letter on this lry did you no I didn't think so so uh because the infrared guys are asphalt guys and the asphalt guys are pretty much Off the Grid from right November to exactly that's why he hasn't been able to get kind of why I'm asking knowing that with Tom meting coming up and knowing that it's it's not Paving season yet no but it but it will it will be soon will be very soon and right yeah and it's that's why I wasn't sure if
005it was if it was you know six six weeks six months six years right what's our scope that yeah yeah and it's not so is it just Curbing and just the the no it's not even the Cur curbing the um there's one Edge there's one area by one of the manholes where uh it just didn't it's like flaking yeah it's and it's not really flaking yet and it'll it would will but it will flake exactly and so so we just want to make sure everything up and then there's another area where there's a low spot by one of the driveways that um will have some puddling if it's not fixed so that's the second area on the road and then there's been uh the driveways the way the driveways end isn't ideal um and so
006those need to get rounded over which this is all top coat stuff yeah it's all top yeah it's really dressing fine tuning okay excellent yeah so this is just we're looking for a favorable unfavorable recommendation to sending it to town town meeting to meeting actually decides whether you accept it or not so I'll make a motion to uh to send a um favorable recommendation for the referral for Walter Circle I'll second mve in second any discussion hearing none all those in favor oppos unanimous of three thank you okay than Jo hello folks yes here with Waters y we up for the record my name is Peter Glick civil engineer with and Chris man who real estate director over at Waters is here as well thank you for hearing us tonight apologize a little C technology
007I got excuse those those Tri legged things they're awful just this is old school so I should had it right um firstly uh we we're in front of you for for site plan approval Waters has a interest in putting solar panels over over part of that parking line to the canopies over it it's part of a a logic project the project itself has some funding mechanisms that they're working through that have U deadlines secure the funding at the end the year yeah by the end of the National Grid so we we we we gone through this and try to move things along get you folks as quick as we possibly could um we we started off where we had an in Rory meeting with with u um the M Miss bini and the engineer also
008Mr Duncan know planning and we went we went over the plan with him and uh Mr dunam was very clear on on his interpretation of the zoning at at the time um where it's slightly different than than we saw there we didn't see anything in there that clearly and deliberately prohibits the canopies from being over aisles in the zoning however we did we do respect the um the interpretation that uh Mr Duncan has and presented to you so a little bit about where we're looking at is that this is the the project at 34 Maple Street the main building this is the parking lot right over here that we're looking at and you folks are probably all familiar with the site down there I'll jump right to the right to the plan um but when
009we originally went in and and and and met with Mr Duncan and M manini we had a solid canopy over the whole parking area over here and what we did was we we worked with the the solar soultech who is the the solar contractor and and designer of this and they put together the system and and it's based on modules and a canopy size and fitting them in to this lot in order to get a certain amount of canopies that makes it uh economically feasible to do it within within the front that they have certain return that works with the with the waters folks and our what we tried to do was maintain a clear area between the aisles where it ranges anywhere from 17 17 f 2 in to uh it's 27 ft over
010here uh but in the other aisles it's it's 172 it was 184 212 275 this aisle was 188 so it didn't meet the full 24t width aisle uh which you would have for 90° parking however it does provide uh a SWAT through there it does provide some daylight into that area and also uh for emergency vehicles can get through that and there would be no obstruction Under The Canopy anyways because of the canopy Heights uh they they don't prevent any vehicle and we do there is a letter from the fire department that they didn't have any issue with going through the site but this was sort of the compromise that we we had looked at and and try to come up with it and to satisfy uh the zoning the way we interpreted it in
011in the atttention maybe of the zoning that wanted with without um reconfiguring the whole the whole parking area this is what this is what we came up with um yeah if I could give you just a little background on the whole project so this is Phase One um we're looking at two phases that are about 5 megawatt production at the end of the day the this will supply about 24% of our daily usage at Waters so we'll be taking that off the grid load um this is all part of our 2030 sustainability program that we're working you know not just in our mford office but worldwide through all our offices and locations so okay Larry you want to go through your outlet or you yeah uh again this is amended site plan for 34 M
012Waters map 45 block zero lot 10A of course it's in an IV industrial Zone uh as Peter had explained uh they're looking to put canopies over the parking spaces there are some 312 existing spaces uh that as you can see on actually I blew up parts of what was submitted uh the last two pages in your packet uh the very last page shows a portion of what CER has on his stand and the page before shows the underlying compliant parking array all the Stalls are compliant all the drive ises are compliant so that means the Stalls are 9 by8 and the parking aisles as two-way aisles or 24t wide at any rate subject property uh this portion of the overall campus is 2481 Acres uh it's in the bar hill Industrial Park uh again they're
013looking to construct the canopy solar panels above certain areas uh I refer to section 31523 of the zoning bylaw uh that relates to canopy style installations and I quoted the specific section uh that as Peter mentioned I'd uh pointed out when we first met back in February I think it was uh so the the quote is above paid off street parking spaces sufficiently so as not to obstruct the use of and access to such parking spaces so canopy style installations are specifically allowed for in those areas but they're not allowed beyond the spaces so that same section also requires uh elevated installations over parking spaces shall have the uh maximum height of 18 1/2 ft which as you can see on their detail a couple Pages prior to what we were just looking at they
014comply with that however there no Visions in the bylaw that would perit canopies to extend beyond the parking spaces themselves into the drive aisle I've got confirmation from Town Council but that's in fact uh what the bylaw says um anything other than that would be a zoning violation now if there's an alternative method of of doing something we certainly could amend a zoning bylaw at some point If U you're meable to putting uh amendments through uh at fall town meeting but that doesn't help Peter and Chris right now uh so what I recommended was that what they have is otherwise approvable uh the only uh catch was the easy way and Peter pointed it out the easy way to confirm whether it meets the current zoning requirements is to look at the width of the
015drive AES uh and one two three of them uh well actually four of them um don't comply they're still too narrow one of them is excessively wide uh but it was wide on the ground to begin with part of that I think originally was some other access uh to that far north end of the building when it was first built because the parking wasn't always there that way I don't believe but at any rate uh the plans approval but for that so to the extent that the board clearly has the ability to Grant a conditional approval that was my recommendation uh is to approve it subject to the U Drive AES being open so the okay Larry you consider the the 18 ft open enough well no it needs to be 24 ft it's a
016two-way Lane and all the parking dimensions um it's not just the island it's not just the drive Isis dimensions that's the easy way to tell whether it's in compliance the the specific uh defect so to speak is that the canopies extend beyond the end of the parking SP but it's it's not consistent in each one of array of canopy arrays uh as you go through and Peter probably knows right off the top of the de which um you know the the dimension just pick one um you know the dimension on the north side of that drive aisle which the canopy overhang is probably different than the flip side of it on the other side so yeah the the aisles aren't uniform right with although I'll take that back the canopy space is not a unified
017way but the drive aisle would be unified with well but what I'm trying to relay is is the the uh deficiency in the plan as it stands now uh is discernable the most easiest at the dimension of the a so anything that's less than 24 ft wide does it comply but that's not exactly the point the point is that in any given instance the canopies extend beyond the edge of the existing parking spaces which they can't do it was just an easy way to look at it is what I just explained so this is what I was speaking about earlier that Peter would probably know this in one of these arrays versus another this one may only be a couple of feet Beyond the Edge where if you go on the other side depending on
018the installation this may only be a foot off go to this side this one may be overhanging Beyond the Edge of the stall 3et so they vary as you progress through but the only ones that clearly seem to be staying on top of the Stalls are these two because this island this drive island is 27 ft but even even using that as an example if these canopies extend beyond these parking spaces that's still a violation so it's a doable thing it just affects uh the dimension okay the drive aisle is ft and they have a they have the 24 ft for the cars to get up back in and back out that's the reason for the drive a so the cars can can get in right the driving through area is wide enough for the
019biggest fire truck the ladder truck can almost go through sideways so the area the accessibility is fine for the emergency vehicles the drive ises down below where the parking spaces are are 24 ft so I don't see any problem whatsoever with that if if the overhang was down to seven 7even or 8 ft now you couldn't get an emergency vehicle in or something and that would be a problem the drive ISS are made so the cars can back out of the pocket spaces and go home or get in the area above the drive above the drive a is wide enough for any emergency vehicle to come down and do it so I don't see any problem with that whatsoever well but the bylaw talks about it's the way you interpret the bylaw it's interpreted 60
020times Peak but I'm I I when I it when I used to do it the drive I measure the 24 ft for the cars to turn around no no that's I'm not debating that I'm what what my point is that's an easy reference when you look at the plan but the actual deficiency is that certain canopies extend beyond the existing parking spaces and that's what's prohibited under our bylaw our bylaw doesn't allow for that so if if I can my my my interpretation is the other way the drive a is for the for the cars and everything and there's no problem I got I personally I have no problem passing this the way it is whatsoever hey El of the board got anything to say well I'll I'll let the town engineer go before I
021start diving in so go ahead well I I I didn't mean to cut well you may answer some of the questions who knows it looks like you're going to so that first page is in the orange I have highlighted the whole sentence that is referenced by Town Council and Larry in his letter and the whole sentence says further such ground Ed systems shall be included in the calculation of required minimum open space unless installed above paved off street parking spaces sufficiently elevated so as not to obstruct the use of an access to such parking spaces so when you look at the whole sentence it has to do with a calculation of open space that is what that has to do with it has it's not it doesn't say that it can only be over parking
022spaces it doesn't say it can't be over drive aisles it says if you're doing the open space calculation if it's over the drive aisle you have to count it as impervious additional impervious area but if it's over a parking space you don't have to count it as additional impervious area because it's already impervious so I in my mind the interpretation here is that the intent was to not double count the uh impervious well that's true I I agree when we when we did this and I do kind of remember because I wrote it and uh well Cal Joon isn't here but both he and babe were on the board in 2012 when this got adopted and we based it on the model uh solar bylaw that was floating around the time uh from uh was
023it D or I don't know anyway uh so the whole idea was to give people a break if they did canopies over parking stalls it was never intended to do anything I'm not saying I'm so so that was the idea and and then that's what I mentioned when we met in February that this whole thing came about out as an exemption from otherwise getting stuck getting you know binged twice on an open space calculation if it's already impervious who cares except that when you're talking about parking then you want it over the parking spaces and nowhere else that's not what that says well let not okay let not debate I will stick I will okay you do can can I I have a few more things I'll stick to my script the zoning regulation uh
024so actually to start with Waters is an important economical entity in Milford we should work within the regulations to help Waters Corp P succeed in Milford they are a good neighbor in addition it would be helpful to the Milford Community for Waters to be supplying more of their own power and relieving the grid of their impact so I think this is an overall good project for the town of Milford and I think we should do what we can within the regulations to um to proceed to move this along the zoning regulations do not expressly forbid the installation over the drive AES and why should they if the sole purpose of the drive a is to access the spaces why wouldn't the limitations for the spaces be the same as the aisles so back to what
025um um my father was saying that it's even if that wasn't the Way It Was Written I think that's something we should look at changing because I think that makes a lot more sense um so if we forget about common sense for a second and we look at whether this even counts as a ground mounted system if you if they wanted to put uh columns with a roof over the parking spaces and stalls with no solar on top of it is there anything in the bylaw that prohibits that yes John I know I know you and all this stuff up and and you spent more time doing that at anybody at at all when this first started bothered to say anything about it the first I saw this is when they came in in February
026and since then spent lots of time trying to cook this up so they don't have to comply I can't help with that they didn't look at the rigs before they drew them up yes you could build a building a structure that's going to need to meet the building code yes over something if everything else complies that's not what we're talking about it's a ground mounted system that's provided for in the bylaw and and that that's been settled that the town had this board has approved several systems they approved the the installations at the at the Dairy Queen they've approved the installations at at McDonald's at 350 uh East Maine uh and all of them were forced to comply because again their Consultants didn't bother to read the bylaw and then they came in with it
027and then they had to adjusted and they got approval and it's working they're still working so I I guess all of the word games and and running down rabbit holes to cook up hypothetical examples is you're missing the point I'm not missing the point the point consistent this board has consistently applied the interpretation that I relayed now just because I wrote it doesn't necessarily mean I like it I wrote it based on what was determined to be appropriate and it's been followed consistency that consistently for 12 years that's been the practice of this board that's been the interpretation which is why that's what I relate so it doesn't matter if they want to build a humongous building get a building from it or get a site plan for that but that's the you know now
028then they're going to have to do roof mounted solar on that which they don't need anything but building permit but that's not what they're proposing I understand that well then why bother to go down that rabbit okay there's another does Who members here got we got the vote too what the best part yeah um I guess on that line when I look at your application it does say ground mounted so I was kind of curious what the difference between ground mounted so when I go and I think ground mounted it's when I drive by I see a field and they're mounted to the ground yours are in a sense canopy mounted so there is a I'm assuming the there is a structure and then these these um the units are mounted on top of the
029structure yeah it's a so like the the um the units the the solar panels themselves have no structural Integrity to the canopy correct I'll R my finger this is the structal member right here I have it WR from there's so in sense they're they're they're two separate assemblies have a I have a canopy assembly and then I have these uh solar panels that mount to that that assembly okay yeah and I guess when I look at this plans these plans and obviously there is they're not necessarily just over the parking spots what was the driving factor of why they're in a sense oversized from the parking spots the the factor of where it is longitudinally on the plan is that the columns line up with the existing parking spline so you have the splines right
030down the middle the parking spaces are on either side at 90° The Columns fall dead set in the middle so that you don't lose any any maneuvering space or aisle space or anything they you stay right right in the middle there the panels themselves are a module that this particular company has and that they they they use in in and there's technical reasons why they use that particular module it gives them the the the maximum benefit out of that size area that amount of area for those modules and the way they set up is they set up in in three panels and you see that little tricky to see there but there there's three three panels one on each side of then you can kind of see it in the uh crosssection too two three
031and that's that's the way align with yeah are they a standard size panel they're all standard size so if uh I guess what what would be is there a next size panel down that so can be incorporated or are you at the mercy of the standardized panels so if we go to the next size of panels down we lose about 30% of the production of the system and at that point the RO the ROI almost does not work M um and we're probably you know you're looking you're probably walking away at that point okay yeah we're also part of this it's called the AI program with National Grid we're actually the first local commercial customer that's been approved by National Grid to be in this program okay it's a pilot program so we're trying to
032maximize what we're doing here for production on the site and to be you know working with them so and right now yeah the footprint that you have you're you've maximized based on the parking spots that you've have in the the yeah you can get yeah so our original version going down to this we've already pulled out about 10 to 11% of the production if we went down to clear out everything to full 24 ft yeah we'd lose 30% of the system just out of curiosity what was the what was the the original uh request was full like end to end in a sense across each Drive aisle yeah when we when we first came in and presented creev middle had a canopy across the whole area yeah yeah which had a better economic value because
033now you're building two larger ones now we're building multiple you know s not single but multiple you know units so and daisy chaining them all together is a little bit yeah there's a lot more Trend exactly yeah um what was the rationale for or I guess what was the reason for pulling back on the the the original proposal because obviously we're still having some infiltration into the aisleways but it was a it was a factor of talking to Mr Duncan and understand they trying to keep the aisles open yeah and we we and again we we had read the zoning and we had our certain intentions there as well was trying to have somewhat of a compromise of keeping the modules that that that worked for for them on each one of those those splines
034all the way across so it set the geometry of it and and that distance between the two canopies is what was essentially left okay you know the maximum that we could do and maintain that that configuration it's limited on the existing lot because the way the parking is configured yeah okay um and then Larry just going back the zoning bylaw it doesn't necessarily or it doesn't specifically say cannot impede drrive vies it's interpreted that it can impede drrive ises well there there was I don't know it's extra language but it was uh it was added as a way to explain uh why the canopies were limited being above the spaces only um it didn't need to be in there but we felt it was appropriate to kind of round out uh the the statement with
035in effect of gratuitous language about the reason uh that you would limit it to being Aller the spaces other than the language it says obviously it has to be tall enough above the space that it does imped access so and that's what yeah kind of in a in a black and white world of of it doesn't necessarily you know say it can't impede the dryes right from what I'm interpreting on it it it we're specific about the heights Y and we are I'm just trying to you know about the not um not affecting the impervious calculations but again I to my interpretation of it I don't see anything that says that it can't go into the drive AES that's that's kind of my sticky Point that's again why I've asked that you know it it
036doesn't necessarily say that it has to be over the parking spaces and it can't exceed the parking spaces and it doesn't say it it that it can't be there it's required to only be over the parking spaces and cannot exceed into the drive housee well because it's written as an exception uh it says un less installed above paved off street parking spaces okay uh and then any language beyond that is is kind of fluff uh but it's it's not talking about actually the drive AES themselves it's talking about making sure you can still get in and out of the parking space but the location of where it is above it so unless unless it's a flying car a roof is going to impede a car with four wheels that's going to back out right I
037mean unless someone that's another I know I mean unless I'm not sure you know I know Waters doesn't develop flying cars so I think we're safe we're going to stop at EV charges you know so so uh um I don't have any more questions I'm I'm I'm good no I uh I don't have any questions I think it's a it's a great idea I think it's uh take advantage of the uh Sol oh absolutely yeah and um also get some protection for the cars right it's yeah if if it was me when I'm doing this I would put so you could put a canopy over the whole thing and then when we change the zoning by you could add it on without the expense of of doing it I got no problem passing it the
038way it is but I would again that people are smarter than I am so uh that's what I do I I build it so it's accessible so you could you could expand it it's maximize your your footprint or the energy code is changing the energy code they're pushing this energy code I go to these classes for my CDL license my uh CDL my construction supervisors license and that's the biggest thing they push at these classes is the uh energy code and they tell us in Boston that's all they pushing is the energy code and this is taking care helping to to alleviate some of the problem so I got no problem the way it is uh what's the I guess my only question is you know where they they've proposed um a site plan that
039they that they've scaled back and I almost would like for them to you know if we're going to improve something that goes a little bit into over the parking ways why not give them the ability to to extend and maximize their uh their solar output you know to me um I just don't know how that would affect their overall scheme of things it sounds like there's going to be some support here at least from three of us from that side of it um but I don't want to muddy up the waters too much no I again I agree with you again this site is perfect for it because the loading docks are in the rear with a different Drive Drive area to get to the loading dock so there's not going to be any but
040the the height of it is going to be 18 ft y on anyway so this the bridges on the highway are only 14t exactly so you're not going to do it so no matter what which way you look at it it's not impeding traffic it's not impeding emergency vehicles correct uh we have a letter here we did didn't go through the letters we only have the two letters one from the fire department which he agrees and has no problem with it and the highway department which again here' be only the thing so uh so I got know what's the to Chris's point I would say um I think it probably makes sense to approve it as is and then if they want to come back with an amended site plan going over the whole thing
041right at least gets some moving forward today and if they want to they're they're time they're in a time crunch yep and if they want to uh take Provisions to expand they can well again if you're going to if you're going to put the beams in put them in so they hold it and then you can add on add on later I mean I if you want to go with the whole thing com no I I don't had no problem at all yeah I didn't want to I didn't want to go through the continuation aspect of it yeah I mean we do we have a a restriction with National Grid of up to one megawatt so we will build and design up to there with your approval and support appreciate it is there any possibility
042coming back for the other building too so um there there is a yeah there is a phase two so um that is in a different it's in what they call their group study so what national grid that takes anywhere [Music] from oh well that was the other end he was going to give you a lower number like 10 years yeah so it's 18 to 24 months on the group study so these both projects went in at the same time um in January uh this is like I said the Ari program we need to be completed installed in what they call live by December 31st to get their incentive against this so yeah we are against time um and I hope to be back uh in late 25 early 26 for actually the logger which is
043three times this which will be on the other on the other lot okay a pleasure of the board make a motion to approve the amended site plan for Waters Corporation at 34 Maple Street I'll second up mov in second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor I oppos unanimous of three thank you gentlemen thank you I'm glad that we follow the Z fire and I'm glad I'm going to be retired I don't the license can't retire Larry you got to rewrite the zoning bylaw tighten it up no ambiguity okay next we got uh zba special permit referral for 225 West Street they're looking construct the contractor's yard this had been proposed originally four contractor's yards were allowed and uh so they've been waiting in a year or so though we added that use
044uh to the CC Zone proposal includes the construction of a 30X 120 ft uh twostory building shouldn't be square feet anyway the 3600 ft first floor will consist of contractor storage in garage space a 12,000 ft Second Story mezzanine uh will utilize for offices access to the site will be via an easement over the adjacent parking lot for the office building at 215 West off Street parkings be provided for 15 spaces uh where 11 are required all zoning requirements appear to be met so I recommend a favorable report be forwarded to the zba for the special permit they'll be back for site plan they'll be back for site plan right yeah yep I have no questions no all right so make a motion to send a uh favorable recommendation uh to the zba for uh
045Alpine place at 225 West Street second down moved in second and sent a favorable recommendation any further discussion here none all those in favor opposed three right along 31 Front Street actually we got Front Street yeah yep zba variant for the highway department uh we construct a new salt shed on the subject property the existing wood frame shed does not provide adequate cover for storage area salt storage area The Proposal is construct a 55x 140 ft canvas covered Quan Hut style salt shed over the vicinity of the existing uh 40x 80 wooden shed uh the setback from Front Street on the East is proposed to be 7.15 ft 25t front yards required environmental regulations prohibit open storage of salt in the wr1 aquifer areas uh and obviously the old shed needs to be replaced therefore
046for a recommend favorable report to zba any comments on the board my only question is why canvas I agree why it should shouldn't be but the size the size of the uh the build to construct the building the size of that especially in this time like it's as you can see the size of the old shed and the size of the new shed it's it would be probably cross prohibitive espec especially in this time and they do run out of salt yep constantly uh CU you can't use you can't use see so you're using salt all the time so just curious it just seems like a waste no it's I agree with you I agree with you but I think in a couple years it'll be all torn to shreds I mean but uh but
047the price of replacing the cab compared to still yes I don't have any questions tonight was looking over make a motion you want make a motion noad all right want me to all right all right I'll make a motion to send a uh favorable recommendation uh to the zba for the Milford Highway Department located at 31 Front Street a second one second I'm just closing the door for the noise problem yeah just quick discussion side of it whether it's a canvas or a you know an aluminum guess from our standpoint it wouldn't really make a difference from the overall footprint of it so I look at that from that standpoint I I agree with you as a as a taxpayer you know did we exhaust the the different price points for that and you know
048and that would be a question for the our Highway you know surveyor of why a canvas over a an aluminum or Steel or anything like that you know um certainly uh we would think that as it snows and that wait of some of the snow maybe I don't know but I give I'll I'll I'll Scott can answer those questions and I'm sure he can answer them well I'm still in favor of the footprint and the change over of it again what I told y all before is they they built a a small area for the sand M and that that canvas and that's going to be at least 15 years old then it's still intact in everything so and this is necessary for the footprint because of the placement of the footprint in spite of
049the actual structural type so we have Motion in second mov in second any further discussion here are none all those in favor opposed three I will make a motion to Jing the meeting I will second that motion move the second to J the meeting any further discussion hearing none all those in favor opposed and N for three good evening