Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'm sorry, we're expecting Steve tonight.

As far as I know. Okay.

Steve, you can hear me okay? Yes, now I can.

Very good. All right. Well, seeing as it is 7 PM, we will open the meeting. Pursuant to Legislation 862, Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, extending the suspension of certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, General Law Chapter 30A, Section 20, this meeting of the Bedford Planning Board will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we aren't able to do so, despite best efforts, we'll post on the Town's website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of the proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. One item in our development session, and I'm just briefly going to review the agenda, that is a public hearing regarding a definitive subdivision plan proposal for 145 Davis Road. Middlesex Development LLC is the applicant. I am in the business section, we have time reserved for dark sky, outdoor lighting bylaw, small clean energy facility permitting, data center permitting, liaison reports from board and committee meetings, and staff updates. So, with that, do we have the applicant for a 145 Davis road?

Present we are here.

All right, so we have a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. Sorry. I heard Steve first, so moved by Mr. McLean, seconded by Mr. Hagan. How do you vote, Mr. McLean?

Aye.

Mr. Hagan?

Aye.

Ms. LaFrance-London? Aye. Ms. Crowley? And the chair votes aye. A public hearing is now officially opened. So to the applicant team, do you wish to present?

We would. Good evening all. For the record, Pam Brown, attorney for the applicant. David Brickman and Michael Novak, our engineer, are also on the line and we'll be turning over to Mike very soon. It has been a little bit since we've been before you in the last probably couple months now, have been really our diligent work back and forth with DPW on their comments, we've had several iterations of their comments that we've worked through and Mike will speak to those. And then as you're aware, because of the new flood maps that came out last July, we had actually done our survey and found that our elevations were actually higher than some of the maps flood elevation on the FEMA maps. So we through Conservation Commission and FEMA have gone through the process to have the portion of the site that is above the flood elevation removed from the FEMA flood maps. That's through the Loma process. And Mike and I can probably speak more to that if necessary. But Conservation Commission did approve the revised plans with the flood elevation, which is the legal description we submitted to FEMA. And FEMA has since approved and issued with the meets and bounds description the area of the upland area that's removed from this particular lot. So only a portion of the lot. That said, we are returning to you with substantially the same application, just updates to some of the plans that I'll have Mike speak to. responding to some of the issues that were raised by some of the voters as well as. So, Mike, with that, can I turn it over to you?

Yes, thanks Pam again for the record Mike Novak from Patriot and I will pull up the plans to. Refresh the board's memory in regards to. the project, as Pam alluded to. Again, the definitive subdivision. Sorry, let me know when you can see that. It should be up.

Yep.

Great. Definitive subdivision at 145 Davis Road. The entire Davis Road property is highlighted in the gray in the middle of the plan, as you can see there. And we have a few revision dates on it. As Pam said, we went back and forth with engineering review. So just again to bring everyone back up to speed, the existing conditions plan shown here, I'm going to zoom in a little bit, the entire outline shown. If you recall, initially we did have an ANR through this board to dissect this lot into the upper or rear and front. The existing front lot at 145 remains untouched. And then this creates the parcel A, which the project area is contained within. If you recall, we have Jeffrey Circle to the west. um and then on the property from west to east doesn't it there's an existing access and utility easement with an existing water and sewer main running through it which connects to the development to the east and as pam mentioned we have gone through some iterations to nail down the floodplain and determine the elevations this red line indicates the most current and approved flood line based on our most recent anrad and as she mentioned the most recent recently received loma approval So we move forward to some of the comments that we've addressed throughout the iterations with engineering. Some of those I'll highlight quickly and obviously can discuss anything that the board feels necessary. Now, this is the erosion control construction management plan. Some of the things that we did here is the red line shows the limit of work line. We did Note where any work within the floodplain would be happening. You can see I have a no grading in this area shown here, and the limit of work, and then another limit of work line, which says access only, no grading, just to really put a fine point on the areas that are disturbed within the floodplain. Two other quick things on this sheet is we did extend the construction entrance to the edge of the existing pavement on Jeffery Circle. So we filled in that gap and then we did extend this gravel parking area with a hammerhead per the fire request to allow for some temporary fire truck turnaround with temporary parking away from that area. That was a couple of the comments early in the renditions, which we abided to. the subdivision plan itself proposed right away four lots if you recall a b c and d from left to right top to bottom and this reflects the updated floodplain line and the updated total areas of upland areas for each lot happy to come back to that one if there's any questions the grading plan the overall layout and approach has remained relatively the same some of the some of the highlights of changes is again we've extended the proposed pavement to meet the existing edge of jeffrey circle pavement that didn't quite come up to the property line so that was one of the comments we were asked to address with that we did have need to super elevate this road through the first about 150 or so feet to allow, A, the minimization of any impact or fill into the flood zone, or the floodplain, excuse me, and to allow to have an infiltration system here that would capture the entire length of the new proposed roadway. You can see, I'll zoom in, there's two proposed. There's a double catch basin proposed here and another here, and I'll show you the profile in a minute to show the high point in the middle of them. a high point through the middle of the road down to this catch basin, and then a, again, super elevated road to capture all the impervious and infiltrate on our site. Again, the remaining of the road, we have another set of catch basins there for the roadway that is brought to an infiltration system, which I think the last time you saw was probably in this area. We've moved it to a better location, better soil, lower groundwater area. To the self one thing of note in a general statement for the for the drainage report is that initially we were proposing porous pavement throughout the roadway. we've sense James that to conventional asphalt, so this is a conventional asphalt road with the typical drainage system catch basin and manhole collection system to infiltration underground infiltration. We've added this plan to or updated this plan with color and again the revised right-of-way and floodplain line to show impacts in flood zones. The red is the cut areas. The purplish color is the fill. One thing to note is that this area that I'm highlighting to the south-southwest is an additional grass depression we've added to try to do more than the minimum requirements for mitigating any flood or water impact to abutters and to the wetland. You can see that we, and we also have one at the north end as well. You can see on the right, we have a cut fill tally for each elevation, and it shows that we are cutting within each elevation. No fill is proposed as we are required to do for any floodplain work. And then a quick look at the profile. You can see, again, this is the edge of Jeffrey's circle right here excuse me and then you can see that we have a slight high point and again this is super elevated down to the second set of catch bases and then up to a high point back down and up to the back end of the catch base excuse me the cul-de-sac here is a high point as well so the entire cul-de-sac pavement area is drained to those catch bases as shown um and then we did have some uh sorry utility plant um again not much has changed here we just uh showing the connections for each lot in terms of the water and sewer connections that would be required um all the other changes have been carried through on this plan and then finally i will Sure, the landscape plan, this has changed a little bit since the last time you saw it. Again, through comments, we were asked to not plant any trees, propose any trees over the existing access and utility easement, which we've done. We've also shown driveway locations or potential driveway location cuts here, for example, to depict that no trees should be planted within those as well. Those were two of the main comments of the of the uh landscaping plan as they went through their iterations um and as i've said we've gone through a couple iterations with the assistant and town engineer actually for the last round of comments we did a zoom meeting to make sure that we were all in agreeance as to what the comment was and what was needed i think we received um what i would consider all but one little comment to clean bill of health from from that department they asked for um some inspection ports to be shown on the infiltration system both in plain view and detail it's called out in the operation of maintenance but it's just not visually shown happy to add those to the plans before we finalize them completely if there's any other specific information happy to answer any questions but i think that covers the the gist of the changes and pam if there's anything else you wanted to add

Not at this time.

I think we're Mr. Chair, we're ready to send it back to the board and answer any questions.

Thank you. I'll open it up to board members and let me pause by to say that my thought for this evening is that we would hear from the applicants. Board would ask questions and then give abutters an opportunity to comment. Did receive an abutter letter a letter from a butter's attorney earlier today i'm but far too uh soon before the meeting to digest that i am so members of the board questions on the presentation i have one if no one else does going once mr mclean

Peter Haslund, Just because it's my hot button issue so what's the nature of the access easement is it what what will and won't the town be able to do do with it. Peter Haslund, So not the utility access easement I understand that one is the new easement on the. Peter Haslund, Well, I view as the backside of the property but. Peter Haslund, You know.

sidewalk singing and dancing i think it shows up if i may it shows up clearest on here we're proposing the the access easement where the sidewalk and then we're connecting to the north up to the existing easements on the uh on the eastern property i believe that's what you're referring to yeah so so the proposed public access easement

Do we know what the terms of that are going to be? That might be a quick question for Pam, I guess.

I would suggest probably what the board wants, but we had anticipated that to be really a pedestrian trail access easement. to connect with the easement. The land to the north is actually part of Great Meadows. The land to the east is Town of Bedford land, and there are trails within there. And then the backside of Winterberry, when that project was constructed that running north south there is uh also a 10-foot pedestrian easement so our goal was to make sure that this project tied into that trail system first no i feel like i have to go look up that easement uh and then also how wide are the sidewalks five feet mike uh

I believe I have it called out. I believe it's five. We might have. I'll double sorry. 4 foot 12 foot walk.

OK, I I will chew in those answers. Thank you.

Other members of the board. Mr Crowley.

yeah um i was just curious if the applicant received a letter from the lawyer the um a butter's lawyer we did tony sent it over this morning um you know on the last second last paragraph there's a lot of

questions that i'm trying to figure out if you guys i want to jump in here we received that letter with sufficient time to discuss it at tonight's meeting i if the butter's representative wishes to present it i think that's fine but i'm i don't think it's appropriate for discussion here not yet

I'm prepared to make some comments in response verbal at this point.

I do not want to engage in that here tonight. I think it's premature to do that as the board has not had adequate time to review it.

Well, I think during your public comment period, you need to let the attorney represent her letter. That's what this meeting's for.

And that's fine. Okay. Fine.

So I would only make, we'll wait until the time comes.

Thank you. All right. So my question to the applicant team, can you walk me through FEMA's letter of map amendment? I'm looking at the determination document now. There's a lot of text. Frankly, there's not a whole lot of insight there for me as to what motivated them to change their decision. Did you receive any information on that? What the basis for their change was?

So I will, I'll let Mike speak, but generally speaking, we file an application along with the survey and they ask for, it's a very long one, but meets and bounds description of the land to be removed. And then FEMA reviews the plan and the survey and the legal description. And you'll note ours was a little bit cleaner, but in the determination, they, They literally clipped the whole legal description and plop it into that decision. It's kind of just a messy document where, but because we have. You know, a meandering line, there were many, many, many term points to capture that meandering line, but it's essentially the plan that conservation. It is the plan that conservation approved. And the legal description of the upland area, which is what the request is, is to remove that portion of the law.

No, that's clear. What I'm trying to understand is what the basis for their decision was. I understand what area is affected, but I want to know why they changed their mind.

Well, the initial mapping is done based on aerial photos and much larger scale topography. So it's not uncommon. Homeowners, same thing. I've seen down on actually Roberts Drive recently, there's homes that the houses, there may be floodplain, but the houses are outside of the floodplain. But according to the FEMA map, they're not. It's just a process that FEMA puts in place that says, show us a a legitimate survey stamped and certified by a surveyor what the topography is, and they review it. And if they agree, then they process it.

But they don't speak to their reason for making a change. They just give you a thumbs up or thumbs down, approve or disapprove, and that's that.

That's my understanding, unless Mike has anything else to say. But they could challenge the topography, I guess. But what we're giving them is Topography that's sort of a yes or no. It's either in the floodplain or it's out.

No, I understood. Yeah. And really, my question is, is for FEMA, not really for you. Yeah. And steam is not here. I, I can't ask them like, why did you decide what you did?

Yeah, Mr. chair, if I get me. Please. I can try to add a little color to it. There's the initial submittal that we put in with our map, with our description and our application. And there was multiple back and forths with comments, questions, additional data needed. So they constantly ask. But I think to answer your question best, we send the plan to them. I hate to say they, but Prima looks at it. And they determine probably based on information that they have, whether it be LiDAR data or anything like that, to see if there is any major discrepancies. And if they don't see them, then they issue their decision based on the information we've given them. They definitely take their time. It took six weeks for them to review everything. And it was, you know, a few comments back and forth. Like I said, it wasn't a very...

speedy or quick process so but I can't I can't give you they don't necessarily let me peek behind the door so I can't give you the exact uh that's so that's about all I can absolutely understood yeah and really my question is for FEMA and how they conduct themselves as they do it's it's uh yeah I understood that you're not part of that process all right I'm So seeing no further, oh wait, Mr. Crowley.

Yeah, I was trying to look through the documentation just now. I was just looking for all the kind of a bolded list of the reliefs that you were looking for with this project in terms of the road width or anything else in terms of sort of, because that's part of our decision, right? Is what are the current release that you are looking for?

If you could just give me a moment, I think I could pull that up.

Well, generally speaking, the relief is the standard things that have been asked for with other subdivisions and granted by the board. And in this case, they're supportive of the environmental resources here. If you don't wave the width of the road now, we've got a lot more pavement. We've got higher rates of drainage. We've got more runoff to accommodate and so forth. sidewalks on only one side of the street you know it's a very small subdivision do we really need more but again it's it goes to the environmental conditions okay mike's got it so go right ahead

yeah um so i created this list of waivers requested and gave some justification below so the first one is uh section 524 dead end ways i think that's self-explanatory in regards to the length but i do give some information here and i'm happy to go over in detail any of these uh road width so the regulation is 522 width in regards to bringing it down to 20 feet the and then the last next one was the five foot minimum for sidewalk section six four down to four feet and Uh, curbing to allow the 2 minutes versus vertical. I believe that is covered in both 6, 2 and 5, 2. And then I think the last 1 was the trail easement with waiver in regards to the total with and that is section 5, 3, 3 foot path.

So, for that last 1, what is the request from 2 or, you know, original.

Did I write? I did forget to put a number on it. I did forget to put a number on it. But I believe, let me check the plan to make sure. No, no. No, no. Does this flip with me if That is a four foot. We're going to a four foot. So it's just the sidewalk. I believe 10 is required. I believe 10 is required to go to 10.

So to me, that's a massive reduction. Why is this necessary?

Because the sidewalk is four feet wide. I mean, we can continue it to be 10 feet, I guess, but then you have people in the middle of the road.

But it's off the side of the road. I don't. I don't fully understand. I don't comprehend because it's, that was kind of the dirt. We're talking about the dirt path. Sorry about the fire trucks. We're talking about the dirt, not path, but whatever, the dirt easement.

And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's 10 feet at that location. I believe it's dropped to four feet because we're anticipating people would walk on the sidewalk to get to it.

correct yeah it was it was just to incorporate the sidewalk within the right away that's the place that it's four feet and then once we come out of the right away it goes to the required time okay sorry i did not put that on purposes no problem no problem i mean well i mean i i am curious you know uh

to say. For me, both sides of the street, such a small street, it doesn't really require a sidewalk on both sides of the street. But in terms of like going to a five foot wide sidewalk, what happens? Does the project fall apart? Does it like, you know, it just can't be done? Or no, we have to make this trade off. Like, just trying to figure out like, you know, because I mean, I don't know how much is that it could be used. But to me, a four foot wide sidewalk is fairly narrow. So I'm just trying to figure out the safety aspects here and Does this need to be done this narrow?

mean the the immediate response would be uh if i may is that obviously a foot along that entire 400 you know about about 400 feet we're adding impervious um and again we are surrounded by wetlands so i do try to come in anywhere we can reduce impact uh for impervious which allows us to have a larger grass strip and landscaped area as well uh another foot in would be more covering over the landscape trees What does that mean to answer? I know you're giving examples, but does the project fall apart? No, we would just have to mitigate for it. It could be done. We just felt as though a reasonable and responsible thing to try to reduce impervious where we could.

I was just going to comment as well that 5 feet is probably necessary and desirable in busy areas like the center of town. But here, you know, the usage, I think it's, it's pretty low usage. You know, you're not going to have groups of people walking, you know, at any given time likely. And I would think that for a 4 lot subdivision that 4 feet is more than sufficient.

What's the width of the sidewalk for the rest of Jeffrey circle? current i'm not sure but at least i don't know if i have it documented so so certainly no one yes yeah so ms brown i do understand where you're coming from the only harder part for me nowadays is that each of these lots i believe can have two families and an adu um so it kind of

somewhat changes things nowadays unfortunately because of what you know that jesus has uh made us do mr crowley you're done for now what mr mclean um yeah so i i looked up the other easement the the the easement on the other side is actually 15 feet it's a 15 foot trail easement which I suspect doesn't tell me everything I want to know. I expect I have to go dig up the easement to see if the language matches.

In terms of the easement itself, whether it's over the road or it's over the frontage of the lots, if it's important to the board, we can certainly make the easement width.

wider i think our goal was to limit impervious surface on yeah yeah i mean i view the the i mean i i mean just off the top of my head and you know i reserve the right to forget this conversation before the next meeting um seems like we'd want the the uh non-sidewalk part of the easement to be the same width as the the um the easement on the other property Right. And then the secondary issue is, OK, what sort of traffic is allowed? And I don't know what the conditions on the other easement are. Are bikes allowed, for example, as someone probably could have guessed that I would have cared about. And then I'm still chewing on the sidewalk width. So are we allowing the road to be narrower than default? Do we have a document that Mr. Novak shared? I didn't see anything like that in the packet.

That was submitted in the previous submittal, the April submission. I can look at the front of the Um, so you should, you should, I can certainly recently in the April 7th, I can't believe it was in the April 7th.

Dig through my archives and get it then. Um, yeah, but I have it right here if you wanted to double check anything.

Um, but the roadway with is, uh, yeah. Roadway with we're going to, to 20 from 24. But again, the radiuses of the cul-de-sac are all the same.

One of the things they didn't want to see was making the sidewalk smaller, but not making the road smaller. I can imagine four feet is not a horrible thing. And the trees aren't going to interfere with the sidewalk. The trees are going to be in the whatever we call the grass strip.

Yes. I believe we have, um, yeah, we show, we show them. And as I mentioned, I mean, a foot, a foot more on sidewalk would obviously approach on the root system. Um, initially that probably wouldn't be an issue maybe down the line.

And you know, uh, ADA requires if, if you're less than five feet, right. ADA requires a passing area every 200 feet, I think, which maybe the driveways would serve for, I don't know. Yeah. Okay.

if i could just kind of think out loud um because this is likely it's a private road maybe it does make sense to make the easement wider because somebody on a bike might not be on the sidewalk they're probably going to ride on the road it would just kind of make it more official that the bikes are permitted and i don't again i think the access on the easement i could i i actually didn't pull up the winterberry easement i'm happy to look at that but We don't want motor vehicles, but in fact, the neighbors were very specific that they didn't want a connection of this roadway into the other road.

Right. Okay. So actually, that's a good question. I mean, do we think that the final disposition of this is that it's going to remain a private road versus a town accepted road?

I think Tony, can you speak to that? Have you typically, I mean, we'd love it to be a private, I mean, a public way if the town is willing to accept it. Um, I know the fire department's happy with it. Um, but in some instances they stay private.

Yeah. I think this, your initial proposal was to have this as a public way. Yeah. But then, um, one of the revisions that envisioned, uh, using pervious pavement rather than standard pavement, requires special maintenance and the town wouldn't recommend acceptance of a way that was all previous pavement right but we're now back now we're back to standard pavement and so I think the question of public acceptance can be put back on the table okay

yeah i mean if if it's a public road then yeah you know the the the exact details of the easement along the road aren't going to be an issue because it's a public road but but if it's going to remain a private road then yes obviously i think we'd want we we'd want to need a a wider easement even if it was just you know from even a plowing perspective or public it gives the plow trucks because right now they've got a dead end um

with really no turnaround and this would give them a turnaround if it were public to come down and go around this cul-de-sac and come back out. Just a thought, but I agree. And I think in that instance, then the easement would really just be running from the cul-de-sac into the other easement.

which should at least match that easement, and I would like to see it match the width.

Yeah, that's fine.

I might make an argument that, you know, in general, I'd like to see the town have more rights from easements. But, yeah, certainly I don't want a regression. Thanks.

All right. Any other questions from members of the board? All right. Well, then I will open it up for public comments. I see a hand, Taylor Donahoe. You could introduce yourself and then you feel free to proceed.

Hello, can you hear me? Everybody great. I'm not sure if the video will be on or not, but I just wanted to say I'm Taylor Donahoe. I am an attorney with McGregor Law Group, one of Boston's oldest environmental firms, representing clients in a variety of environmental, land use, real estate transactions, et cetera. I represent a group of abutters and a group of citizens in the town who are in opposition to the project that's currently designed. And I submitted a letter as we've previously referenced the board has previously previously referenced earlier and I'll speak to a few high level points in that letter and then hopefully subsequently you can, you know, as you presented Chris digest that letter separately. It sounds like the from the discussion thus far that the board and the applicant are in agreement with, um. a deferral of any decision past this current meeting, but ultimately that is our primary request. We had just received a copy of the stormwater analysis last week, despite earlier public records requests that should have captured this document and ultimately this document was finalized only June 2nd. And we would like to have the public to have the proper opportunity to evaluate the stormwater effects um of the project especially given concerns for flooding in in the area um additionally we respectfully request you know that peer review can be done by our by our expert or or by another expert if the board applicant would consider requiring that um additionally we have general concerns as as exemplified further in the letter um regarding the floodplain for we take further issue with the floodplain um Overlay district and other other flooding issues, as it is about the current plans from a legal perspective. It's not there's some things that are items that are unclear. And we again request that the technical perspective, we have the opportunity for the public has the opportunity for the expert to review those materials. Additionally, as the board has has touched on throughout this meeting, the Loma decision came out last week, the letter map amendment. Taking a portion of property out of out of the FEMA flood zone. However, I just want to emphasize for the board that. Even within that determination itself, it stated that the proportion of the property remains within the FEMA flood zone hazard area. And therefore, the construction of substantial improvement or development of the property is still subject to local state regulations. And under the town of Bedford joining bylaw and the subdivision rules and regulations, the board is required to. Especially in areas of flooding concern consider. You know, take flooding seriously, and we just asked for the opportunity to evaluate that on a more detailed technical level. Additionally, there's a multitude of requested waivers, which we've talked about in the African has presented that document. In review of that document, it's not specific enough to determine whether or not with these waivers that the plan is currently designed would adequately protect the interests of the public and the interests that the subdivision rules are aimed to protect. I specifically want to point out that part of the justification for the use of the berm as opposed to the granite curve in the plans it has to do with the fact that the roadway was going to be for us and as we've discussed you know just a moment ago the the roadway is now going to be standard asphalt and so they're just open questions that we would like you know further time to to evaluate and have an expert take a look um or have and have the applicant speak to that further with an updated plan The applicant is not entitled to any of these waivers and we appreciate that the board is clearly taking these waivers seriously as previously discussed in this meeting. Happy to answer any questions, but I also wanted to give the opportunity for citizens that I represent who are here to speak further to the issues that personally affect them and introduce themselves generally if the board is not already familiar.

If members of the audience wish to speak, please raise your hand and I will invite you to do so accordingly. Mr. Kaushik.

Good evening, everyone. Viewer of the CrossFit 21 Jeffrey Circle, one of the abutters. And for the point that Taylor referenced regarding the LOMA, I kind of had a similar question that Mr. Gittins had, and I think I have sort of a similar view or answer that Ms. Brown had with respect to LOMA. I filed a LOMA for my property back in 2009. uh was um granted uh removal of my structure from from the floodplain uh only to then uh within the year have it back into the floodplain uh and uh you know i had an elevation done and so you know topography analysis uh in order for that determination to remove it i don't know what fema actually did to then make this new determination um and then you know at the end of the day whether i had the piece of paper or not that removed the structure it really didn't matter because you know 14 months later you know uh my basement flooded uh as a result of the storms in 2010 and i think that's really why uh you know we as a butters are quite concerned we are very familiar with flooding in this neighborhood, not only in 2010, but prior years where claims have been made to an IFP dating back to 1987 and before. And so You know, I think it is a bit of a concern to us and why we would like to ensure that all of the data has been collected and had a chance to be reviewed by additional stormwater experts to confirm, in fact, that there will be no negative impact to abutters. I understand, you know, it's the developer and the engineer's responsibility to ensure that properties are built according to code, and they themselves aren't going to be susceptible to flooding if they are going to be in a floodplain. But we as abutters, knowing where floodwaters reached and what the elevations are on our own property, are concerned with these buildings being built and displacing water into our backyards.

Thank you for your comments. Other members of the public wishing to speak. All right, seeing Mary Alice Mastronardi.

Yes. Hi, good evening. My name is Marielice Mastronardi. I am a 24 Jeffrey Circle. I just want to share my experience. We bought our house in 2021 in May and in July that was, I think, Hurricane Elsa was July 8, July 9. And the end of Jeffrey Circle was because the pavement was the old pavement, not repaved road, was flooded with water. we worked with dpw and with the repayment they were able to grade the road in a way that takes the water away from the properties but my question for you is about the catch basins are they how did you like are they enough to cover extreme situations that are happening more often of heavy rains and also who will maintain them and what is the capacity and who will maintain in time those catch basins, why there's not a plan for a full drainage system that takes away the water from the neighborhood. The other question that I have, I don't know if this is a consideration for the board, but all the water that is collected, here in the neighborhood with the catch basins and the low grading areas. Are there concerns of mosquitoes during the summer if there's heavy rain? Did you make those considerations as well? Thank you.

And as a point of clarification, and I apologize for not making this clear at the outset of the meeting, but procedure is for members of the audience or applicants to direct questions and comments to the chair. And then I will call on people as appropriate to respond to those. So I will invite the applicant team to respond to that if they're so inclined.

I'm not sure I can try to address some of that. I think in a general sense, I heard what was the sizing capacity for the catch basins in regards to what they're capturing and how they're capturing, understanding that we were talking about a hurricane event. We obviously do not size things for a hurricane event, but they are sized for up to and including the 100-year storm, which includes over 8 inches of rain in a 24-hour period. So it was a substantial amount of rain, in my opinion. um and in regards to uh the ability to capture anything beyond our and I'm I did try to write that down but so if I'm if I'm misrepresenting the questions I apologize um we are tasked with capturing any any imperatives that we create and and making sure that there is no um spillage or increase of runoff across property lines. Now, in this unique situation where the end of Jeffrey Circle pavement does not quite abut our property line within the right-of-way, we were tasked by the engineering department to alleviate that we are technically required to capture that pavement, which I went over earlier, and that's what we're trying to do. So our systems are sized to adequately capture all of the impervious area that we are creating. And I think the other piece was who will maintain those Since that is attached to the subdivision drainage system, those catch basins, even though that single catch basin is technically in the right of way of Jeffrey Circle as it exists now, it will still be covered under our operation and maintenance through this homeowners association, which is responsible for the catch basin cleanings along with the infiltration system maintenance. And this is obviously assuming everything stays private as we're talking now. And I think the one of the last pieces was mosquitoes. Every we are proposing the majority of the stormwater. Collection system is underground. So. There shouldn't be any mosquito issues there. As I mentioned, we did propose a couple of very shallow in. very shallow grass depressions, but they'll be slightly excavated and sand and a sand mix will be put in and the existing soil is sand as well. So I would not anticipate water being in those basins for very long, i.e. minutes to hours not days um and again they're only collecting grass runoff uh at this point so minimal runoff to be to begin with so i think i covered most of those if i missed any i do apologize thank you uh mr mclean you had a question or comment yeah so this may be a a procedural on that procedural question but so the the design for the retention

system, if that's the right term, covers the road and up to 7,000 square feet of impervious service for each of the lots. And I'm assuming that if someone bought one of these lots and tried to build more, they would need to then provision more runoff control. Is that how the law works? And I will, of course, address my question to the chair and expect him to delegate appropriately.

I just like to make a quick comment.

Please go ahead.

Thank you in response to that. The answer is yes, but I just wanted to remind the board that the subdivision and the conservation permitting to date is really for. defining the wetland line, the flood line, the road. Each of these individual house lots will require a return to the Conservation Commission. So at the time there's actually a structure proposed, there'll be a conservation filing so that CONCOM can review it. They'll review specifically the drainage associated with whatever structure is being built. And that'll be an RDA or an order condition specific to each of the lots.

Thank you. Mr Crowley. John, I'm Mr McLean. I don't know if you're finished yet. OK, you study hand up. But it's kind of go along with that. Just so I understand and Tony kind of had these questions as well in terms of like driveway opening locations, especially since two family isn't allowed use. So the potential for two driveways. Is that also part of the going in front of the Conservation Commission? Or how does that work?

They'll be looking at whatever the final plan proposal is for each lot. So if the developer finds an owner buyer that wants a custom single family home, that's what they'll build and that's what we'll permit. If it's back, he maybe does the two family.

But each of those, correct.

I mean, we've shown you, I think, some driveway aprons just to give you a sense of where we think they would be. They could move depending on what's proposed.

Mr. Hagan, you can correct my terminology here, but the expectation is that when a structure would be built on a lot, it would require filing a notice of intent with the Conservation Commission. Is that correct?

That'd be my expectation. All right.

Thank you very much.

Mr Crowley, additional comments? Well, just, you know, Tony had mentioned lighting as well. I just we hadn't gone over it tonight. I thought we went over it before. In terms of where the streetlights will be.

If it becomes a public way, I expect DPW will want a street light at the cul-de-sac.

So when when. What is your order of operations for this sort of development?

Mike, do we have any street light shown at this point? I don't know that we do.

No, we do not. And this may be a question for Tony or, you know, in terms of, you know, does the public way, private way, weigh into our decision because would we be looking at different things if we assume this is public or private or do we have to look at everything assuming it could be one or the other the latter then that means we need plans then so if if that question is directed to me um you would in your decision

indicate whether the road is expected to be submitted for town acceptance or kept as a private way because if it's going to be private you would want to impose conditions that govern the maintenance of the way by in a theoretical future homeowners association but if it's going to be maintained by the town then we get into the issues of okay the town will probably maintain everything within the right-of-way But the piece that we have to negotiate before closing the decision, whether the pieces of the drainage system that are outside the right of way, we may or may not require the maintenance of those to be done by private parties. But we would we would have. Recommendations for how you would frame that if you move to approve at some point in the future.

Thank you. Additional questions or comments from the board? Let's open it up for board discussion. Seeing no hands, I will offer that I was very disappointed with FEMA's letter, and that's not on the applicant team that's on FEMA. As a scientist engineer, my expectation when someone draws a conclusion or changes a conclusion is that there will be evidence to support I'm the basis for that change and FEMA did not provide any explanation for why they, they changed their, their view. I'm again, that's not on the applicant team. That's on FEMA. I'm. I just I find that I'm. that is frustrating to say the least I am so yeah I am currently of mine that I I would like an independent opinion I am a truly independent opinion of uh the uh the floodplain boundary assessment so I'm happy to take feedback from other members of the board from staff I on that Outlook Ms. LaFrance-Lyndon.

Yeah, I think I would agree, especially given the abutter's experience of the reversal of the initial decision for his property. It seems like it might serve us well to do a little bit more due diligence on this.

Yeah, I think that's the right phrase, due diligence.

Mr. Crowley. I second Don Linden's thoughts and also with the it's seemingly the applicants indication that they would be interested in having this be a public way then I think we also need to do our due diligence as well for that reason as well.

So my sense of the board is that I'm there's a desire to continue the hearing, but that is to the applicant to request that.

I'm happy to request a continuation. I don't know if you wanted to hear any just overview initial reaction to councils.

Certainly that's you're certainly welcome to to comment there.

Okay, and I don't want to go blow by blow, but just, I think, calling out a couple of the things that attorney Donahoe mentioned. I think I said before, you know, the waivers that are requested are pretty standard for waivers. I think we'd be talking about more environmental harm if we were to not grant them. I'm frankly a little shocked that she didn't just reach out to me or to the engineer or to the applicant. She filed a public records request, but the information was all available. And some of her clients actually had a Zoom meeting to discuss drainage with the engineer, our engineer. We would have been happy to just provide the Dropbox and provide the documents if anyone had asked, but we didn't see any of this until we got the letter today. So going forward, The door's open. Your boss also has my cell phone number. Just a quick comment. Chris, I appreciate your sentiment on FEMA. I would assume that FEMA has a presumption that if they're presented with an on-the-ground survey that shows elevations outside of the floodplain, that is their basis for making the decision. You know, can you find another surveyor to come up with a different results? I don't know. But I mean, surveyors are bound to a very strict methodology as well as ethical standards in doing their plans, so.

I'm gonna interject here, and that's not what it was for me. FEMA left me guessing as to what the basis for their decision was. I just need them to tell me what it is, and they did not do so.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but I think the basis is they were presented with a plan that showed land outside of the floodplain and that's the reasoning.

So, how did they just make that decision? Right?

So there's point based on the survey that was presented to them showing elevations.

So, show me the text in the letter, which says that's that's how they made their decision.

Okay, I, I will, I will. Yeah. I think that's the whole purpose for the application, but I'll let that go. I guess that's the overview. The only other comment I wanted to make on the floodplain special permit, that permit needs to come after the subdivision approval so that we actually have a project to propose to the ZBA. I've been through that process many times before. It happens maybe once every five years. The last one I did was for Worfen. It's really, it almost seems like a redundant permit, but it's there because they often want to know how conservation feels. It's really, it's sort of a second jurisdictional permit to do pretty much the same thing Con Con would do. But it's on the books and we will make that application. I just, in my opinion, it's premature. Um, it definitely that permit would need to be in hand before the building inspector could issue the zoning as we call it zoning approval and an actual building permit because it is a required permit, but it's a completely separate jurisdiction. In fact, it's not really even appropriate for the planning board to condition. I mean, sometimes we do your condition a permit on other permits, but. Even if the conditions not there for permits required, the permit is required. So we're aware that that permits needed and we're actually starting to put it together. But my opinion is, it's premature and it's just, we have to have all these pieces in hand before we can pull a building permit. Um. I will respond to the letter just so the board has the blow by blow to each of the comments made in that letter from council.

if i may one last thing yes um i i hope and i assume that the um letter that was included with the fema decision was available but if not i wanted to pull it up it doesn't offer much but i i do want to just this is the the uh letter that was basically the cover letter to the decision And in the sentence here, it says, using the information submitted and the effective NFIP map, our determination is shown in the attached letter of amendment determination. So again, I know it doesn't offer much, but the idea is that the flood maps come out and they establish an elevation at about a 15,000 scale, I think it is, might be bigger, that their elevation, the flooding in that area goes to elevation 119. And it encompasses that at a 15,000 scale. And then there's these mechanisms in place to say, okay, I want to look at this very small area within that large 15,000 square foot area and determine where that elevation exists. And that's when we where when we submit the application we submit the the not only the elevations with the um survey but also the description as pam alluded to uh for the area we're talking about so the the fema gives us the broad stroke and then it's on us to show them the very individual detailed that is um how it's been for quite a while i understand your point of there's not much to that what they're giving you but i think it's because it's it's such a process that has been in place that i i honestly don't know how much more you're going to find other than that i i hope that helps but i just wanted to offer it in case no one saw that thank you and i saw a hand in the audience um mr brickman did you have comments to offer uh no i was just gonna say the kind of the same thing and see if

it's something that maybe if we can reach out to fema to get something you know in writing that would satisfy the board um um you know i'm fine with that um i don't know what you would be looking for exactly but i'm more than happy to ask um again we're just they asked for a loma we got the loma i didn't it wasn't anything that We were trying to keep out, it's just that's what they gave us, so.

I understood. And speaking just for myself, what I was expecting from FEMA was something along the lines of the explanation that Mr. Novak just provided. Gotcha. Okay. So do we have a request from the applicant to continue?

Yes, we would like to continue the hearing to your next meeting, please.

So that is Tuesday, June 23rd. Is that correct, Tony? Mr Crowley, sorry you didn't.

Sorry, I just didn't know if this was the time to have to request information in terms of and to make sure that the applicants. Understood that. In my opinion, if you're going to be going you kind of mentioned, I think you said yes Pam private or public then i'm going to need more information about the public side of things in terms of potential driveway or lighting. fire hydrants and so forth, if we're going to go that route just want to make that request before we finish this. This evening.

So do we have a motion to continue the hearing until June 23rd?

So moved. Seconded.

All right. Moved by Mr. McClain and seconded by Ms. LaFrance-London. Mr. McClain? Aye. Ms. LaFrance-London?

Aye.

Mr. Hagan?

Aye.

Mr. Crowley? Aye. And the chair votes aye. Public hearing is continued until June 23rd. Thank you very much to the applicant team and to members of the public. Thank you. Well, thank you board. All right, so. Pardon me? Will I pull up documents here? That was the 1 item on our development session. I'm. Dave Kuntz, Moving on to the business session and we have a placeholder for outdoor lighting bylaw discussion I don't have much to report, I did receive I. very thorough email from the chair of Chelmsford's planning board. And my takeaway from that was that their overall process is very similar to ours, thinking back to how we dealt with the MBTA multifamily zoning. By law, public engagement there. Chelmsford has a representative town meeting rather than an open town meeting, but that I think is a secondary matter. I will follow up with the Chelmsford board chair. He and his co-presenter, Mr. Beattie, did offer to assist as they might be able.

i am on to small oh before i do that any questions comments about uh outdoor lighting bylaws mr crowley oh this is more i don't i don't know if you were leaning towards and i apologize my brains uh like everyone versus commercial or if you are not sure yet too early to just decide i can offer my personal opinion

Sure. I'm inclined to cover residential and commercial. But I think that's not an especially strongly held opinion. I want to go through the public process, and I want us to make some progress. And as much as we can make. If there's pushback that makes it look like it wouldn't pass, then I'm willing to yield some. But I would strongly prefer that we write a bylaw that affects residential and commercial.

I agree. I'd like to try it and see what the public says.

Small clean energy facility permitting. Tony.

Just to kind of keep the topic on our radar because the new state regulations require us to have a new permitting process in place by the fall. So I am looking at and sharing ideas with my colleagues across the Commonwealth about how to deal with these with these types of requests for installations whether it be battery energy storage systems or solar systems we're not we don't anticipate getting wind power requests here because Bedford's wind profile is not able to produce our under known technology so But battery energy storage systems are popping up in numerous locations. And so we do want to be prepared to have in place a permitting process for review and approval of those. And if there are places where we really don't want them to make sure we um address why um but also there's just there are several factors in the how so we need to look at um as as i'm also doing with data centers what are the you know what are the concerns about um ambient heat and location um if you know or like if a battery energy facility catches fire um addressing the fire becomes an issue because you know have smoke and the water if water is used to suppress it the water runoff can be contaminated and we don't really want that flowing into the environment so there are several features to these facilities that we are trying to get a grasp on and and we'll have some more information for you at the next meeting

Very good. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hagan. Tony, do you know of any requests for a data center within the state of Massachusetts?

Yeah, there's also one here in Bedford. Oh, no, for a data center? I'm sorry. Yeah, data center. Yeah, so I'm aware of three existing data centers in Billerica, and none have applied yet here at Bedford, but there are several across the... I say several. I'm aware of maybe a dozen across the Commonwealth, and I... I have a list of them that I'll have uh as I present more background information uh that'd be really appreciated but there's three already in operation in Billerica yes all right thank you my including one whose frontage is actually on the Middlesex Turnpike in Bedford the property that straddles the town line It's a reuse of a older industrial building, but the inside is now computer racks.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Crowley, then Mr. McLean. Yeah, I'm just trying to understand, Tony. So, I mean, right now, I assume I find it fascinating that Massachusetts is pushing the towns to have regulations about these where it seems like then it would be more restrictive? Or are we just trying to do it for like a health basis? Trying to figure out kind of the angle why this is, why we're being forced to do it, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's like, it seems like it's going to be more restrictive than less restrictive, which seems not what this administration has been doing.

Sorry, just to jump in, this is battery energy storage or data centers?

Yes. Okay. Either or, yeah. Okay. Whatever we have to do.

Yeah, so on the battery energy storage facilities, the Commonwealth is or the governor's administration is pushing to simplify the permitting process because small scale clean energy has been difficult in their eyes to permit. And so they are somewhat tying our hands to make it easier for permits to be granted at the local level. So they are pushing us to create a consolidated permit. So in the end, the town, instead of having multiple boards with multiple permit processes, they want one permit. And the town figures out who takes the lead and coordinates getting through all those steps. And they want that done on a timely basis. So we'll see how that plays out. Data centers are not yet getting the same treatment from the administration. But because they're coming, and it's predicted that many more are coming across the country, We're not seeing this like there's some really huge ones elsewhere. You wouldn't probably find anywhere to build some of these giant facilities in Bedford, but. But, you know, they're, they're out there. So, thank you.

That makes sense.

Mr.

Yeah, I'll just offer the editorial comment on the energy siting. I think they're also following the previous pattern of requiring compliance before the issue of the regulations. But yeah, it's something that's come up in the MAPC meetings a little bit. And they're also trying to figure it out. And for different tiers and for big ones, there's some state process that overrides. On the data centers, having used to work in a data center adjacent business, I'd be kind of shocked if anyone wants to build the sort of data centers that people are worrying about across the country in Massachusetts, just because land is expensive and power is expensive and those are the sort of things you need. And to that end, if we're going to have a list of data centers in Massachusetts, it's probably something about the size, not only geometric size but also in terms of power demand and you know they again data center adjacency from many years ago you know the the there's sort of a preferred measurement unit in terms of you know how much power they allow for a rack and i have no idea what the the current standards are you know a big data center when i was doing this was like 25 kilowatts or something per rack. And I just personally, I don't see that coming to Massachusetts, but maybe I'm wrong. And I haven't seen anything like it. So I'm looking forward to staff bringing data.

Thank you. Any other comments or shall we move on to liaison reports? Going once, going twice. On to liaison reports. Mr. McLean.

I went to a select board meeting because I know how to have a good time. As you probably saw in the Bedford Minuteman, not the Bedford Minuteman, there's the Boston Pass. Bedford Citizen Select Board voted to approve the Pride banner for the Common for the fourth, fifth year in a row. There were some DPW contracts awarded. Things are going up in price, but it's been accounted for in the budget, so that's okay. And of general interest, the work in 62, they hope to begin at the end of June. One of the contracts was for the supervision of the force main work. And they hope to have it done by the fall. And presumably, they'll have a good service at that point to... And then related, the MassDOT did grant money to cover our work to improve the reformatory branch crossing of Concord Road. So it's the rapid rectangular flashing peak and a proper crosswalk and some sidewalk work. Actually, I think it's technically a side path. But the downside is that we probably won't get it. It's late enough in the season that putting it out to bid now is probably not... financially responsible so um we're sorry no please that was me but 62 is going to take all summer well no it's the end of june so it's not technically all summer i mean i think they have to dig a bunch of it up and put it back underground again right so it's It'll be fine. We're in the process of looking for new town council. They interviewed two different law firms, the existing law firm, Anderson Krieger and KP Law, which has like 137 municipal clients in Massachusetts. And they have a third candidate to interview at the next select board meeting. And I guess the only other interesting thing is that we've tweaked the BCAT contract to maybe allow it to become part of the town at some future date. But that decision has not yet been made yet.

Thank you. Mr. Crowley. I'm actually going to ask one of the other members. I was not at the last TAC meeting. So if there's any report from that, that would be helpful. I had to miss it, unfortunately.

Mr. Hagan people part met this morning. And I think we've settled in besides the normal work. We've settled in on the architect that's going to come up with the. Proposed designs for people part where the building 1, so this will take a bit just got to do few different. Some people have already submitted proposals, so you've got to somewhat cost those out if they're really expensive. But we're just looking for a modest one. So that's in progress. That's as far as I can go with it. Not sure when we would meet. And CONSCOM meets tomorrow night, so I have nothing on there. And I'm going to miss the meeting, so is somebody else. So it's not clear if they'll even have a quorum.

no significant things or cons come right now thank you um and i'll add that i had a conversation with a member of uh energy and sustainability i i missed the the last meeting i'm unfortunately i missed a number of meetings i'm and they are i'm hoping to Have a closer engagement with, uh, with planning board and there. I'm planning to send someone to attend our meeting, so it won't just. The 1 way and I will. I make it a higher priority to, uh. To, uh, to attend things have gotten in the way recently.

Chris when when are the meetings those are typically.

I want to say third Thursday.

Sorry, Mr. McClain, yeah.

I want to say third Thursday.

Because now he's on. Either virtual or?

Sometimes.

Sometimes, OK. Hi, Ms. LaFrance Linden.

Hey, just to jump in on tech for a little bit, the only thing that I think might be of concern to the planning board is there's been a discussion about the ghost bike at the Route 62 crossing, whether it's a distraction and whether how long it should stay and possibility of it being moved. And generally at this point, there's really no concern determination that it is a distraction and there is no immediate thought to having it removed. And all of the discussion I think rightly focused on, you know, nothing happening without the involvement of the family. There are some folks I think who would like to see some sort of policy with the town with respect to placement and duration of of memorials like this but for for the moment no action is going to be taken on the ghost bike thank you if no further reports then we can move on to staff updates currently a staff of one

as now two well we remain as that for one for a while longer but um yes we are um excited that uh one of the positions is being you know like we've picked a candidate who's accepted uh to fill one of the positions we're interviewing for the other position this week interviews are going well and um I believe and I expect to have an update for the next meeting on the status of that position so um so my I'm hopeful that come July or mid-July will be a full full staff excellent I'm additional updates or are we through the business session Yeah, we're through. I have odds and ends of draft minutes typed up, but they're not yet formatted for four-year review. So it's just one of those things that needs more undisturbed, dedicated time than I've been able to give to it. But we'll get caught up.

Understood. All in good time. Mr. McLean.

Looking at the time, it could be, I move that we adjourn.

Seconded. Mr. McLean, how do you vote? Aye. Mr. Crowley? Aye. Ms. LaFrance-London? Aye. Mr. Hagan? Aye. And the chair votes aye. All right, with that, thank you for a productive and efficient meeting. and see you all on the 23rd thanks everyone thank you good night good night good night