Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm sorry. Thank you. ¦ ¦ Thank you. Thank you. ¦

Have your attention please, we'll be starting up shortly. Good evening and welcome to the Lowell Planning Board for August 17th, 2026. This meeting is being broadcasted live on Channel 6 and on the Lowell LTC YouTube page. The first matter on the agenda this evening would be the approval of the minutes of June 15th, 2026. As amended, I know some of the board members had some amendments that were corrected by staff. Anybody have any questions or comments about the June 15th minutes?

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the amended minutes for the June 15th, 2026 meeting.

Motion made. We have a second.

Second.

Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes yes. Opposition? Hearing none, those minutes are adopted. The next matter will be the minutes of the July 20th, 2026 minutes. Any board members have any comments or corrections on those?

Mr. Chairman, if I if I may, I was actually attributed to Caleb, but I believe in reference to the petition, it's not necessarily a material change, but on. I believe it was. Ah, Harrington Christmas... the first street boulevard the tree hearing i think caleb reference um and he's noted on pages are not numbered one two three fourth page um about three quarters of the way down it says c chang noted st louis park tree replanting is good example of i believe he meant clemente park because he referenced when the zoning committee walked that um uh that park and we um We were really pleased with the tree plantings that took place there and the work that was done. So I think that that just should reflect Clemente Park, not St. Louis Park. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion to approve the minutes as amended.

motions made we have a second all right second second all in favor say aye aye chair vote yes any opposition hearing none minutes are accepted okay moving along now tonight we have four public hearings the first one is the site plan review and special permit for 131 davidson street 22 heard street llc has applied to the low planning board seeking site plan review and special permit approval to convert an existing four-story commercial building to 43 residential units at 131 Davidson Street, 129 Howe Street. The subject property is located in the downtown mixed-use zoning district. The proposal requires a site plan review for Section 11.422 to convert a development with more than three dwelling units and a special permit for Radical 12 for the use of the site.

May we hear from the applicant, please? Good evening, Chairman and members of the Planning Board. My name is Matt Hammer with Lamplex Engineering and Surveying, 43 Fletcher Street, Lowell, Mass. We're here this evening representing 22 Heard Street, LLC. for a special permit and a site plan approval for the property located at 131 Davidson Street, which is also known as 129 Howe Street. The existing building had been there for quite some time, being utilized as a commercial building for all professional offices. And the proposal here tonight before the planning board is to convert that existing building into residential units. There'll be a total of 43 units, which will be a mix of studio apartments, one-bedroom apartments, and two-bedroom apartments. So, there'll be a full mix of varying sizes Those sizes range from 400 to 700 square feet. It's a four-story building. The existing building, obviously, is going to stay and be repurposed. The existing parking area is located to the side of the building. That existing parking area accommodates 11 parking spaces. There's gonna be no external improvements done to the building. The unique part of this location, being in a DMU zoning district, is that we have an existing parking area directly adjacent to this property. As the planning board may or may not know, the DMU does not require parking for this use. But we have 160 space parking lot directly adjacent to our 11 spot parking area. It's a very short walk to the lower locks parking area as you would walk along East Merrimack. You would then go over to the Lower Locks parking lot, which is adjacent to the college campus. That's an underutilized parking garage, and that parking garage has 963 spaces at that parking garage. It's also a short walk to the John Street parking garage as well, which is just down Merrimack Street. And that parking garage has 1,120 parking spaces. So where this is unique, we have 2,243 spaces directly adjacent to this project. We also have nearby amenities such as the river walk directly adjacent to this project, which is an area that obviously provides open space and areas to take walks. This directly adjacent to this property is multi-family residences. neighborhood businesses. And obviously it's a short walk to downtown. The lot area is 11,415 square feet and it essentially is completely paved. We have the floor plans for each of the floors showing the variety of the mix of units here this evening as well. I was able to provide a handout that shows the elevation of the existing building, which, as I said, is not going to be changed in any way. So, I printed out a copy for each board member. I also provided a copy to Mr. Tenzar of a full-size set so that's readable for him as well. The project has a criteria which is per section 11.3 point to a criteria for special permits. I provided a full narrative of meeting all of those criteria. and its goals of meeting the City of Lowell Comprehensive Master Plan, as well as all the specific sections of that criteria. I don't know if the board wants me to walk through each one, but this is very common where we have office buildings that can no longer sustain itself as office buildings and get converted to residential buildings. So we find this project is consistent with other projects in the past that have done just what we're proposing. Chair, do you want me to walk through each criteria?

I believe we have it. It's not necessary. Thank you. What's that? It's not necessary. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Chair.

We received the comments from Ms. Mary Brundage. We have no problem with conditioning the approval that was put forth by the engineering comments pertaining to making sure that the existing sewer being serviced the building would be camera'd and ensured that that sewer connection was made is suitable for the proposed change in use. There has been no issues to date that I'm aware of, of that sewer line, so we have no problem complying with that, which is a normal condition. We will also be replacing the sidewalk along the 2 roadways how Street and Davidson Street in front of our project to meet the city of Lowell standards for sidewalk improvements. And 88 detection devices for anything that's applicable in that manner. Obviously, the water line would need to be insured to be in adequate condition to provide adequate pressure and sizing for the sprinkler system. We have no question that we feel as though that that's going to be an issue, but it most certainly should be a requirement. And then obviously to make sure that the whole project in a whole for the change of use would be compliant with all fire department requirements as well in terms of egress signage and anything pertaining to having residential use repurpose in this building. We also make note that the economic development comments showed support for this project, saying that it was going to be a positive increase in value in the building and is going to increase the tech tax rates within the city of Lowell as well, and it aligns with the Lowell Forward Goals, including housing production, supporting downtown vitality, and adaptive reuse of historic buildings. And then again, we have the engineering comments, which roll back to those conditional recommendations, which we have no issue with. We're not in a historic district here. And then again, there was the sewer comment, you know, pertaining to the sewer connection as well as the water connection. So, we feel as though this project would meet the criteria for site plan approval, not being detrimental to the neighborhood with the other nearby residences in the neighborhood and amenities, as well as the parking, proper access, and proper utilities on the adjacent roadways, as well as meeting the special permit criteria for the project overall. And I can put it over to the board for any comments.

And thank you, sir. At this point in time, I'll turn the meeting over to the public. Anybody here want to speak in favor of this project? In favor? In favor? Hearing none, anybody like to speak in opposition? In opposition? In opposition? Hearing none, I'll turn it over to the board members. Any of the board members have any questions, comments?

Mr. Chairman, if I may?

Yeah, Mr. Fichette?

Matt, a couple things, just I guess I want to point out too, in the DMU zone, the reason the parking doesn't apply is because you're within 1,500 feet of parking garages, which you described accurately, obviously. Could you go over the lot footprints in the building footprint? I just... So I just want to clarify, it's not that parking doesn't apply in the DMU zone. It's because of your location to municipal parking.

Yep. So here's the existing building here.

And with the lot line.

Right up against it. Yeah.

Does it actually do that jogging too?

Yeah, so it's a very interesting jog. It's a good question. The reason why it's there, there was a canal that connected along here from the Concord River over to the Merrimack at one time. So the edge of that canal was here. And then this is the parking area here.

And then where is the main entrance going to be for the residents?

Mr. Right here. The secondary entrance over here.

Mr. So, what I'm trying to get at, Matt, is one of the comments from DPD, right, that you didn't mention is that There was no landscape or lighting details. And I know there's not a lot of land for landscaping, but what we've done this, we've done this with urban properties that at least some sort of, I'm just trying to think of some planters or something, at least by the entrances, the soft, you know, just give it the sense of it's a, it's home, it's a residential building and just, but you know, obviously, I go back to Newburyport. We have a lot of similar properties, but boy, they have a way of making it look a heck of a lot nicer than we do here in Lowell. So I'm just trying to think of what we can do.

Yeah, so here's one of the elevations here.

Which we didn't have until tonight, so I appreciate that.

Yep. But it's really up against, this is the backside.

Yeah, all right. That's not the end towards the... Can we on the front entrance, can we do some like window boxes on the ground floor?

I mean, you can do them. It's just whether they're going to last.

Well, it's whether the owner gives it the care that it needs to have. I mean, I guess that's the...

It's just very difficult with this style building to incorporate landscaping. And we tried to figure out a way to do that without affecting the look. But the nice thing is, is we have all that open space close by. You know, this isn't a legitimate answer, but people typically might put hanging plants or things in front of their windows, you know.

That's going to work, yeah. I don't want that. It's really difficult. I'm thinking of something that's more uniform and will have a period look. You can actually do that to make it look residential.

We could put some interior plants that you could see through the entranceway on the sidewalk. inside the foyer?

Let me see what my colleagues have to say on that, but I want to see something incorporated in there, however it's going to look. And I mean, with 43 units, I have to think the economics are going to work to at least provide. I understand from a landlord's perspective, let's be honest, they don't want to have the maintenance of it. I get it, right? But I don't care.

It's not that we don't want to do something. It's just it's very difficult with a hardscape to a hardscape sidewalk.

Right. Oh, I understand.

Something that's just not going to get damaged by being out accessible to the public at the sidewalk.

Right.

Right. That's all.

Yeah. No, I get the challenge. That's for sure. There's not a lot to work with. with there. For a lighting plan, then I guess, how is that gonna, you know, obviously for, because the 11 spots you're walking, the whole length of, was it Howe Street, to either this entrance or, there's a secondary entrance, how is, can you kind of go over the lighting plan on that?

You know, we're just gonna be utilizing the existing lighting on those streets. And what about in the existing parking area, the 11 units, the 11 parking spots? We're not proposing any lighting in that parking area.

Geez, I didn't even notice. Is that well lit at night? I guess I didn't even notice what's available there at night.

You should be able to put something on the building to show the parking lot.

We most certainly can work with DPD to incorporate some lighting. Yeah, I don't see any lighting back there. Couldn't you at least put something on the building to light up the parking lot?

Yeah, no, we've got to do something. We've got to have some sort of lighting incorporated in here. All right. That's all I have at the moment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay.

Mr. Tenzan, any questions, comments?

Thank you Mister chairman. I liked the fact that they were going to reuse this building. I thought that was a good use. I am concerned about the parking despite the fact that there's tons of it all the way around. My biggest beef is you've got other businesses that need the parking some of its private parking right next door. and you have the Lowell Memorial Auditorium. To Jerry's point, Member Frechette's point, I do think there needs to be considerable lighting in and around that building. And just driving around that area, you had mentioned it might be tough to keep things outside and in decent condition. I think for the safety of the occupants and the people that visit them, you're going to need considerable lighting all around the building. on all four sides, Howe Street, the parking, that small parking lot, Davidson, and also next to that private parking lot. So I would definitely want to see that. I think the city is pretty much given their conditions. So that's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Lucia, any questions, comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I like the site plan. I like the fact that it offers from studios to two bedrooms. I love the idea of adaptive reuse. But my questions center around the parking lot and whether or not there will be any screening or landscaping.

I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last part.

The parking lot? Yeah. Will there be any screening or landscaping?

We had not proposed any, but we can put some screening in the way of a solid fence. Is that what you're thinking?

I mean, just something to show that it belongs to that building and sort of separates it from the rest of everything that Member Tenzar had mentioned that surrounds that area because it is a residence.

We most certainly could put some solid fencing along the that one side of the parking area that separates the. The parking the parking lot. That could be a form of screening that could differentiate between our parking lot in the parking lot which is the the Davidson parking lot. So we could definitely do that like a solid white fencing. We could do that. Okay. We can most certainly do that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sa?

No comment from me. Okay.

Yeah, if I agree, there should be some lighting, especially in the parking lot. Yeah, we can do that. I mean, you know, basically like Walmart, right? Yep, we can put them on the building. Especially where the parking is. I mean, if it's dark at night and people go in there. So, you know, you said you have the 11 spaces. So will they be designated to people in the units or will they just whoever comes first?

There'll be some designated spaces, and then there'll be spaces that'll be designated to just be drop-off spaces. So, if you need to, you know, drop something off for, you know, 20 minutes at a time.

And I know on other projects that you've been before, sometimes you'll leave one spot for, like, a ride share. Would that be something you'd consider as well? Yeah, we most certainly could do that, Chair. Yeah, on the landscaping, by looking at the site, it's really right up to the sidewalk. And the sidewalk to the street isn't that wide. So I'm thinking if you did any landscaping at all, it would either have to go by the parking lot, because if you put it on Either of the street once you try to clean that's no way it's going to wipe everything out right, you know in the front, I mean take a Davis in 3, how much room would you actually have if you had to clean up the snow there put a right snow pile here. So I think that'd be very difficult trying to put the landscape and in the front of you on the side on on on. I think you know you have a little bit to work with in the back, I think the fact if you want to like you said change that A fence in the back. And then obviously in the back of that little parking lot, you have to have some snow storage, right? Yep. We do have some in the back. Yep. Okay.

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, if I may. Sure, go ahead. I also had a question about trash removal. How would that work?

Yeah, we have a dumpster on the plan. Yep.

Any other board members have any further comment? Yeah.

Yeah. We have 43 units, potentially 106 occupants. A small dumpster might not be sufficient. And how is it going to be screened on the property?

Well, it's going to have to be dumped as frequently as it needs to. So if it has to be done every day, it'll be done every day in order to facilitate refuge management for that.

Okay. And what are we going to do to screen it?

Right now, there's a dumpster there not screened.

Yeah, I saw it.

Yeah, so.

Yeah, it's not very attractive.

So we'll have to screen it with solid fencing.

Thank you. Anybody else have any further comment? Board members?

Mr. Chairman, as I look at the photos, I guess my lack of height, you know, I wouldn't have hit any window boxes, but I guess as I look at it on Davidson Street, I guess that would be kind of tight to put in there. I like the idea of doing something with a parking area. I mean, it's an opportunity. Because honestly, the David Street lot and those guardrails, it doesn't look good. It doesn't look good. I mean, people coming here, going to the auditorium. I mean, go to the theater in Western, go into the parking garage across the street in Crosstown. It looks fantastic. pocket the David Street lot and go over to the auditorium. It's not a great experience. So, obviously, this is a prominent building. The building looks great, by the way, itself, but is a chance to try to soften this a little and look a little better. So I would ask my colleagues, I mean, usually we wanna see a lighting plan, do some sort of landscaping, try to do something, and it's gonna be minimal, I understand. And then the screening of the dumpster to view that. I mean, I have a picture of the dumpster right here. Matter of fact, I'm not necessarily sure that's where it's, it's a different spot, right? Because this goes when you first, matter of fact, that's when you first drive in. This is right when you first pull in OK, are you still keeping it in the same spot?

We're going to have to take out a parking spot. Right now, it's kind of a dead zone area there. Yeah.

So it's... On the site plan, what do you have when you first drive into the site plan on the left hand side? Can you show us, Matt, on the site plan, please?

So we'll have to take out a parking spot to...

So that's not, you're not showing it here then on the site plan?

We're just showing where the existing dump is.

Yeah, where it is. So, yeah. So I really would like to see a site plan where that is going to be located, the screening, if we could put the fence, something to soften it. I mean, we've got those guardrails that you typically see on the road. So what can we do to soften that? you know, work with DPD, some sort of minimal landscape. I don't even know what you could come up with, but something, try to be a little bit more.

The President I notice there's an area right here, Jerry, where we could do something.

Mr. Okay. It really would be, it would be helpful. The President We can most certainly. Mr. Let's take this as an opportunity.

The President Yeah, we can put something right in this little strip here. Mr. Okay.

All right. All right. Fair enough. I would rather see a plan come back with all of that on there. The President Okay. Mr. So I don't know about my colleagues, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chair, just briefly, I think we all like the proposal, but to Member Frechette's point, I think we can try to make it a little more looking like residential rather than just a commercial structure. And so I think it would be helpful to see, like you mentioned, something to do with the front. And there may be, like Member Frechette mentioned, there may be ideas out from Newburyport, what they do with their hardscaping. That may be helpful, as well as, you know, the fencing and the lighting is going to be significant because it looks like, I didn't see many light poles in that area. It looks like it could be dark. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I guess the question now would be whether you want to come back with a new plan as suggested by the board members. Yeah, we will.

We'll come back with a revised plan. And if you could continue us to the next next meeting, that would be great.

Peter, so I'm looking at our agenda. I think I know Thursday, September 10th is full. Can you take to see what we have for September 24th? I know the 10th is full. We already got four things on that night. So the 24th? Yeah, I just have Peter check it. i just know that the last meeting we continued two things to september 10th and we also have the curbing thing on the 10th and when we have another um plan yeah there's four things going on yeah we continued the two subdivisions to the 24th the 24th that's what i'm checking that's what i thought yeah so we have yeah we have the two subdivisions on the 24th that's what i thought because So how many we have on the 10th then? Because it wouldn't take, you could have it by the 10th? The 10th, yeah. Matt, you could have those plans revised by the 10th? Is that okay, Peter?

Yeah, it looks like it because it's two projects and then one on the curb cut ordinance.

Okay, I got you, all right. The 10th, it looks like. Great, thank you. You want to make a motion to that? Yeah.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion to continue the petition to the September 10th meeting for the applicant to come back with a lighting plan, landscaping, and hardscaping plan for the parking area, and also locating the dumpster and the screening on the plan, and work with DPD again to try to soften the entrance in any way possible.

We have a motion on the floor to continue until September 10th.

Second.

Motion is made in second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes yes. Any opposition? Hearing none, the motion carries. All matters for the site plan and special permit continue until September 10th. Thank you. Okay, moving along on the agenda. The next matter is a site plan review and definitive subdivision revision. 165 Nelson Avenue 33-113 Addy Way, also known as Rivers Edge. Residence First Development Corporation has applied to the Lowell Planning Board to amend the definitive subdivision in the site plan for the planned residential development known as Rivers Edge. The amendments pertain to the area of the PID at 165 Nelson Ave. 33 that one 33. Anyway, the applicant thinks approval to create 16 additional lot within them and medical development in order to create an additional 3rd 32 dwelling unit which will increase the approved numbers of unit from one 81 to one 87. The subject property is located in traditional 2 fam zoning district. The project requires a revision of Defendant Subdivision approval from the Planning Board under Lowell Subdivision of Land Regulations and Site Plan Review under Section 11.42. May we hear from the applicant, please?

Mr. Chairman, before you hear from the applicant, I do have to recuse myself on this application. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fichette.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening to all. For the record, my name is John Geary of Geary & Geary, LLP, 32 Church Street, Lowell, Mass. I'm here tonight representing the applicant, Residence First Development Corporation. And as you all know, Residence First is the nonprofit developer overseeing or responsible for the redevelopment of the former Julian Steele housing development off of Gorham Street. We are dealing with the final phase at Residence First, River's Edge. This area consists of approximately 12 and a half acres of land, all located within the traditional two-family zoning district. With us tonight, we have Brian Malissi. Brian is our engineer from Haley Ward, and we have Dennis Connors from our project manager for Residents First. In advance of tonight's hearing, we have submitted the site plan and development plan commission because of the proximity to the bordering wetlands. vision plan and the site plan. The site plan that we have provided shows the adjusted lot lines. It shows the stormwater management system, the drainage system that we are proposing.

It shows the 16 duplex lots that I also saw the landscaping plan and did notice I had counted 31, but you could be quite correct. It could be 32 trees. But I think that will also help with the heat island effect. The fact that we have, you know, you're going to have so many trees. I did have a question on the homeowners association. It felt like they were asking whether or not there's an existing homeowners association that governs all of the area as opposed to just this phase.

right there is not there is not no all right who handles the um who has the responsibility for the maintenance of the stormwater system for the other parts so the uh some of the roadways have been accepted so just like any any accepted city street the city is responsible for the infrastructure within the right-of-way you know the drainage the manholes whatever the case may be

So is the idea that going forward, this will get accepted? Yes.

The idea is once we are 100% complete, we're going to come back to the city, submit the as-built plan for the roadway acceptance, bring it before the City Council and request that every roadway that is not accepted be accepted. So 100% of the roadways should be accepted at the end of the day.

Thank you, Attorney Geary.

Thank you. Thank you. Lucia, any questions, comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No questions. I echo Member Tenzar's sentiments. It's a great community and certainly a stark difference from what it was before. All of the proposed additions conform to zoning, and you have Conservation Commission's approval. So, I'm all for this project.

Thank you thank you. I guess I'll get back to the first question on the condition that we want to hear from Peter for that you talked about the for the condition of the uv reflection still coat. So Peter you said you you spoke with Council on that and.

Yeah, I think it makes sense, especially because these are going to be sold off to homeowners afterwards. And generally that seal coat, you know, has to be replaced every two or three years, like Attorney Geary said. So they would really have no way to make sure that that seal coat was being upkept or anything.

Yeah, because I recall none of the other streets had that condition right when we know through all the other phases over the last how many years that's right. Okay, I'm.

And based on my research, it's a, you know, it's more expensive than your typical paving, which is really not what this project is about. It's not a, it's not a, you know.

And, you know, as the famous attorney, Tansy, I've indicated with all the extra trees, it does help the heat island effect. Right. And the fact that, and plus you're going in for the street acceptance plan through the city, so then all of the streets up there will be accepted if everything goes through. And I know stormwater just had a question about the drainage line, but I'm sure you worked with them. Yeah. No problem with them. I mean, because they probably still have to most likely give you a permit, right? For the water. Right. Yeah. So if you don't get that, then right. Okay. Yeah. I'm in favor of the project. I've been here since the whole thing initiated. It's been a long time, but it's good to see it really coming to the end. I know it's taken a long time to go back before to stay back before the council come back before us. Right. I know when you started with us on this, it was Back before last Christmas. You get this plan accepted. Yeah, so it's been almost that long. I mean, just this part of it, I should say. Right. Right. So, and I've been in favor all along, so I have no problems with it whatsoever. So, we do need two votes. One would be for the site plan review, and I'll make a motion to approve that.

Second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, that motion carries. The site plan review is allowed. I will also make a motion to approve the Defendant Subdivision Revision.

Second.

That is second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, that motion carries as well. Good luck. We wish you well.

Thank you. Appreciate your time.

You're welcome.

Mr. Chairman, can we take a quick break?

Sure. He's gone.

Yeah, a bit cold here. I came to prayer.

Okay, moving along on the agenda, we have a definitive subdivision, 2 Prince Ave, 48 Newhall Street, 56 Newhall Street. Mockley low LLC that dude's place LLC and the card management services Inc have applied to the low planning board seeking definitive subdivision approval to subdivide the existing properties at the above-mentioned address into full lot that subject properties are located in the light industrial zoning district. The project requires definitive subdivision approval from the Planning board under the low subdivision of land regulations that we have before it's coming in his request for a vote of road. There's no request at this time for any buildings housing garages just request for a vote that we have the applicant please.

Good evening, my name is Antonio Morim. I'm a civil engineer with Stantec Consulting, representing the applicant on this definitive subdivision application. We were before this board in April, where we presented the preliminary subdivision plan for this project. Tonight I'm here to present the definitive. subdivision, which is substantially similar, slightly more detail, but I'm happy to go over the presentation. It's relatively straightforward. There are existing three lots. The three lots are 2 Prince Ave in Lowell, 48 Newhall Street, and 56 Newhall Street. Those three existing parcels of land will be subdivided into four separate lots plus a new subdivision roadway off of Newhall Street. We have received a memo from planning staff, and the memo states that the definitive plan meets the compliance requirements for the definitive subdivisions in the City of Lowell. There are some proposed conditions in the staff demo that I'm happy to go over right now. I'll go over them one by one here. Starting with comment number eight, under the review of stormwater comments. The proposed condition is that the applicant obtain a new stormwater permit or amend the existing stormwater permit to remove the detention pond and address any issues from the stormwater team. Overall, we have no issues with the condition with one point of clarification, the detention basin that's on site isn't being removed, it's simply being modified to accommodate the subdivision. So it's not being removed, it's just being So that's the only point of clarification I'd make on that. Otherwise, we take no exception with that condition. Proposed condition number two, the applicant must retain the existing outfall that serves as an overflow from the detention basin. We have no issues with that condition. The existing outfall from the detention basin will remain intact. No changes are proposed to the outfall. Proposed condition number three, The applicant will provide a new stormwater report to evaluate the new detention system basin alterations. We have provided a stormwater report as part of our definitive subdivision application. We will provide it again once we secure definitive approval and we will obtain the appropriate stormwater permit from the DPW as is being requested. So again, no issue with that condition. Proposed condition number four, the applicant shall apply for an NOI and receive approval from the MassDEP and the Lowell Conservation Commission for work being done within the 100-foot buffer of the wetlands. Again, no issue with that. Prior to constructing any of these roadway improvements, we would need to obtain approval from the Conservation Commission as the work does reside within the 100-foot buffer of the wetlands. So we have no concerns with that proposed condition. Comment number nine is pertaining to wastewater comments. Proposed condition number five states that All utility connections should be privately owned and maintained, as was mentioned during the preliminary plan hearing, and as is indicated on the plans, all utilities, all infrastructure associated with this road will be privately owned, privately maintained. There will be no maintenance burden on the city or its taxpayers. Comment number 10 is engineering comments. Requesting a proposed condition number six, the applicant shall provide a recorded private roadway and utility maintenance agreement for Data Road, identifying responsibility for the roadway, sidewalks, snow removal, lighting, gates, landscaping, drainage, and stormwater systems, and private water and sewer utilities. The agreement shall apply to all lots served by Data Road. Once again, all the infrastructure being proposed within the new subdivision roadway will be private. All the maintenance burdens will be with the current ownership and no maintenance burden to be placed on the city or its taxpayers. More of the same, proposed easement will be created as part of the subdivision, but again, it will be, it will remain with the lot being created and no maintenance or inspection burdens will be placed on the city. It's all privately owned and maintained. Proposed condition number eight, The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering office prior to commencing work. We just mentioned the stormwater permit, which we will file upon getting through the definitive plan process. We will also go to CONCOM, obtain approvals from CONCOM as needed. And then, obviously, once this goes to construction, the contractor will be obligated to obtain any street opening permits, trench permits, any other contractor permits that are required. So no issues with that condition as well. And then the final proposed condition related to the water department comments. The water department is to inspect prior to turning over the water. We work very closely with the water department already.

So no... Mr. Chairman, can we take a quick break? Sure.

He's gone. He left. It's time to go.

Yeah, a bit cold here. I came to prayer.

Okay, moving along on the agenda, we have a definitive subdivision, 2 Prince Ave, 48 Newhall Street, 56 Newhall Street. markley lowell llc the dudes place llc and cicada management services inc have applied to the low planning board seeking definitive subdivision approval to subdivide the existing properties at the above-mentioned address into four lots the subject properties are located in the light industrial zoning district the project requires definitive subdivision approval from the planning board under the low subdivision of land regulations that we have before it's coming in his request for a look of road. There's no request at this time for any buildings housing garages just request for a road that we have me applicant please.

Good evening, my name is Antonio Morim. I'm a civil engineer with Stantec Consulting, representing the applicant on this definitive subdivision application. We were before this board in April, where we presented the preliminary subdivision plan for this project. Tonight, I'm here to present the definitive subdivision, which is substantially similar, slightly more detail, but I'm happy to go over the presentation. It's relatively straightforward. There are existing three lots. The three lots are 2 Prince Ave in Lowell, 48 Newhall Street, and 56 Newhall Street. Those three existing parcels of land will be subdivided into four separate lots plus a new subdivision roadway off of Newhall Street. We have received a memo from planning staff, and the memo states that the definitive plan meets the compliance requirements for the definitive subdivisions in the City of Lowell. There are some proposed conditions in the staff demo that I'm happy to go over right now. I'll go over them one by one here. Starting with comment number eight, under the review of stormwater comments. The proposed condition is that the applicant obtain a new stormwater permit or amend the existing stormwater permit to remove the detention pond and address any issues from the stormwater team. Overall, we have no issues with the condition with one point of clarification. The detention basin that's on site isn't being removed. It's simply being modified to accommodate the subdivision. It's not being removed, it's just being revised. So that's the only point of clarification I'd make on that. Otherwise, we take no exception with that condition. Proposed condition number two, the applicant must retain the existing outfall that serves as an overflow from the detention basin. We have no issues with that condition. The existing outfall from the detention basin will remain intact. No changes are proposed to the outfall. Proposed condition number three, the applicant will provide a new stormwater report to evaluate the new detention system basin alterations. We have provided a stormwater report as part of our definitive subdivision application. We will provide it again once we secure definitive approval and we will obtain the appropriate stormwater permit from the DPW as is being requested. So again, no issue with that condition. Proposed condition number four, the applicant shall apply for an NOI and receive approval from the MassDEP and the Lowell Conservation Commission for work being done within the 100-foot buffer of the wetlands. Again, no issue with that. Prior to constructing any of these roadway improvements, we would need to obtain approval from the Conservation Commission as the work does reside within the 100-foot buffer of the wetlands. So we have no concerns with that proposed condition. Comment number nine is pertaining to wastewater comments. Proposed condition number five states that All utility connections should be privately owned and maintained, as was mentioned during the preliminary plan hearing. And as is indicated on the plans, all utilities, all infrastructure associated with this road will be privately owned, privately maintained. There will be no maintenance burden on the city or its taxpayers. Comment number 10 is engineering comments. Requesting a proposed condition number six, the applicant shall provide a recorded private roadway and utility maintenance agreement for Data Road, identifying responsibility for the roadway, sidewalks, snow removal, lighting, gates, landscaping, drainage, and stormwater systems, and private water and sewer utilities. The agreement shall apply to all lots served by Data Road. Once again, all the infrastructure being proposed within the new subdivision roadway will be private. All the maintenance burdens will be with the current ownership and no maintenance burden to be placed on the city or its taxpayers. More of the same proposed condition number seven, All required roadway utility drainage access inspection and maintenance easements should be shown on the plan. We do show a drainage easement on the plan, identifying the location of the stormwater basin where the drainage easement is located. That easement will be created as part of the subdivision, but again, it will remain with the lot being created and no maintenance or inspection burdens will be placed on the city. It's all privately owned and maintained. Proposed condition number eight, the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering office prior to commencing work. We just mentioned the stormwater permit, which we will file upon getting through the definitive plan process. We will also go to CONCOM, obtain approvals from CONCOM as needed. And then, obviously, once this goes to construction, the contractor will be obligated to obtain any street opening permits, trench permits, any other contractor permits that are required. So no issues with that condition as well. And then the final proposed condition related to the water department comments. The water department is to inspect prior to turning over the water. We work very closely with the water department already. So no issue with that. Obviously, they'll perform all the inspections as needed for all the new water infrastructure being proposed. I'll run through the rest of the comments sort of quickly. They're a little bit repetitive from the conditions that are there, but I'm happy to go through them individually just for completeness. There were no comments from the building department. There were no comments from the planning and project management team. There were no comments from the economic development team. The engineering comments, we already went through them. They relate to identifying responsibility for the roadway, the sidewalks, all the infrastructure. We've talked about that, so it's just repeating that same comment. There were no comments from the fire department. There were no comments from the health department. Historic had no comments. The parks department had no comments. Police department had no comments. Solid waste and recycling had no comments. No comments from sustainability other than recommending coordinating with the sustainability director to ensure any future plans for the site align with the goals of the city, which we have no objection to. The stormwater comments is a little bit more detailed here, and I'm happy to go through it in a little bit more detail, but these are all things that we'll work out with the city engineer when we file for our stormwater permit directly. All of it is explained in the stormwater report anyway, but I'll go through it bullet by bullet here. You'll need a stormwater permit amended to include the new drainage. We acknowledge that and we'll work with the city engineer to obtain the stormwater permit. Must retain the old outfall. We talked about that. We have no plans to change or remove the outfall. For the regrading on lot two, is the existing drainage being buried? The existing drainage that exists on lot two will remain there in perpetuity. We have no plans to remove it. There are subsurface stormwater systems already in place on lot two. Those will remain. The only changes on the subdivision are in regards to the drainage basins on the surface, which we talked about. There'll be some minor modifications associated with that that are described in the plans and in the stormwater report. It's asking to provide a new stormwater report to evaluate the new system. We've already submitted that as part of our application to the definitive plan process. We will do it again once we file for our stormwater permit. with the city engineer. Talking again about revise the old permit to remove the detention pond. Just again, we're not removing it. We're simply revising it. So just a point of clarification there again. Work is being done within the 100 foot of a buffer zone. Wetlands Protection Act may apply. It certainly does. Prior to constructing any of these improvements, we will have to go before the CONCOM to obtain our CONCOM approval because of the work being proposed within the 100 foot buffer. So that would be required prior to construction. Transportation department had no comments. The only wastewater comment really was relative to whether the utilities are privately owned and maintained. We already acknowledged that they are privately owned and maintained. And then the water department, again, more of the same. They do have an added comment in here about recommending a hydrant. We show a hydrant on the plans. We met with the water department prior to submitting these plans and have incorporated all their comments. But we will continue to work with them during construction to coordinate inspections for all of the water infrastructure being installed. All the comments are relatively straightforward, as you heard. Again, it's a relatively straightforward subdivision, three lots being subdivided into four for the new roadway. That essentially concludes my presentation. I'm happy to hand it over to the board for any questions or comments.

Mr. Chairman, could you please in your presentation, could you please clearly, clearly in the map show the new roadway? Sure. As it goes through the subdivision, please.

All right.

It's this gray shaded road right here. So the purple, the green, the blue, and the red represent the four lots being subdivided and created. It's this little gray cul-de-sac here. That's the proposed subdivision road. And just for context, These are the three existing lots that are there today. So this is 2 Prince Ave, this is 56 Newhall, and this is 48 Newhall. Those three lots are being subdivided to create the four lots plus the roadway.

Thank you.

any other questions before we begin So that completes your presentation, sir, and nobody else is speaking on your behalf?

That's all we have.

We're happy to answer any questions or comments that may come up. We'll get to the questions. Thank you. At this point in time, I'll turn it over to the public. Anybody here who seems to like to speak in favor of the project? In favor? In favor? In favor? Hearing none. Anybody like to speak in opposition? Just come to the microphone, please, and state your name and address, and hit the sign-in sheet, if you don't mind.

My name's Neil Dale, and I'm with 350 of Greater Lowell. And I just have a very simple question for the planning department. I believe they're asking to put in new roads. Is that correct?

I believe that's what he said, yes.

How can the planning department meaningfully decide if a road is appropriate without knowing what the land is going to be used for? I just want to know. It seems to me that the use of the land would have some bearing on the nature of the road. So how can you approve a road without knowing what it's for?

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Chris Romero. Reset at 329 Moody Street. I am in opposition of this project because I believe Mark Lee does not deserve any of this because they've been negligent, in my opinion. And I just don't think this is worth it. the residents deserve better like this is not worth it and yeah I don't believe that Markley needs the approval because they've already taken up some of the land probably some residents might not agree with me some residents might do but they don't deserve it and that's all I've got to say so I object to this thank you thank you

Anybody else like to speak?

Hi. Randall Sneed, 63 Otis Street. My one concern that I would have is that the access way, the roads that are there, they're not going to have any impact on the residents that are on Newhall Street be able to have access to their property at the Newhall condominiums and for those things by having the private ways that are going on. Thank you.

Holly Flynn, 34 Newhall Street. I raised some concerns during the April meeting, and those concerns still remain. The driveway on Newhall Street, the congestion it will bring, what is the driveway going to be for? Employees only or 18-wheelers? I also must say that I am upset to hear that the trees will be cut down and replaced by concrete. They claim they'll plant trees, but where? Behind their fence? I sat here back in April as you were all looking at my driveway that they wanted to acquire. What will that mean for the residents of Newhall? We talk about being good neighbors. Well, the companies in us have shared that space that we paid for the paving. We have been welcomed every winter to store our cars in the back lot during snow operations. What will happen now? 51 residents are wondering. The dude's place in YSEC building's electrical wires also run across our parking lot. What will that mean if there's an upgrade and who will pay for it? Will we know? Will we be included in that information? There is also no second exit out of there. Don't believe their engineer when he tells you there is. Go see it for yourselves. The hilly dirt path is not a car or emergency access way. What will happen if their construction blocks are only access? Back in April, you guys said that they can't do anything with plants until they come back with building plans. So why are they already digging on Newhall Street? I have also reached out to DEP about the contamination spill at 48 and 56 Newhall. Are you guys aware there was a contamination spill? And should we be concerned about if they are digging and creating massive dirt piles? We're trying to trust you guys to make the right decision, not just for this project, but for the residents who will have to live with the consequences of that decision. We hope you listen to us, the people who live here, walk the streets, raise their families, and call this community home. We hope you look beyond their plans, promises, and consider the real-life impact this has on our neighborhood. We're choosing to believe that our voices matter and that you will do what is right for its residents. Please put the health, safety, quality of life, and future of this community first. Thank you.

Thank you.

Howdy, folks. I think you know who I am, but I will just state it for the record. It's Jake Forts, and I'm at 36 Iowa Street over on the south side of the facility. So for 2 Prince Ave and this proposed project, I have concerns not only for some of the stuff that's already in play, but what is going to happen for one of the residents of our group. Because I can tell you, Holly, who is just standing here, She has real concerns. And I can tell you, based on the 11 years of experience that I've had with this company, that things change, and they change very fast with them. You know, because why have I been here for the past 10 years at every single meeting? You know that. So tonight, I hope that you do Holly justice and fix and make sure that there are fixed parameters for the entryway to her property. Because I've seen where the property lines go and where the stakes are. There's no driveway for her with what they're doing. It literally goes right to the side entrance of her property. She has a right, as do all the residents in her actual condo community, to use that roadway. this is something that got was gotten wrong on our side many years ago when they installed a fence and reclaimed property that was not theirs causing a parking problem on prince ave the connecting roadway to mine since then asked the people in the trash collection how many times we've had to call to get that fixed because markley reclaimed property that now has a berm on it a berm. Why did he need to take that property back? It was in public purview. Parking spaces were gone. I see this happening again here. You guys need to get in front of this and stop it immediately because they do what they want and ask for forgiveness later. And how many times Chairman Linehan and Vice Chair Frechette, have you heard me say that through the years? You guys have seen it. Get in front of this for them, okay? Now, with regards to this driveway on Newall Street, what happens to the roadway that is there for the new Markley Way that is put in? Why is there a need for two different entryways to this facility suddenly? Is it just because they're subdividing it? The thing that I found interesting was that there were no comments from the fire department on this. This company has 23 diesel engines on site. They went to court saying that only 10 of them were operational. Then why do you need 23? So already we have more fuel than what is supposed to be there, and we don't know how the fire department is going to be getting into this new roadway. but yet construction has already begun in lot number one on the property. For what? No plans have been submitted tonight to say what's going on lot number one. There's nothing showing that any digging is occurring on lot number one, but yet it is happening. Where is the plans for this? There should be definitive plans given tonight if they're already doing something there. But yet there's not. So again, is this one of the cases of let them do and ask for forgiveness later? What are they digging for? So that's pretty much what I've got there. And the last part of it is the soil testing. So there has been a dirt pile in the northeast corner of the property that has been the bane of the existence. Recently, the Markley Group went on a planting spree and added screening around the property. It looks great. The only problem is they finally used the dirt from that pile. Three of the trees are already dead. Two more are showing signs of death. That dirt pile has been uncovered for how long? But yet suddenly they start digging closer to somebody who I think wrote a letter in favor of them. And now all of a sudden these sprinklers have popped up over by Newall and Livingston Street. They're turned on. They weren't when they were back over on Andrew Street and it was blowing into the neighborhood. What's, like, soil. We need to have the soil tested. That needs to be a condition on the subdivision. Because there is clearly something wrong with soil in different parts of that property. Otherwise, that dirt pile would have disappeared years ago. But instead, it remained. And when it was petered out finally, you have dead trees. Something's out. So let's have some testing done, please. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Mary Wambui, and I live in Law. So I'm speaking in strong opposition to approving this definitive subdivision application as presented. For any company to do business in Lowell, it should at least demonstrate that it cares about this community. This maneuver of asking for a definitive subdivision, this is a strategy. And this strategy is in blatant bad taste. How can a company that really wants to continue doing business in Lowell decide to use maneuvers that we also know? What is Merkley trying to do right now? They are trying to lock in an eight-year zoning freeze using Chapter 40A, Section 6 to freeze outdated light industrial zoning for eight years. Really? If they want to do business here, they should. behave like a company that cares about law. So when they heard that law passed a data center moratorium, they knew what their next best step is. They quickly went out, came here for a preliminary thing, then now they are here for definitive subdivision. It's a strategy to lock this city and this town in outdated zoning laws. What else are they doing? They just told us they are preparing the ground for high impact infrastructure. That's what they are doing. What else are they doing? They are shifting property lines against abatis. Come on, we have intelligent people here in law. We need to stop pretending that we don't know that they are using the rules in the book that other developers use to bypass the rights of the people in this city. We are not against data centers. We just want responsible growth. And this maneuver that they have tried is terrible. Subdivision approval is not an entitlement under Chapter 41, Section 81M. Your mandate as the planning board is to protect public safety, drainage, and neighborhood welfare. So today, we are asking you to do three specific actions. First, deny all discretionary waivers. It's such a terrible thing to hear that there were no comments from the Department of Health. Seriously? What are they here for? Two, second, you need to demand strict Board of Health sign-off under Section 81U. This site carries recorded activity and use limitations, AULs, from historical contamination. Any infrastructure trenching, soil disturbance, or runoff redirection must have independent, peer-reviewed environmental oversight. Third, continue this public hearing. Do not close the record until there is full independent peer reviews for stormwater traffic and utility loading. It's so funny to hear that they'll be paying for utilities on their own. Makli doesn't have its own grid. It's going to be served by the same energy grid that serves the rest of law. And we currently are funding that grid because Massachusetts has not changed its way of collecting money from, they haven't changed, the rules have not changed. It's not like they're coming here with their own load. They're going to be increasing their load on our backs. Thank you.

Hello, Sean McDonough, 61 Market Street, private resident, no official capacity, on a personal Google Doc. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning board. I understand that there is not a great deal of discretion in the review of a subdivision plan. My primary concern here tonight is a procedural concern rather than speaking, I think as many residents have, of the wrongs of the particular applicant. Lowell's subdivision in land regulation states, to my non-expert reading, but it does state in the first section titled Procedure for Submission and Approval of Plans. It's 1A, titled General. It says, in part, the developer shall have a pre-application conference with DPD concerning the ultimate land use of the proposed development. And it goes on that that ultimate land use needs to conform both with the health of the neighborhood and with existing zoning. So, first question is whether we know the ultimate land use and if that pre-application was held. And so, following that question, the data center moratorium that the city of Lowell, sorry, the data center moratorium prohibits the city of Lowell from accepting applications or issuing any permits or other decisions for the intended purpose of constructing a data center. That's in section two of the data center moratorium. The preliminary application was submitted to the planning board on March 2nd. This was after the first public notice of a hearing for a proposed zoning change. So I'm not really sure that 40A section 6 applies, because the public hearing is supposed to be what tells you when you, that that's where the pre, my understanding is that that's where the pre-existing, the grandfathering in comes from is something that existed prior to the advertisement of the public hearing. The applicant tonight was party to a lawsuit against the city of Lowell and Land Court and just going by their own public document on the complaint. In January 2020, this is directly from the applicant's attorney in land court, right? Public. January 2026, the Lowell City Council proposed an amendment to the ordinance seeking to impose a moratorium on data centers in Lowell. The planning board considered and voted in its meeting March 2nd, 2026 to support the proposed amendment. The city council voted March 10th. By virtue of Markley submission of the Markley property ANR before the zoning amendment was adopted, The Markley property is not subject to the zoning amendment, which imposes a one-year moratorium on new or expanded data center. We continue with Tanner LLC, same thing, data center. I guess I'm wondering why the applicant would file a lawsuit seeking to try and get the properties that they're seeking to subdivide exempted from the moratorium if proposed continued development isn't towards the purpose of expanded development of a data center. And so I would just ask that in keeping with, again, it's my understanding of the subdivision regulations and the data center moratorium, that in considering this application tonight, the body confirms with the applicant that this land will not be used for the construction and or operation of a data center. Alternatively, I would ask that this body confirm that the applicant acknowledges that this subdivision does not in any way establish any sort of claim that future data center construction would be subject to approval based on a pre-existing non-conforming structure, where they entered into this subdivision plan fully aware that a moratorium was in place and that zoning changes towards data centers were coming. So thank you. Thank you, sir.

Good evening. I'm Megan Conroy, 31 Lundberg Street. It's interesting listening to this. This is my first planning board meeting. I'm going to be the first to admit that I'm not, you know, really in on the ins and outs of this. So just from what I heard this evening, it all sounds like really small and sensible things. you know, a fire hydrant, a wetland buffer, although I would ask the board to consider what good a wetland buffer is when, as Jake says, there's 23 diesel engines on this property. It does kind of feel like a little bit of a Band-Aid. And my concern as a pair of outside eyes, as just a civilian of Lowell, is that this company will take really small and sensible bites out of our neighborhood until the only thing that's left there is this. And it moves us out of all of our homes. It moves everything out of the area except for this huge black thing. And I love living here. I love living in Lowell. I've been in Lowell for 10 years. I'm such a big fan of this city. And I want all of us to stay in Lowell. And I guess for me, at the end of the day, we can get into the nitty-gritty about what this data center is used for, but companies like this applicant, their priority number one is always growth and expansion. Growth and expansion at any cost to them and at every cost to us. And I guess I would ask at the end of my time here, I would ask the board if any applicant in the recent memory of the board has elicited this kind of community response for all of their presentations. I think that so many of us have shown up here tonight and who have shown up to previous meetings and will show up to future meetings to stand in opposition to this, I think speaks major volumes to the character of the city. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kate Lawrence, 20 Bishop Street in Lowell. And it is also my first planning meeting, so I'm not sure about certain things. But I know looking at the construction document permit on Newhall Street, it did show. Is it OK to ask clarifying questions?

Sure.

OK. So looking at the construction document on Newhall Street, where it showed that the new road was going in, it looked to me, and with previous experience looking at construction documents, that the new road going in sort of had like a cul-de-sac at the end. Is that correct? OK. But then it seemed like there was some space between that and then Markley Way. So my question. I'm not a right there citizen, but I do live less than a mile away. Is the idea that the cul-de-sac, New Road, will eventually connect to Markley Way? Is that sort of the go-ahead? Sure.

The answer is I don't know. The future plans of what that, all that's being proposed right now is a cul-de-sac off Newhall Street. What's being proposed is what's on the plans. Any future connection, any future use for these lots, I know we've discussed this at the previous preliminary plan hearing, and I'll reiterate it again today. Markley is evaluating what their future use will be for these parcels. They have not yet come to a conclusion what that is. They're evaluating all of their options. This is part of that process. So while I can certainly appreciate that there are lots of people here in the audience who want to know about future projects or want to maybe perhaps talk about past projects. Tonight, I'm here to talk about the definitive subdivision that's been submitted, which is a roadway subdividing three lots into four and proposing a new roadway with a cul-de-sac. Nothing else is being proposed. I will also take this opportunity to respond to a few other points. I know there was some concern about the access out on the Newhall properties closer to the condos. Nothing in these plans changes any of the current access or buildings. There's no buildings being demolished over there. Nothing is changing. The only physical thing that you'll see that's different will be the construction of the roadway, the cul-de-sac that you just mentioned off Newhall Street on what is now the Markley property. That is the only physical change that you will see. with these plans. If there's any future development, any future project, we've said it before, whatever that is, it will have to come back before this board as part of a site plan application, at which point there will be much more detail. I'm sure a lot more spirited discussion about what that looks like. None of that is included in this submission. This is just a subdivision subdividing three lots into four and the creation of a roadway. That's it.

So then that scares me a little that that is being planned but that there's no thank you for answering that. But that that's not being forthright because it feels like with a plan like this that there would be multiple steps ahead. Where they would be if they're putting in one roadway on this this less traveled road That it would eventually connect to Markley Way, which is it holds up traffic I travel that in the morning and it holds up traffic there on Moore Street so that to me is So on that drawing, it doesn't actually show where Markley Way, but on the construction document, like I said, on Newhall Street, it shows a little gap of just the land. And so that to me is a little frightening that they're not being, they don't know that that will eventually connect, that those plans aren't being thought out right now. So thank you so much.

Yeah, that's fine.

Harini here. I live on 80 Smith Street, Lowell, Massachusetts. I'm here as both a private resident as well as the candidate for the 17th Middlesex representing South Lowell where Markley is located and all of these changes will happen. I have one one concept to talk about because we went through this in April and it was just a preliminary citing and we constantly talk about, oh, this is just an engineering permit. The one thing that I request you to take into account is that trust has been broken multiple times and it has not been built back. What the residents are very worried about is that once this is approved, what is there to stop the site plan to be approved next because it's going to be done in piecemeal small bites before we know that the whole elephant has been eaten. All the people that made their comments before me have put forth a lot of very good points, and I agree with all of those points, but here are some of my concerns. One is that the residents are reporting that there is building going on and that there is new construction that is happening or some stuff that is happening. Has the city actually inspected this and confirmed it? This should be done before the planning board approves anything because if if Markley is moving before they get the permits, they should be held accountable for it. Second is that I echo Mary's comments that a Department of Health should comment on these plans and make sure that there will not be any health effects to the people around. And I've been walking around that place a lot. And the Newhall Road has two beautiful giant trees. And if those trees are going to be cut, what will happen to the neighborhood which already does not have enough trees? So already heat island effect, how is that going to be impact? These are health effects, especially when today is a nice day in the summer, but we've had 100 degree days. How is that going to impact the surrounding homes and the neighborhood? Finally, I ask that you take the company's past behavior into account and to make sure that you are an agent for making sure that we hold them responsible, that we do not let this creep happen slowly, one bit at a time, until there is nothing remaining. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Alex Solange. I live in 15 Robinson Street. And most of the comments on a future level, I support all of them. I've been having a hard time with the construction of Markley close to my house. It's extremely noisy the whole day around. He said that he was going to do a parking lot, but it was a lie. I mean, I can't believe how people come here in front of you and lie all the time and they don't have the consequences. That's really my frustration. One other thing is our quality of life have changed a lot. I am not against AI. I'm pro-AI, but I am not against the way they do it. I suggest you can use cell batteries. There's a lot of technologies you can use to produce electricity. I have the proof. I got 30% in electricity going up. And I have solar, and I still got 30% up. So there are many ways that we can do AI without disturbing the neighbors, doing noise, doing bang bang all day, and polluting with 27 generators and 169 diesel. In the middle of the neighborhood where we have a school next door that is especially at kids. We have in my little street is 25 kids. And the pollution, and now they saying that they cannot disclose what they're gonna do there. I do remember, and you can correct me, but when they, in the lawsuit that they do to the city, they mentioned that we're gonna do another data center. So not just one. And now they saying here today that they don't know what they're gonna do. So I'm kinda a little confused about that. So I do. So it's like there is no consequences when people come here and lie to you. It should be some consequences. We stopped to put four generators in there. They have a corridor. They cannot touch them. They can install the generators. I mean, they can, but the judge will take care of it. But they're changing our quality of life completely. And is the health of our kids not important? I mean, all the citizens are here. What else is it going to take for you guys to listen to us? What exactly? I mean, I'm planning in November to start planning who I'm going to vote for. Because if they're going to keep doing this, we really need somebody in our offices that actually thinks about us, the people of the United States, the people of Lowell. We need people that actually listen to us. And I feel that we have not been listened to us. We have a few city councils that help, but it's like if we come here and tell you that this is affecting our lives, we don't have peace. From 7 o'clock in the morning to 5 o'clock at night, it's bang and bang and bang. The generators, the air quality, it's just overwhelming. So I ask you to please stop these people expanding data centers in Lowell. And if you're gonna go for generators, they already sell batteries, they last 60 years. So there is no, why are you gonna choose generators when there's other technologies that you can actually have it for more time and not do noise or pollute the entire neighborhood? Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Brian Calhoun, 46 Charlie Street. My general question is for the board. Once you guys allow them to do something, who is responsible for making sure that they adhere to what the board has told them?

The permitting department from the city.

Excuse me?

The city engineer's office and the building inspector.

City engineer's and building inspectors. Okay, the reason I'm asking...

I'm trying to answer your question. I'm sorry.

Okay. The reason I'm asking that is because I was here when the greenery group was putting in their thing. And they were supposed to do all kinds of things to mitigate the dust and the noise. And they weren't allowed to crush rocks. And yet the gentleman that owns that business did whatever he wanted to Same as these guys. And there were no consequences. To this day, they still do not have any dust mitigation. Okay. And it's going to be the same with these people. So I just want to know who is to be held responsible when things aren't done the way the board told them they were supposed to be done.

Call the building inspector, call the engineering department, call the wastewater department. Those are the ones that all gave us comments saying what they thought was necessary to make this project work. So they're the ones who have the right to go up and inspect it. We're not inspectors. We can't shut a building permit down. We can't issue a building permit. We can issue a decision to a site plan or defend the subdivision. And it's up to the city departments to follow through with the recommendations we give them before they go forward. So it's building inspector, engineering has made comments, building inspector has made comments, water department has all made comments. So if they don't go along with the conditions that we request from the water department, you call the water department. If there's something to do with the engineering, you call the engineering department.

The things that this board sets forth for them, is that forwarded to all those departments?

Yes. And they've all seen the plans and they've all gave us comments on it. Yeah, it is. They get a copy of everything we do. So therefore, they know what any condition we put on. Like, for example, engineering has requested multiple things tonight. If we agree with them, then it's their responsibility to make sure that they comply with those conditions.

Okay. So if things aren't getting done now, I know who to call.

Thank you. I hear your frustration on things. I hear it. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Anybody else like to speak?

Jonathan Grossman, 83, Varnum Ave in Lowell. I volunteer with 350 Mass. I don't live near the data center, but everyone in Lowell and the surrounding area is impacted by the activities of it. whether it's the air quality resulting from diesel generator use, whether it's the increasing greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the increase, the significant amount of energy required to operate the operation. on whether it's the cost of the resulting energy, as other people have mentioned. And what's hard for me to, I was here when the, at the preliminary, when the preliminary request was made, and it was stated then that we didn't, the company didn't know, or the person representing the company didn't know the anticipated use of these subdivisions. And given the potential significant impact on the entire community, it was a legitimate question. And the response was, well, we'll get more information at the definitive hearing. And here we are, and we haven't gotten any more information. So I urge you not to approve this project until we get that information because of the significant impact. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else like to speak?

Hi, my name is Nancy Pappas. I live at 46 Stavely Street. This is kind of in relation to the permitting. I know for a fact that you have to close the permit out because I have a neighbor who is building an addition to his house that's been going on for six years. And I've called the planning department. So, and I was also at the April meeting where this gentleman presented, same thing. We don't know what's gonna happen, what we're building. How can you not know what you're building? That is just ridiculous. And again, I bought in 2017. My electric and my water has doubled. I live alone. Doesn't make sense.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Anybody else? Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. This time I'll turn it over to the board members.

Mr. Chairman, if I may?

Sure, Mr. Fisher.

Peter, could we, I didn't realize we had this on behind us. Could we go to the slide that attempts to show the topography of the site? Oh, okay. Yeah, right here. Is that the, I don't think that's it. No, that's it.

The grading plan? That's it. Yeah, this is the grading and drainage plan.

Yeah, so this is going to prove my point, I guess. So again, we're, you know, it's subdivision approval. So, and I understand the frustration and many of the residents, you know, I applaud you for being here from the beginning. I got involved in zoning because of something happening in my neighborhood and I put my teeth into it and I didn't let go until I saw it through to the end. So I can appreciate that. But it's, you know, it's subdivision approval and We're looking at the layout of the lots, the road. But, you know, one of the requirements is the existing of proposed topography at a suitable contour interval. And so, this is the first time in 20 years sitting here. being asked to approve a subdivision and I couldn't walk the site. I couldn't get in there. So, you know, I stood on the outside of the fence and held my phone and trying to take pictures of it and then started to take a look at it. And, you know, when I looked at the topography, you can't even see it and you can't even see it on the plans we had. And I had it on computer and I was trying to blow it up. I have no idea And you can see, obviously, we're gonna talk very plain terms, on the right side of when you're pulling into that cul-de-sac, on the right side, the closer the lines are, the steeper the pitch, that's very steep, extremely steep. And then I'm looking at — this is overlapping a previous site plan that we approved. I want to know how that affects the site plan that we approved. Right? So that's — so, you know, I'm looking at that. And so I became concerned as I really started to look at what was being proposed as I'm trying to make a decision. you know, I've walked every single site I've ever made a decision on a subdivision. Honestly, I would be looking for a site visit to be able to walk that. And I would like to have an understanding of the impact of the already approved site plan of that property, because I think that has a bearing. I don't think, you know, we had a site plan that was approved and this now alters that.

Yeah, the reason you couldn't get in is because the existing lot is a secure facility.

I get it. Oh, I understand that.

To request. I'm sure if you requested it, they would let you on.

And I think that's what we're going to have to look at. I don't know what my colleagues will, you know, they may disagree with me. But I really, you know, that's why I wasn't quite sure.

I thought when I get out there, well, maybe it'll be clear.

You know, the comment about the trees. I will say one thing, and I lived in Lowell all my life. I'm 64 years old. And I've walked that site when it was, after it failed and it was a used office furniture location. And the bank foreclosed and it was a big white elephant, no landscaping, it was horrendous over there. The amount of trees that have been planted there, they are to be congratulated for that. And if we're concerned about heat islands, man, they turn that place around. However, there are other issues. There are things that you don't like certain things, like it for the wrong reason and dislike it for the right reasons and vice versa. So, and then also on these subdivision approval plans, I want to see, I know there's been a lot of plantings, but we want to see street trees, right? So I have no idea from the plans that was submitted, what that road is going to, you know, from a street tree profile, where the- We submitted a landscape plan that depicts all the street trees and it depicts all the plantings that are in there now. I can tell you the plans that we had was just, it was really difficult to read any of that.

I think that's because the plans you're looking at are half-size. The plans that we submitted to the planning board are all full-size plans, and you could see it.

Yeah, I mean, I tried to blow it up on the computer.

But all the information is there.

I can tell you the contour, I couldn't tell the elevation. Couldn't tell it at all.

Yeah, all the information is on the plans that were required to provide, as the comment letter states.

Well, maybe my colleagues will tell me that I couldn't figure it out, but I couldn't. I just couldn't. And then when I started looking, I could see where it was elevated. It looks like all soil right on that corner, but then it drops off drastically. I'd wanna walk that site and I wanna have an idea of the effects of the prior approval as far as how that lays out. So yeah, I guess I'm looking at your landscaping plan here.

Yeah, the landscaping plan provides all the street trees that are requested per the subdivision regulations. It also shows in the background all the trees that are in the background on the existing site. We're required to show all the existing infrastructure that's on the site. That's one of the subdivision requirements that we were obligated to meet. We did that. We show how the roadway ties into the existing site infrastructure. It's all detailed on the plans.

Yeah, and I guess I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is, well, not arguing. What I'm telling you is that I want to be able to walk that site because I can't, at this point, I have no idea on the contour of that lot as it approaches that right side of the street. Is there any retaining wall?

There's a retaining wall on the left side of the road coming down from Newhall Street up against the existing base. And I'll go back to the grading plan. It's all that information right on the plants. The screen just went white on me here, sorry. In the wrong direction. So this is the grading and drainage plan. If I could zoom in, I don't know if I can.

This is similar to the last site plan. It was so much overlapped on here that you just couldn't make it out. I think the other members will recall that.

I'm not able to zoom in to this plan, but this

It is high on Newhall Street and then it slopes down. All the grades tie into the existing site grades. In the site right here, it provides a curb cut access to this lot and to lot one in the subdivision. All the information is shown on the plans, all the grading information, all the street tree information, it's on the plans.

Okay. Thank you. That was great. Appreciate that. Then, it's interesting. And Peter, just for clarification, but I know we've brought this up before, it gets a little frustrating, but it does call for the Board of Health to comment. And again, this goes back to, I think these subdivision regulations back to 1954. It has a lot to do with septic systems, but question for you is that, you know, the health department said just no comments. For clarification, that means they looked at it and they had no concerns? I mean, certainly I get where this has been an ongoing concern from folks, but obviously if there are any issues relative to the site and there are any state or federal reportings of any hazardous material, then they have to actually follow what's required. But can you clarify the Board of Health's no comments comments here?

Yeah. And we, you know, could definitely come up with a better system. But if it says like staff did not receive comments or no comments received, that just means we have no idea if they looked at it and they didn't tell us anything. No comments means that the health department looked at it and decided they didn't have any concerns. They didn't have any concerns. Okay.

And that's come up before, but for anybody that even goes online and looks at what's out there, it doesn't say much, right? It's just no comment. But that means that they looked at it and said they had no concerns. I think I even asked before that they probably should say no concerns rather than no comment. So I guess that's my biggest concern is not being able to have access to the site as I looked at the contour and the effects. And again, I think it's incumbent upon, I feel for the board, we have a prior site plan that we approve that this now overlaps onto that. And I think it's important to understand the effects of the existing site plan that was already approved. So that is my concerns. I'm willing to hear what, obviously want to hear what my colleagues have to say, but I really would prefer to walk the site before I would make a decision on this proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Attorney Anzac?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. First of all, I would agree with Vice Chair Frechette. It is frustrating when you can't view the property. You have no idea what you're supposed to be viewing. I drove around it. And through different streets, I actually drove the wrong way down some streets, not realizing. But I did get to the perimeter. So I would agree. I think the only way we can properly make a decision on it is to actually see the subdivisions, see the entire lot. A good point as far as our prior site plan approval. How does this relate? I think that's a good question. I heard a number of times, and I always like to push back. I heard a number of times that people are not being heard. You are being heard. Sometimes when you're heard, doesn't mean that somebody will necessarily agree with you. If you believe in whatever issues that are outstanding, I heard a lot of different issues. And I actually wrote everything down. That they're talking about soil contamination, they're talking about These are important issues. And one of the things that I think our chairman has mentioned is we're not the enforcement mechanism. We have no enforcement. We have zero teeth. We get to see something before us, decide whether it follows the damn rules that we have, and then make a decision. And we're supposed to do that kind of like, you know, that lady that has the blindfold on, you know, the Lady Liberty, Lady Justice. It's not supposed to bear any relation to what you like or dislike about the person. It's supposed to be by the rules. So scales of justice. Thank you. So that's what we're supposed to be doing here. And I want everyone to know that I think all of us hear your frustration. whether it be noise or pollution or whatever it may be. Unfortunately, there are avenues and, you know, the Mass Department looks out for those things, and it isn't us. But you are heard. Some of the things that I did hear tonight are questions that we all have. Does it make sense for somebody to come before a board and not tell you what their plan is? I get it. I said it the last time we were here. Doesn't make sense. One of my colleagues mentioned that, you know, we should know or we should be informed of the use. But that's the way these people are dealing with this. They're keeping their engineer blindfolded, in essence. One of the questions that somebody raised was the impact on the Newhall residence. How does that street impact? Well, it depends on the use. It really does. Somebody mentioned they're concerned about the access in the fire departments. No comments from the fire department. Somebody mentioned digging on one of the lots. Once again, these aren't things that we necessarily, as far as digging on the lots, these aren't things that, as the chairman mentioned, these aren't things that we enforce. We're supposed to look at the rules. Do they meet the definitive subdivision? And can we approve it? I think to Member Frechette's point is, I think the only way to do that is actually be able to see the site and not have it behind a fence. So I think that from my perspective, I will need that as well. Somebody mentioned that we don't have a great deal of discretion. I guess that is sort of true. I'm learning. We need to follow the rules is what I've gathered from this. A number of people mentioned that they're afraid of the small steps, the small steps that people can take. And what does it lead to? You have been heard. But the question is, are they following the rules? And that's the issue for this board. People mentioned the Department of Health. They mentioned trust being broken. They mentioned data center expansion. Well, right now, this isn't anything as far as what's before this board, there isn't anything about data center expansion. This is dividing of lots. I'm going to say just in summary, my frustration is I don't like when somebody won't tell me what they're doing. I don't like it. It's just my personal opinion. But in order to move forward for me, I need to see the site, and we don't have access right at the moment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Lucia, any questions, comments?

nothing for me mr chair i think that all of my um i think i agree with the other what's been said by the other members i too would like to see the site i wasn't part of the initial site review but i'd like to see you know where these lines are how it may affect our butters thank you mr zahn questions comments

My comments that Ms. Tenzer had stated what we're all thinking. We heard you. We live here. We have family here. And we asked to do this job to follow the rule. And, you know, sometimes rules can be very difficult to, you know, to distinguish in terms of how we feel. The rule is the rule. And so, you know, asking when the decision asking us to make this, you know, to except the subdivision, you know, if they follow the rule, you know, they comply with what they need to do, we have no choice but to decide, you know, to allow them to, you know, to... to have that. So, you know, but we heard you and, you know, we encourage you to be here. You know, you see something, you think that within our right to make that decision, we'll make that decision. You know, we're not afraid to oppose if it's, you know, we are not following the rule. And that's my comment to, you know, and we are hearing you and, you know, we are part of the community. We are not, you know, any way insulated from leaving a separate world. So I just want to express my understanding of your concerns as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sa.

The question I have, if we could just see the plans. I know we talked about the access coming in, how it's going to affect the Newhall Street condominiums. Can you show us how that access comes in by the condominiums?

That's on the next sheet.

So this is on the sheet here. Exactly. You say it's not going to affect them. So if you can see, I mean, so when you come down Newhall Street, you take the left and you start to go in the condominiums on your left. So once the condominium is on your left, right?

These are the condominiums that were referenced earlier. What I said in my response was that nothing on this side, nothing on this side of the site is going to change with these plants. No change in access, no change in the parking configuration, no change in how utilities are done.

I get that, but let's go back up there. So right there is where the condos are, right? Where your arrow is now? I'm sorry, what was that comment? Where the condos are right now. The condos are this parcel right over here. Yeah, right there. So there's a road in front of the condos, right? So follow that. Does that go all the way up? Keep going. All the way up and it comes to there, right? And then is that where the chain link fence is?

No. This is all part of, I forget where the lot line is exactly. There's a lot line here between 58 and 46 Newhall Street. There is an existing access easement that exists already out here that shares access and utility rights between all these. And that's where that parking lot is back there? Exactly. There's parking, there's shared parking, there's access rights. And there is a driveway that goes up this hill into this property. I know where that is.

And that goes over by where they have the enclosed baseball stuff. Yep. I got that. Yep. And so then over here down below, you have the chain link fence, right?

Yeah. And that's where your security guard works? Yeah, there's an existing fence here that divides what is currently the data center parcel from the other two parcels to the north. You can see it better right on that colored plan there, where the pink and the tan kind of transition, that's where the fence line currently is on that.

Okay, so then up where the fence is, that's where your security guard parks, right?

No, that's on the other sheet.

I met him today.

We're over here. That's over here. That was Mr. Quincy, by the way. Not from the town of Quincy. The data center guard shack is over here on this side of the parcel. It's nowhere near the condo parcel.

He was up by the end of the parking lot in his car, standing by the fence with the Markley shirt on. And I noticed the gun on his holster, so I didn't give him a hard time. And that's where the fence is. Okay.

Yeah. The existing fence is over here. Okay. So like I said, this is the existing building that exists there today. The Dudes Place LLC, I think owns this. And this is, I forget the owner, another parcel. I think that the Sicard property is this property here. Those two buildings, nothing changes with this subdivision with those two properties. Okay. No physical changes other than the lot lines being redrawn.

Okay. So basically you're going to come in right from the condos and come up so that you'll not affect anybody in the condos from getting in and out, right?

That's correct.

Okay. Okay. So when you say, what's it, 46 and 50 something Newhall? Yeah, 56 and 43. So can you show exactly where they are on the plan?

Where's number 43?

48, I'm sorry.

Yeah, you can see it better on the color plan here in the front, sir.

Okay. And then the other one is 56. Okay.

Yeah. All right. That's the existing lot configuration right now. The pink is the data center parcel. The tan is 50. I can't see from here. You keep an approach. Go ahead. Yep.

Okay.

Gotcha. Okay. All right. So just to back up on a couple of questions that were asked by some of the neighbors. So there is access to the new alt condos. Okay. Okay. So... One is the question that you met with planning staff, correct? That's correct. Okay. And you spoke to them about the plans, obviously, because they commented on them, right? So you did have access with them. And I'm sure if they asked you what you wanted to put in there, you probably told them light and dust field, which is zoned for it, right? Correct. Okay. Okay. So he did meet with the planning department and okay. And they talked about that, okay. And then we had a question about the law department. So I called the law department. Law department gave us a memorandum. They told us that they are not affected by the moratorium because they filed their preliminary plan prior to the moratorium being passed by the city council. And once they filed a preliminary plan they have an 8 month period to come back for defendant plan with the rules of zoning. I'm cooperated from the day they filed a plan so they have a they are not in violation of any moratorium imposed by the City Council and that was the letter we received from the lot about. Received a letter and I called the gentleman and just spoke with him just to clarify exactly what he stated in the letter and he said, yes, that's correct. So they have a right to come in and it does not violate the moratorium. As he said, if they come back to the site plan, that'd be a whole different story. But these plans were filed prior to the moratorium being in effect. Therefore, they have the right to come in as a preliminary and the definitive as long as they're in the timely matter. So again, we refer to the law department. When it comes to the engineering, we refer to the engineering department. When it comes to the wastewater, we refer to the wastewater department. They're the experts in the city who guide us as planning board members and tell us what they recommend. And as they did today, all those departments who did receive copies all weighed in. The wastewater weighed in, the engineering weighed in, the fire department, they didn't know, but engineering, wastewater, and we had also conditions that they should, Get approval from MassDEP again, and from the Lowell Conservation Commission. What was the other one? Engineering department weighed in. And so the main thing is, you know, the city streets and trenches, and planning staff has to go look to see preliminary what, if it meets the criteria for the defendant's subdivision. Implanting staff, yes, it meets the criteria and then the engineering department have to say. Do they have the road that they have, you know any sidewalks are they going to put in any light is it going to be public it was going to be private if it's going to be private, how is it marked on plan and so they have all seen these plans not just us. And they read the plans and they all make comments back to us. to tell us what they feel in their professional opinion, what is the best way to approve or deny a project. So the information that we get is from the other city staff that do this for a living, recommend to us to tell us what they feel is the best way to make projects like this, the best safety for the city and all the neighbors in the city we've been told several several times from the law department we cannot turn down a project just because we don't like the applicant it's called unconstitutional very simple you don't like it court says too bad they present a plan you got to treat them like everybody else If somebody did something one way, we can't say, well, we didn't like your prior plan. We didn't like what you did before. They could say, too bad, doesn't hold any mustard. Give us a reason why we can't approve it. Tell us what's wrong with the road. What's wrong with the road? I'm talking. This is what the engineering department tells us. No, hands down, you all had your turn, my turn. So we go through all the preliminary hearings and planning staff outlines what they have to do. They put down a whole criteria of everything that has to be met for a road. As I said at the beginning of the hearing, they're coming in for a road, not a building, just for a road. That's what we look at when we make a decision. That's all I have to say. Mr. Lachette, I'll go back to you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I again, I would be looking for a continuance because I think it's incumbent upon us and you're absolutely correct. And we have received comments from all the professional departments within the city. However, we make the ultimate decision. And I, in good conscience, without walking the site, without actually seeing how that — again, we've already approved a site plan for this particular location. I think it's — I don't know how I can make a decision without fully understanding that, without seeing the how that overlaps the existing site plan. And I really have no sense from trying to look at this site, and because of all the trees and the landscaping, I could not make out the contour of this site as it relates to the cul-de-sac and the lots of budding itself. From that perspective, I would ask the applicant if they could also just the basic lay out of this cul-de-sac, overlaid on the existing site plan that was approved. That's all I'd want to see.

May I respond to some of these comments? All of that information has been provided in these plans. All the information that you need to approve these plans is provided in these plans.

I appreciate that.

And I also understand that these plans were submitted about three months ago. So if there was a need for a site visit, to find out the day of the hearing that you didn't have an opportunity to visit the site within three months is a little frustrating. So what I will say, can I please just finish my point?

Please, one at a time. Nobody interrupt anybody else, OK? If everybody starts yelling, nothing gets accomplished. Everybody had a chance to speak. We try to listen to what he has to say.

There was a lot of talk about following the rules, and we took very good care to follow all the rules of a definitive subdivision. I don't recall there being a requirement for a site visit by every member of the board. But we would have been happy to have hosted you and would have welcomed you on site if we had been given proper notice. And like I said, these plans were filed three months ago. There has been ample time to get that coordinated. So, if I'm hearing where this is going, that this is going to be continued, I'm a little bit frustrated by that. I really would like to push for a conditional approval. The planning staff has outlined very clearly the conditions that we would be required to accept. They're all very reasonable, and we're willing to accept those conditions. All of the information that you have referenced regarding landscaping, regarding the grades, the topography, the existing site features, how it melds with the existing site plan, all of those details are in the documents you already have. So I would just ask that you consider that bit of information before you make any motions. I really am hoping that the proposed conditions that are outlined in the staff memo are enough to request a conditional approval tonight. I really am hopeful that that is the outcome here.

Appreciate your comments. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to continue the application to schedule a walk of the site of the subdivision proposed and at the DPD to coordinate that with the applicant. and for a plan to be submitted that, again, is a little clearer for this board to understand the overlay of this cul-de-sac on top of the already existing pre-approved site plan. So I'd put that in the form of a motion, Mr. Chairman.

I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion made and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair, vote yes. Any opposition? Hearing none, that motion carries.

May I speak? I just want to make it clear that I do not agree with the board's decision to continue this hearing. I really would like to ask the board respectfully to approve this conditionally tonight. I think the board has everything in front of them that they need to make a decision on this application. So I do not consent to this thing being continued. I would like the board to vote tonight, please. So, we'll have to pick a date. Yeah.

Check with them, Peter.

Yeah, Peter, you'll check with them to schedule a date? No, we need a date for that. Oh, for the, yeah, for the continuous.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I was gonna say, speaking of dates.

So, I mean, if no objection, we have two more coming on the 24th. I mean, I, do we wanna schedule it the same night? No. No? So.

So, we go out the week after?

Say October 5th. Peter, how does that look for scheduling?

Completely open. Open.

Peter, where does that put us with the time period for approval? They'd have to sign.

He's not going to sign it.

Yeah, they're not going to sign it.

I think they would have to sign it. The OneDrive is down right now. I can tell you I'm almost positive they would have to sign.

What did he say? It's 45 days, right? Within 45 days after submission of such a plan, the Board shall take final action to approve and modify the approval plan. Can you check it? Could you check on the date, how far?

For 45 days?

Yeah, yeah. And it's the date of submittal, so.

Yeah. We use OneDrive for Microsoft, and I'm trying to pull up our project list.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that this is clear and on the record, that we will not consent to any continuance. So if that's where this is headed, I want to make sure that that's on the record. On the record. Understood. Thank you.

It looks like we received the plans digitally on June 3rd, but the applicant was aware when they were going to be scheduled. So I am seeing that generally it's 45 days, but you have up to like 135 maximum. That's not something I feel comfortable committing to without talking to the law department. Yeah. But June 3rd is when we got them.

These plans were submitted in May, just for clarification.

Male Speaker 1

So, where are we from a timeframe, from that perspective?

Mr. Mowry is correct about the — when they were submitted. I'm sorry, I'm looking at — they submitted us some cost estimates on June 3rd. The plans were submitted in May.

So, what you're saying, if we don't approve it tonight, then it's automatically approved?

That is something I would want to ask the law department. I believe that's the case, but you know.

And I want to make it clear, with all the presentations before this Board and the approvals that the applicant has received, to be able to do what they have, you're going on record that the Board is requesting to look at this, to do a walk, and basically not wanting to accommodate the board. Is that correct? Could you repeat that, please? So, I just want to make it clear. I know you said you would not agree, but I put it in the context of Your client has come before several times and have gotten approvals. This has been quite a process. We've done several site visits before in the spirit of cooperation. And really it's been a delicate balance with a lot of the development and so as a common courtesy to this board, what you're telling me is that we're requesting a site visit to make sure we're doing our job thoroughly and making sure that Whatever decision we made, then that way there that very clear how this board voted based on being knowledgeable of the site as this applies. And you're telling me you representing your clients that you will not cooperate with this board. Is that is that my understanding?

You're not consenting to any continuances if that's what's being asked. So, no, we are asking for the board to approve the subdivision. It is conditionally already laid out for you in the comment letter provided by the staff. We do not consent to any continuances. That's what we are asking for. We are asking for the board to vote to approve this definitive subdivision tonight, please.

All right. So, obviously, given the situation, it put the planning board in an interesting situation based on the timing. Because if we do not make a decision this evening, Peter, as it looked like, again, from your reviewing it and from us reviewing it here, then it would be approved without any conditions. Is that correct?

That's the way that I'm perceiving it. I'm looking up the Mass General Law's definitive subdivision sections. But again, that's something the city's lawyers would weigh on.

So by the time it hit us, we really didn't have much to work with as far as any clarification. Okay.

So what we're discussing, this is the first time it came before the planning board. But what it says on the regulations is, once they file, we have to act within so many days. If we don't act within so many days, it is deemed accepted as is. So now we ask for continuance, and like a good neighbor, they don't want to continue it. Yes. We can deny it, but then if we deny it, it goes to court, we lose. Because all our city departments say it's okay. So they call it, what they call that in law, they teach us in law school, the summary judgment. They go in and say, the city departments recommend approval. The planning board didn't listen to their own city people. They stipulate to the facts. Judge says, planning board should have listened to the city departments. At this point. It goes, once they get accepted, then they have to go on to an agenda, and then we have to put it into one of our schedules. We already had two of them on the last meeting. Everybody was here last meeting. So we only put so many things on each night. You know, the city council quits at 10. We stay here much longer. We've done this before. So basically, it goes to agenda as well. And I'm trying to answer your question again, sir, but you don't let me. So I'll stop talking. How about all the other applicants who were on before now? We just push them aside and let them go first and give them the special treatment? We don't put them on the agenda. It comes to us through planning staff. We get what shows up in front of us. There's other projects that came in before. We have to take them in order. So we don't just push them all aside and let them come forward. Those are certain rules. We have many other parties. This isn't the only project in the city, sir. Same things go to all the other ones. We treat them all equally.

Mm-hmm.

But they will have to come back to the site plan if they build anything on that parcel. And then hopefully the moratorium will be gone and the city council will put new regulations in for data center and they'll have to comply by them. And right now we don't have any zoning for data centers. None. I get it. I mean, okay, but I'm backing up to what I said earlier. It meets the criteria of the definitive subdivision by the city department, okay? Okay, discussion's over, okay? Discussions are over. Public hearing was over. We've answered everything, and everything we said, and we told you. I can't hear you. We haven't made a decision yet. We haven't voted yet. Every time we go to speak, someone interrupts us, so we can't make a decision yet. If anyone wants to ask the same question, they already asked.

You can't deny it because you haven't seen the property.

What's that?

You can't deny it because you haven't seen the property.

So we deny it, and you're going to have to pay for the attorneys to go to court and fight it and lose. I'm sorry? If they have the plans and planning staff says the plans meet the criteria for the definitive subdivision. Everybody says all the plans were corrected. They were all put in in accordance with the state and city rules and regulations. They made sure they dotted the I's and cluster T's to submit them all in the plant. Those are difficult to read because they're on so many different sheets. But they are on all the different sheets. So they're all there. Unfortunately.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, and again, I don't want to run the risk of And I agree with everything you just said. As far as from a technicality, if we don't make a decision and we deny it, that gets appealed and overturned. It gets approved without any of the conditions from the city boards, matter of fact, the city department. So I don't want to run that risk. I mean, we have a professional responsibility here as a land use board, so I'm frustrated as I am by the whole thing. I guess I'm going to retract that prior motion, Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that it would be a conditional approval.

The motion is to vacate the prior motion that was allowed? Yeah. Will the secondary motion agree to vacate the motion that was allowed?

Yes.

Yes, okay. So the motion now, is all the board members in favor? to vacate the prior motion to continue the matter? Yes. Okay. Yes. So that motion is allowed that we vacate the motion to continue due to the circumstances. Okay. Mr. Bichette, go ahead.

All right, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion to approve the subdivision with the following conditions and that the applicant submit to DPD reflecting the overlay of the proposed cul-de-sac onto the pre-existing approved site plan to be presented to the planning board. I think it's incumbent upon this board to understand that. The... The contour of the site, the city engineer has looked at it and they've commented. I still agree or disagree that the fact that I would prefer to walk that site, but we're left with a difficult situation here. The engineers did comment and the stormwater management team did comment. With that, I will... present the following conditions as presented by the stormwater review team. I'm going to start with B. We're going to go back to A. After the proposed condition number two, the applicant must retain the existing outfall to serve as the overflow for the detention basin. Next, the applicant shall provide new stormwater report to evaluate the new system detention basin alterations. Next, the applicant shall apply for a notice of intent and receive approval for mass DEP in the Lowell Conservation Commission for work being done within a 100-foot buffer of the wetlands. Next, all utility connections shall be privately owned and maintained. Next, the applicant shall provide a recorded private roadway utility maintenance agreement for Data Road identifying responsibility for the roadway, sidewalks, snow removal, lighting, gates, landscaping, drainage, stormwater systems, and private water and sewer utilities. The agreement shall apply to all lots served by Data Road. Next, all required roadway utility drainage access inspection and maintenance easements shall be shown on the plan. Next, the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering office prior to commencing work. Next, any utility trenches within the city streets be milled and paved on one continuous patch. Next, that the water department to inspect prior to turning on water. and that the applicant will coordinate or work with the sustainability director to ensure that future plans of the site align with the sustainability goals of the city in the Commonwealth. And Going back to the first condition that had been proposed, we had agreed to modify, but I'm going to go with the original condition. The applicant shall obtain a new stormwater permit or amend the existing stormwater permit from LRWU to remove the detention pond and address any issues from the stormwater team.

That would be. That's the same thing, right?

Yeah, the, well, the stormwater, for the, there were, the stormwater comments, I think the applicant did address regarding the lot two, the existing drainage being buried. Maintain all outflow, no, no, no, no, no, I'm providing stormwater, point of damage assistance and review. I believe those are incorporated in the conditions. Obviously, the applicant will have to comply with all requirements of engineering department and city stormwater management team.

Is that a motion?

That's a motion.

I second that. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair vote yes. Any opposition?

Opposed.

So, in the opposition, Mr. Tenzer, so motion carries four in favor and one against.

Can I just clarify that this was allowed to be on this agenda because the applicant has discussed in writing that this was the date that the public hearing was going to be on? They were aware, and it says, you know, such further time, it may be agreed upon at the request of the applicant. So, they were aware when this was going to be on the agenda. So, what was that, Peter? For what? So, people were asking, it doesn't change what the board just did, why this was not scheduled 45 days out. I got you. Yeah, yeah. But the applicant had agreed in writing for it to not be scheduled within 45 days. Right, right. Yep. Just so we're all clear on that. Because otherwise it would have already been approved.

Yeah.

Okay, moving along on the agenda. That motion had been approved for Prince Al. The next matter, Defender Subdivision for 45 Bolt Street. Meadowboat LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board seeking to defend their subdivision approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots on Bolt Street. The subject property is located in the Lake Industrial Zoning District. The project requires defendant subdivision approval from the Planning Board under the Lowell subdivision land regulation. May we hear from the applicant please.

Hello, once again. My name is Tony Moore with Stantec, civil engineer representing the applicant, metal bolt on this application. Just get my notes here. As with the previous application, we've submitted a definitive subdivision application for 45 Bolt Street. It is an existing one lot parcel that will be subdivided into two lots with a new subdivision roadway off of Bolt Street. We are in receipt of a staff memo outlining proposed conditions as well that I will go through momentarily. Actually, I'll go through that right now. Individual conditions. The memo states that the application meets the compliance requirements for definitive subdivision plans in the city of Lowell. It also proposes stormwater conditions, just as the previous application did. All of the conditions are approvable for the client, but I'll go through them individually here. Proposed condition number one, that the applicant shall grade the site so that if the detention area overflows, all water remains on site. That is essentially how the site is graded. The subdivision proposes to demolish the existing building, remove the existing building slab, and install a new subdivision roadway and a stormwater basin along Bolt Street. And the site grades generally direct all water towards the roadway, which collects the stormwater and then sends it into the stormwater detention basin. So proposed condition is essentially already satisfied. Condition number two, the applicant shall submit a revised plan showing the borings on site. This one needs a little bit of explanation. And condition two and three are sort of taken together. Condition three is the applicant shall conduct a soils analysis on site. So, where the existing site is all building, typically when you have a site development, you would go on site and perform some test bits on the site. Where the site is all building right now, it would be very disruptive to knock a chunk of building down to perform soils testing. So, what we typically do in these situations where there's an existing site development in place, we deal with it as a condition of approval. the soils analysis be performed after the building has been demolished but prior to the construction of the rest of the site. So that's what I would like to propose to the board at this time would be to perform that soils analysis during that period between the building being demolished and the road construction beginning. Because it would be very disruptive to dismantle a chunk of the building just to perform soils testing to design a stormwater basin that we don't know if we have an approval for. for the subdivision. So I would like to condition those two together, that the boring plan and the soils analysis be done at such time after the building has been demolished, but prior to the remaining construction. Condition number five from the wastewater department says all proposed wastewater infrastructure shall be privately owned and maintained. As we discussed during the preliminary plan phase, all infrastructure, including the roadway, the sidewalks, the street trees, all the utility improvements are proposed to be privately owned and maintained. Therefore, having no ownership burden or maintenance burden on the city or its taxpayers. The engineering comments proposed condition number six, the applicant shall provide documents showing the basis of their calculation for the seasonal high groundwater and infiltration rate. That's also related to the soils analysis. Typically, all that information would be collected when we are able to dig a hole. and analyze the soil profile. It's difficult to do when there's an actual building in place where the stormwater basin will be installed. So we propose that that analysis be performed at the same time as the other conditions, the soils analysis and the borings. That would all happen after the building has been demolished, but prior to the remaining construction. And then if there's any changes that are needed to the stormwater design, We would work with the city's engineering department and their stormwater staff to make any changes that are necessary prior to continuing with construction of the roadway. Proposed condition number seven, the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering office prior to commencing work. Similarly to the previous application, this will require a stormwater application and a stormwater permit with the engineering office. Once we get through definitive subdivision process, we will work with the city engineer and submit a stormwater permit in compliance with all of the local stormwater regulations and the state stormwater regulations. We've already submitted a stormwater analysis as part of our application for the definitive plans. We will resubmit that package to the city engineer for review as part of the stormwater permit. The building department had no comments. The planning and project management team had no comments, I believe. Actually, there was a comment. I apologize. The comment was that the applicant is encouraged to continue planting trees along Bolt Street and that any trees along Meadowcroft Street that are negatively impacted by this construction be replaced. We have no issues with that being a condition of approval and are willing to plant a vegetated buffer strip with some street trees along Bolt Street and Meadowcroft Street. There is already a narrow vegetated buffer strip along of Bolt Street and Meadowcroft Street, and we would welcome a condition of approval to continue that same theme along those streets. The economic development team had no comments. I'll go through the engineering comments. Again, a lot of them are repetitive to the conditions that we just heard, but I'll go through them again. The stormwater analysis appears to model proposed roadway and only limited impervious areas on lots one and two. Please confirm whether the infiltration basin has been designed for future build out of both lots. If not, future development of all lots shall require additional stormwater analysis and permitting. I'll answer that point. The stormwater basin that you see in the plans has been designed assuming that the existing building has been demolished and the entire lots, the entirety of the remaining lots are just loaned and seated. Any future development on these parcels would obviously require site plan approval before this board and any design of any stormwater infrastructure that is associated with whatever is proposed on these lots would be required to come back before this board. So the design of any of the stormwater infrastructure on each individual lot would be the responsibility of the individual lots in those developments. The basin that you see there has been designed only to account for the impervious area for the roadway, the sidewalks, and any landscape area on the remaining parcel that drains to it. So that's what it's currently designed for, which is appropriate for a definitive subdivision of this nature. As has been mentioned previously, any future development on these lots would require a site plan application and they would be required to handle their own stormwater on each individual lot going forward. There's a comment about providing the basis for the seasonal high groundwater elevation and the proposed infiltration rate of 0.52 inches per hour that we used in our calculations, including any soil testing or field information used. Confirm that the required vertical separation is provided beneath the bottom of the infiltration basin. So this is something that we can't independently verify right now, as I said, because the building is in the way. We would have to demolish the building and demolish the slab in order to dig a hole or several holes to verify the seasonal high groundwater, the bedrock, the soil conditions. We propose that that confirmatory test pit analysis and soils analysis happen once the building has been demolished. but prior to the remaining construction being completed. So we would not be allowed to build the road until we have completed that soils analysis. We would work with the city engineer, provide them all the information that they're asking for to make sure that we comply with these requests and conditions. It's just, we can't do that right now because there's a building there and it would require us to demolish the building just to get the information that we need. We used the best available public information that we could in the design of those basins. There is publicly available soils information and we just used engineering sort of expertise to put forth a reasonable design that we believe would work. Any modifications that would be required to the basin design as a result of this testing that we're talking about would be really minor in nature, not a substantial change, but we would be willing to to make any modifications to that basin design that would be needed pending that future analysis. There's a typo in the memo. There's a standard that is required per the state DEP stormwater standards that prohibits illicit discharges, and there's just a typo on the address that we listed in the statement. We listed 90 Bolt Street instead of the 45 Bolt Street. It was a typo, so we can easily correct that. The next comment talks about The plans indicating that the proposed roadway and associated infrastructure will remain privately owned. We've talked about that. The owner will retain ownership of all the infrastructure, the roadway, the sidewalks, the plowing, all the utilities. Future maintenance will be borne by the owner and not by the city or the city departments. The final comment from the Engineering Department is that the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Engineering Department, including stormwater, street opening, any contractor trench permits. We acknowledge that and agree with it and are willing to accept that as a condition of approval. The Fire Department had no comments. The Health Department also had no comments. Historic Board just commented that it is not in a historic district. The Parks Department had no comments. Police Department also had no comments. No comments, I believe, from Solid Waste. There's no statement of no comments underneath it. Maybe they didn't respond, I don't know, but it's just blank. Sustainability comments, just says that they recommend setting up a meeting with the sustainability director to ensure the future development aligns with the sustainability goals for the Commonwealth and for the city. We would welcome that as a condition of approval. The stormwater comments are essentially repetitive to what we just talked about. Talks about the ownership of the utilities, the assumptions, how we came up with the infiltration rates that we used in our design based on the soils analysis. Again, I don't want to reiterate it again, but it's all referring to that. Need to grade the site so that if the detention basin overflows, it remains on property. That's essentially how the basin has been designed. So we don't object to that. Need to show the location of the borings. Again, a repetitive comment to the previous one. It's asking why the existing drainage is being removed. I'm not exactly sure I understand the comment. The existing drainage that is there is really related to the existing building. So once the building gets demolished, all the drainage, all the utilities and drainage associated with the existing building also gets removed. All of the utilities that currently feed the existing building would be cut and capped and made safe prior to the demolition of the building so that when the building gets demolished and the road gets built, new utility services can be brought in from There are some comments about providing some pitch across drain manhole two that right now the invert in and the invert out of the drain manhole is the same elevation. The city engineer is asking for us to just provide a little bit of a drop across the manhole. We have no problem making that a condition of approval. I think, oh, there's a comment here, provide a detail that states removing that drainage won't impact anyone downstream. If we can say that it will not, that the system has been designed so that it does not impact anyone downstream. There's a comment that says no information has been provided for DMH-3. That's actually not correct. There is information provided for DMH-3. It's actually shown in the profile view. So just due to plan clutter, it wasn't labeled on the plan view, but it is labeled on the profile view. So the information is on the plans. It's just in a different location probably than what the reviewer was looking at. The Transportation Department had no comments. The wastewater team had, again, some comments about whether or not the infrastructure would be privately owned and maintained, and it obviously will be. We've talked about that. The wastewater department is requesting that we revise the sewer elevation where we connect in Bolt Street. They want us to lower the invert a little over a foot. We show on our plans to connect somewhere around 4795, but the wastewater team wants us to revise that elevation down a little bit to about 466. We have no issue with that and would welcome that as a condition of approval. The last comment from the wastewater department is also talking about requesting some pitch across the manhole. I think they just want the invert in and the invert out to be a little bit different. We can make that change as a condition of approval. It's all fairly straightforward and we have no issue with making that a condition of approval. The water department, Their comment was a little bit confusing. This is without knowing the full scope of the proposed plan, it is difficult to provide meaningful comments on the water infrastructure. At this time, the water department will not allow any additional water mains to enter the parcel. Currently, multiple water mains enter the property, and without understanding the future use or proposed modifications, adding more water lines would be inadvisable. As I mentioned earlier, the entire building will be demolished, so any existing water lines that do currently connect and service that building will be severed and cut, and only a new water line will be brought from Bolt Street. We did meet with the Water Department prior to submitting these plans, so they are aware of what we're doing here, and we've incorporated their comments. I think there's just some confusion as to what we're doing there. The plans do depict a new water line coming in from Bolt Street, and we make a note that all existing utilities serving the existing building will be cut and capped. So that should solve the issue of multiple water mains entering the property. At this time, that concludes my presentation, and I will hand it over to the board for any comments. Thank you, sir.

At this point in time, I'll turn it over to the public, and I'll start off by anyone who likes to speak in favor of this project. In favor? In favor? In favor? Hearing none. At this point, I'll turn it over to anybody in opposition.

Sean McDonald, 61 Market Street, 3D, private citizen, no official capacity. And after what I'm about to say, I think that's going to be really important. I appreciate that this board is in a very difficult spot with this application. I think that the applicant made clear in their last application that it doesn't really matter what any of you or we want. I understand that this board defers to what city departments have said. This is not the first, second, or third meeting with this applicant that I have heard frustration about what city departments have said. And I do understand the fear of going to court and losing because of what city departments have said. I think as a private resident in no official capacity, I speak for an increasing number of residents, at least here tonight, and saying that I don't know how anyone can look at these applications and look at the way that this applicant has acted and have any confidence in the city administration staff's ability to actually put a meaningful comment together about what this company is doing. And I feel bad for you that that's what you have to go off of. I do. I just wanted to say that. I am opposed. I know there's very little that you can do. I appreciate that you try to get to yes and to get to conditions. But I think when you're dealing with someone who so consistently acts in bad faith that sometimes we need to look for a way to say no.

Thank you, sir.

Hi, Jake Fortz, 36 Iowa Street. Back again. So my question to the board is, how late can you go tonight? Is there a time frame? That's discretion of the board. We don't have one like the city council does. So if we have our hands tied, then I'm going to propose something unorthodox for this gentleman right here. Let's go to the site. There is a tank right in the middle of that street that they're going to be digging by. That was the tank at the preliminary subdivision. I said that I witnessed somebody yank something out of there that was so disgusting that there was no way in hell that that wasn't contaminating the ground around it. But yet this man is standing before us now and saying, no, let's tear down these really old buildings. Let's do that, and then we're going to take core samples afterwards. So if that's already seeped into the ground, knowing this company's past track record at their current main campus of not mitigating any of that dirt, and knowing what I've seen, then let's take a field trip there right now. Right, right now. Take the lid off, put a little cup down there, and let them drink it. If he makes it past an hour, then come back and approve it. That's my solution to this problem tonight. They want to play games. Throw down. Let's do it. Because I know what I saw. I saw the lady wearing a Tyvek vest, and she pulled out some ungodly-looking thing from that tank. He lives past an hour. Approve it. Let's go. Let's do it. I don't see him opposed to it. That's my solution to this for you guys, because I know what I saw. That ground is contaminated. Nothing should be done until the coring is done and until whatever that tank is in the middle of Bolt Street, which has seeped into that ground, that is what they're proposing to do the subdivision for, until that is actually tested, nothing further should be done. But if they want to tie the hands, then let's do it. I wish the guy who was here with him the last time, who like was so passionate about his job to come here and not even be able to get his arm into his jacket. I think you guys remember that. That was an attorney from Pierce Atwood. By the end of that night, his hand was the size of like a football, willing to risk nerve damage. Maybe he should be here tonight too. Let's go on a field trip. That's my solution to this. If that site is not contaminated, Throw down. I know what I saw, and I don't lie. I've been through many of these meetings where I've heard lies spoken. Let's do it. That is my solution for you guys tonight. Let's go there. Let's take a sample. He drinks it. He lasts an hour. Come back. Approve it. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

back again Chris Romero 329 Moody Street I still opposed to this project and I believe um I believe that once again this should not be approved I understand that there's nothing we can really do about it but once again I don't feel the need that Markley keeps approving everything like literally and I hope they're watching right now because we're gonna keep on doing this until you stop we're done with Markley and I know they're listening right now so we're done the residents are fed up we're all fed up thank you for the clap by the way and once again We are all fed up. Why can't Mark Lee get that through their head? We are done. This data center expansion does not need to happen. It can't. They have been negligent to the community, and I hope they're listening right now. Markly, we are done. We are not going to have any more of this data center. We are fed up. And until they stop going with their campaign, keeping low in the loop, We are not going to stop criticizing them. So I respectfully ask this board to please reconsider this decision because Markley does not deserve any of this. So I agree with the residents and honest futures of Lowell. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Brian Calhoun, 46 Crowley Street. What are they proposing to put on this site?

I don't know. And after the gentleman.

As I've said previously, the client is still evaluating what their options are for this property. So nothing has been set in stone. This definitive subdivision is just part of the process of evaluating what they're going to do. They may sell these properties off. They may keep them. They may develop them themselves. None of that's been decided. So I can't tell you what's going to be here. It's a subdivision, just as the previous application was. We are taking one lot, cutting it into two lots, and proposing a roadway. That's all that we're proposing at this time. At some point in the future, when there's a decision on what is gonna be occurring with these parcels, we will be back before this board, or I should say, the applicant will be back before this board with a detailed site plan at which point we can debate what is being shown on those plans and what would be built as part of that process. But none of that has been decided at this point. There's nothing that I can share. It's zoned industrial, so likely be an industrial use. And that is really all that I can say. Whatever gets built here at some point in the future, there'll be another bite at the apple and everyone can come back out and critique those plans. so if they don't know what they're putting there why do they need a road and why is there a water line going in there it's a subdivision we're dividing the lot and building a road as they're allowed to do under the subdivision regulations that's the answer The subdivision requirements require that all utilities be installed. So if we're building a roadway, we have to build all the associated infrastructure, water, sewer, drain, gas, electric, telecommunications, to serve the two lots that we're creating. So that if there's ever a situation where there's a development that comes into one of these lots or they get sold, They have all the utilities needed to function. So that's why we're bringing utilities in. It's a subdivision road, just like any other road in the city of Lowell. It has all the utilities. It has street trees and sidewalks, just like any other road in the city of Lowell.

Except it's not like any other city of Lowell, Lowell Road, because it's privately owned. Question for the board. Does this have a date of 45 days tonight as well? It does. So no matter what anybody else says, it's going to get approved because it's already at the 45 days. Thank you.

Hi, Randall Sneed, 63 Otis Street. I have one question of clarification. Does the structure that is at this location cover the entire space of the proposed roadway? Yes. The entirety of the roadway?

It covers almost the entirety of the entire lot. So, if you see my cursor here, this dark line on the perimeter is the property line of the existing lot. It goes all the way around here. The existing building is this lighter gray building or lighter gray line that's just inside. So as you can see, just about the entire lot is currently building. The building is proposed to be demolished, and the roadway will be built where the building used to be. So that's the proposal.

It'll be an eight-inch water main.

which is fairly typical for an industrial subdivision.

And I do believe that with the size of the structure, it makes it difficult for doing a soils test, but there is evidence of concern that without a soils test and as they're doing all the destruction and everything else, it will be disrupting and the neighbors are going to be the ones dealing with the contamination blowing into their homes and everything. There should be some version of due diligence that could be done prior to as to give some benchmark as to what it may lead to. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Alex Alonso, 15 Robinson Street. I feel really uncomfortable because it's the same thing that the other parcel. He's going to take this parcel. He won't approve, but he doesn't want to say what it's for. The same thing. You're going to do demolition, but you're not going to say what it's for. Is that true? Is it? You're not going to say what it's that for? Okay, thanks.

Hello, Michaela, 618 Steven Street. Question, is there going to be any need to cut into a public roadway as part of this project?

Yes, there will be. So as I mentioned, it's a new subdivision roadway. So there are existing utilities that we will be stubbing off of Bolt Street. So there's a water line that's currently in Bolt Street that will feed the new water line that's going to be on the subdivision roadway. So all the new utilities that are in this roadway will be stubbed off the existing street. There will be street cuts. We will patch the street in accordance with the city's requirements. I will speak a little bit about the environmental because there's been a lot of comments on that. There is an activity and use limitation on the property. We talked about this at length at the last hearing, and while I'm certainly no expert on what that means, I can say this. The activity and use limitation does not mean you can't develop the parcel. There was a spill. It was dealt with through the course of DEP, which is the official body that is responsible for overseeing that kind of work. All that has run its course. There is a limitation on what can be built on this parcel. You cannot build residential, for example, on that activity and use limitation. You shouldn't put a daycare facility on that activity and use limitation. You can't build vegetable garden or anything that would be considered hazardous or could be considered, you know, hazardous to a residential application. But where this is an industrial zoned site, the activity and use limitation specifically allows industrial development and industrial development. So that is allowed. despite their being past release. So, I just want to clarify that. And I know there was a lot of conversation at the last hearing about what this board can do. And I'll defend this board. This board has no authority in that. So, you know, lay off them. The DEP is responsible for all of that. They really don't have much say on this. It's a DEP matter. All of the DEP that — the DEP is the authority that has jurisdiction over that kind of — enforcement or oversight. Any work that occurs here will need to be done under the oversight of a licensed site professional, which is an environmental professional that is specifically licensed by the state that oversees these kinds of contamination issues. And any work that happens here will have to happen under the oversight of a licensed site professional, and the DP is the governing body that would oversee that. It's not anybody at the city that would be responsible for that. So that was mentioned at the last meeting. And before we get a lot of complaints about that, I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of that. Thank you.

Thank you. I will lay off the planning board. The DEP is a source subject, so I'm glad you brought that up. And I'm just going to bring this up. I know this is a subdivision plan, an approval process. In Massachusetts land use practice, submitting a definitive subdivision plan within, under MGL 40A, Section 6, and the subdivision control law, is one of the most potent procedural maneuvers a developer can deploy to insulate a property against zoning moratoria down zoning and restrictive bylaw amendments. So I just want to say that for the record here. So whatever the planning board can do to delay or Or place very strong conditions like the one that was placed on markley I think over a year ago, where they would have quarterly meetings with the sustainability. department just to try to collaborate with the city i'd like to know if you know, Sir, how many of those meetings happened over the course of over a year.

I'm not involved in any of those. I'm an engineer. I'm a consultant hired by the client, so I don't know. I'm not part of any of those meetings. I'm here tonight to just talk about the subdivision plan. All I can speak to is the information that is on these plans. All I can speak to is its compliance or lack thereof with regard to the subdivision regulations. That's all I'm really here to say. There's a lot of other topics being brought up, and I know you guys all want answers, and I appreciate that. Please don't view me as the bad guy here. I'm here to present a technical document about a subdivision, nothing else. So that's all I can answer. I'll do my best to answer any questions, but that's the limit of my expertise.

Thanks. We all have a job to do and we all have to go to sleep at night. So with that being said, I would be very happy to go on to the field trip that Jake proposed to go visit the site tonight if that's possible. Thank you.

Harini Iyer, AT Smith Street. I have a couple of questions for the planning board. Again, we are at the very last minute. We cannot do anything. We had our initial preliminary site hearing on April 23rd. Why wasn't all of the things that needed to be done lined up? Why are we here when we have to You knew that there was going to be residents talking about how Markley keeps pushing the boundaries and that they were going to talk about how they did not want this development. You knew this was going to happen today, yes? Because April, a lot of people showed up. So when you knew this as a planning board, how wasn't it planned that the site visit was done or that the hearing was not left until the very last day where if you didn't do anything, it would just pass or that you had to be forced to pass it regardless of what your concerns were? I really want to know because it feels a little bit like I can see that you are in a bind. I want to understand why you are in this bind. Because you go through this all the time. These are fairly routine things. I understand that you couldn't schedule the hearing any time before because there were other people in front of the line. All of that is fair. But you knew that this is a sensitive topic, that there is going to be residents' concern. How did we not plan for this?

We schedule for public hearing, and that's how we go forward. I mean, that's what the rules and regulations are.

Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I think I'll answer the question for hours and wait until the issue is finished, but typically, we don't engage in that sense. So, certainly, I'll take responsibility on suggesting we do a site visit. From my perspective, I will tell you, typically, I don't think in 20 years I've sat here and have an applicant refuse to sign an extension. 20 years. I've never had an applicant do that. Have you, Mr. Chairman?

No.

No. Okay. So I've never had that happen before. So from that perspective, when we get the definitive, from my perspective, and I can't speak for my fellow board members, and I'm the one that suggested it, so I certainly will give you an answer on that. That's when I will take a look at that definitive, the additional information that's been provided, do a site visit and then what do I feel need to happen from there as I prepare for this meeting? And that was in which I came here with that in mind. I've never, ever had an applicant in 20 years refuse to sign the continuance. For an arbitrary reason, we can't deny this. So it was just really for this board to get, myself, to really get a better understanding on the impact because you couldn't get access to the site. And I thought I could probably see it better. I know there's been some work going on. I tried. I put my phone in the other side of the fence, took some pictures, couldn't really see the impact. So that was... That was how I brought this forward. So from that perspective, matter of fact, not my other fellow board members, I'm the one that thought that this would be helpful. Again, not expecting to have an applicant that was refusing to cooperate.

So technically what you're saying is you have had no other people, when you say we need a continuance because we want to check these boxes, in 20 years you've had nobody say, oh, we are not going to allow for this continuance. You have to make a decision today, right? Which then, am I right in saying that Markley, as a company, has decided that this is too important for them to be a good neighbor and allow for the city to go through and check the boxes.

I can't speak for them and I'm not going to. I'm going to. You can draw your own conclusion. I'm not going to speak for them at all and not going to suggest one way or the other. But clearly you saw the interaction here this evening.

Thank you. I just want to make sure that, you know, because these are sensitive hearings and, you know, everybody is in the hot seat here. And I just want to make sure that when we come prepared, I want to expect the same from the planning board as well. And thank you for explaining that and clarifying that, that Markley could have actually been like, hey, come visit us, let's do this. And that would be a sign of being a good neighbor, a sign of perhaps wanting to work with the city and with the neighborhood. And they are choosing not to do it. I'm going to end my comment there. Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it.

Megan Conroy, 31 Lundberg Street.

I just want to say, Mr. Vice Chair, that I think you're absolutely right. I think a site visit is a perfectly reasonable request for something like this. And I think if I could speak in draft, I think it's crazy that you have to show up there by yourself, stick your phone through the fence, and try to get a sense of this property. And also very interesting to hear that this is not a typical response of applicants here. And I also very much hear, I hear the we can only operate within the rules. I also, I am very much appreciative of that line of thinking. I totally agree. I think what we are perhaps trying to say is that we are worried that the applicant is not engaging in the rules in good faith. You know, timelines are what they are. I guess my question is, you ask for a site visit, the site visit is denied. Is there, like, can you come back with any kind of, like, yes, we must do the site visit or nothing?

Well, we've already made a decision on that.

No, no, no. Sorry. I'm just asking so I can understand.

I mean, post-condition, at this point, I don't understand the value that that would have.

Sure. Would there then ever be an opportunity for a conditional approval so that you are still operating within your timeline, still following procedure rules of order, but still getting what you need to make an informed decision?

Well, again, from the technical definition of subdivision approval from all the city boards, engineers, they met that to the letter. There's a bigger impact. We had the site plan previously, and I thought it was beneficial for me as a board member. Most likely, I mean, it would be approved based on what they presented, but I felt I wanted additional information so I had a better understanding of the impact of the existing site plan and what it would do. But again, it's out Without the cooperation in this instance from the applicant.

No, no. And I totally, you know, it's not like you guys were asking to plug into the servers and see the data. You just wanted to see the land it sat on. And I think that's pretty.

And I'm not a believer. I mean, I see it in other communities, towns that they deny projects. They have no basis to deny it and they just do it. And it makes it difficult for land use boards that are professionals that are doing their job.

Sure.

And I know it's frustrating, but I have strong feelings about that, too. I don't think that's what they should be doing. And they cost the municipality some big money, and I don't understand it. And just because they want to make a point. I'd love you all to walk away and think that's great what they did, but we have a job to do here. We're professionals and we take it seriously.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Jonathan Grossman, 83 Varnamath. Just to point out that the frustration about the applicant being unable or unwilling to disclose their plan for the site is not only my concern, and I think a lot of people's concern, but it was shared by the Water Department in their comments in which they stated that without knowing the full scope of the proposed plan, it is difficult to provide meaningful comments.

And so I just wanted to point that out for the record. Thank you, sir.

Steve Maligoti. 200 Market Street. I can't even remember where I live at this point. 200 Market Street. Yeah, right. So I have a lot of sympathy for you board members. I mean, I understand that. You have a bureaucratic process in which you ask, did the applicant check all the relevant boxes? Yes, they did. Did we hear from all the city departments? Yes, we did. So from your perspective, you don't have a reason to deny this. However, my remarks are inspired by the previous board member's invocation of the goddess Judicia, the woman who holds the scales of justice wearing a blindfold. Do I still have that here? Let's see. Well, we won't go in. At any rate, we all know what the scales of justice are for, fairness, moral force. The reason that she wears a blindfold is not to limit her vision. is to reduce the influence that might upset the scales of justice one for the other. The blindfold is about impartiality not favoring in the system of justice one over the other. Now, I understand your position. I also understand when that same board member said that you have no teeth. This board has no teeth. But I think you heard from the residents over and over and over and over and over, not just tonight, but throughout the years, that they are really looking for some kind of cartilage of some sort. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else like to speak?

I just want to make sure again, I think you are being asked to allow for soil sampling after the destruction of the building. Is that are you being asked that or is that's what he's asking? Yeah, I know he's asking you that there is that's within your purview to make that exception. Is that correct? Yeah, it's up to us. Yeah. And you're hearing from residents. Yep, we're hearing loud and clear.

There's a substantial basis for wondering if that's a really good idea. I just wanted to make sure that's part of it. And like I say, I go by what the city department's asked me to do. And the city department says the applicant shall conduct a soil analysis on site. And that's what the departments are asking me to do. And I usually go along with the city department, because I believe they know more than I do, because that's their expertise. So he can ask what he likes, and I see here what the city departments are asking us to do. So I definitely think soil analysis is appropriate. Anybody else? I'll turn it over to board members. Anybody have any comments at this time?

Mr. Chair, if I may, I just wanted clarity on the applicant's engineer had mentioned that the basis of the calculation for the stormwater report. You said you couldn't.

Here's a question. Can you hear her, sir?

Did you say that you couldn't provide the basis for the data of the calculation for the stormwater report and you preferred to do that after the building was razed.

It's not really even a preference, it's just an impossibility at this point. The way that typically it's done, we go to a site, usually picture a vacant field, for example, that's being subdivided as opposed to a developed site that's got a building on it. If it were a vacant field, we would show up at site during the design phase, we would dig a few holes, eight to 10 feet deep, and then we would analyze the soils, we would document the soil profile, we would run infiltration testing in the hole that we dug. and come up with all the information that is being requested of us. We can't do that because there's a building there now. I don't think it's appropriate to knock a chunk of the building down just to do a few holes in the ground.

I hear what you're saying, but you've provided a stormwater report. There must be data behind that.

That's correct. And so what we did is we rely on publicly available information that is available to assess what the typical infiltration rates would be in this area. And based on engineering expertise, which we have, we come up with reasonable conservative assumptions for those designs, which then have to be verified because they are, in fact, just assumptions. There are assumptions because we can't go to that vacant field and dig the hole. There's a building there now. And it would be inappropriate to knock a chunk of the building down just to dig a few holes to get the data points that we need for design.

Again, I hear what you're saying there, but they're asking for the data used for your calculation for the stormwater report. You must have used something.

And we can provide a memo that details what our assumptions are and what they're based in. I have no condition, I have no problem with providing that basis to the engineer if that's what they're asking for.

Because isn't this within a hundred feet foot buffer of a wetland?

This is not. This is outside CONCOM jurisdiction. The only thing that would be applicable here would be a stormwater permit that goes to the city engineer. So this is not within wetlands jurisdiction. This would not have to go to CONCOM, unlike the previous application. which is within 100 feet of a wetland. This is not. So this would only require a stormwater application, which is under the purview of the city engineer. We would file for a stormwater permit.

Okay. That's all I have.

Thank you. Turn your heads on.

thanks mr chairman um just briefly um i agree with you mr chairman i think we have to follow what our our departments are saying and that my reading of it is that we need a revised plan of the borings on the site and a source analysis prior to any demolition that's my reading of it and that's the way i'm i'm seeing

i i would agree with you i would think our departments would know whether the building has come down or not so if it says this is what they want obviously the applicant should um they can work it out together yep i mean every question that is a condition we give a condition they can work it out how we can do the soil analysis no but i mean these departments yeah these departments are saying it and you know obviously there there is a concern regarding contamination

There's an AUL on the property as well. So my reading of it says that it has to happen before any demolition.

I mean, the applicant tells us it's contamination on site. We're happy to have that be a condition of approval as well. So if you would like us to go in and do the testing while the building is still there as a condition of approval, we can accept that. It would make more sense to do it after the building is demolished. But if we can get an approval tonight as a condition that we need to provide that prior to demolition, we'll agree to it, if that gets us a conditional approval tonight.

Yeah. I mean, you speak with Stormwater, they'll work it out. Yeah. That's the request. Yeah.

I guess to be clear, my goal here is to get some kind of decision from the board. We got your goal pretty quickly.

Actually, I don't know if we can do a field trip legally. It has to be posted. Planning board can't leave here. It has to be posted so many days out. Yeah. Yeah, unfortunately. But it was a good idea. I appreciate it. You come with a lot of good ideas. We respect that. I don't know if you drink the water, though. I wouldn't be surprised if you bought a cup. Mr. Bichette, any questions, comments?

Mr. Chairman, just with this application, it seems like we did get project cost estimates. Am I reading that right?

Those were submitted.

Yeah. It says Meadowcroft, though, right? That's correct. Okay. Meadowcroft's going to be the name of the building going in right now.

I'm going to change it.

And so is the intent... There's a couple options here. I know engineering, we typically take care of that, but there's also a condition of approval. The intent is to complete the roadway, or I guess, make it a condition, is that the roadway would need to be completed before any of the lots, and again, whether they're sold or not, they may not be sold, but before any sign-offs could be that the road would have to be completed, or you post a bond. Have you talked with the engineering department at all on this?

Not since we submitted, no. We did speak with the engineering department prior to submitting to go over their requirements for the stormwater, got their input and included it into the plans. But I have not spoken with them since we submitted. We just got these comments late last week.

Peter, any discussions that have been taking place with the relative to the cost?

Mr. I have not heard. All we got is what we got on the comment memo, and they got the comments late last week because we had to track as many departments down as we could.

Mr. Yeah, so engineering didn't comment one way or the other, which I thought was interesting. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I've said enough this evening, so I have nothing more to say.

Mr. Sa? I just want to make some comment here, too. To be fair to the applicants, I know I'm not, you know, I mean, I've heard from the community, but also to be fair to the applicants, I think they give us plenty of time. when they submitted the application. And I know that, you know, we try every, you know, we make every effort to be at the site to look at it. But we didn't, you know, now and then we encounter such a situation and, you know, that's something we need to fix, you know, in the future. But I, you know, I appreciate that. You know, I know that you are frustrated you know, trying to get these things through and that's timeline.

So I just wanna be clear to, you know, I mean. And I wanna be clear too, if the request came, the day after we submitted these plans, I'm sure you would have been welcomed on site to do whatever. The fact that we're not hearing about it until the day of the hearing, I'm sorry, that's something that I just...

I just want to make some comment. It's difficult to accept. We understand your frustration and we work with you. That's my comment. Thank you, Mr. Cameron.

And to respond to that, I mean, you got the same memo we did August 12th, right? Right? From the department. So, I mean, like on the other one. So, we don't get this stuff until less than a week before either. So, we get to digest. We would have loved to have had this a lot sooner. So, I mean, it gives us short notice.

I get it. Everyone has to review it, and we need to give them time to review it. And this gives us short notice to make the request for the site visit as well. Everyone needs their time to review it. I understand all of it. And we get ours. Same time you get yours. Everyone has the job to do, and they need to be given the time to do it. I certainly understand that and appreciate that. Yeah.

So by the time we determine this and look the plans over, that's when things start flying in our heads. You know, like, you know? Do you want me to make the approval? And I'll make the motion for the approval with the conditions that have been requested by the memo we received from planning staff. Number one, the applicant shall grade the site so that if the detention area overflows, all water will remain on site. The applicant shall submit a revised plan showing the borings on the site. The applicant shall conduct the soils and net analysis on the site. All proposed wastewater infrastructures shall be privately owned and maintained. The applicant shall provide documents showing the basis of their calculations on the seasonal high ground water and infiltration rate. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering office prior to commence and work. And the applicant shall get approval from DEP.

Mr. Chairman, just for clarification on that motion, on the borings and the soil analysis, that should be done before any demolition. We don't want things being destroyed or stirred up prior to any of those being done.

Okay, so I'll amend the application self-submitted revised plan showing the borings on site prior to demolition of the building and the applicant shall conduct a soil analysis on the site prior to demolition of the building.

And there's a couple of others in the like sustainability, stormwater,

Yeah, I think the stormwater came in on the other one, like the engine ability. I think the. Yeah, and this inability. Recommend setting up a meeting with sustainability to lead that recommend setting up a meeting with the sustainability director to ensure future development on the site aligns with sustainability goals of the Commonwealth in the city of Lowell. I think the stormwater one when corporate rated in the conditions approval. And in the engineering mr mr chairman in the last two paragraphs they indicate that um they'll have an agreement identifying the party responsible for the maintenance ownership blah blah blah yeah um i'll get that in here it's the applicant obtained all required permits from engineering office right to commencement so that covers most of it but let me just get in the other part um yeah i know that kind of condenses it all but let's get back to it um And so it's the applicant shall obtain all required premise mentioned in the department, including stormwater street openings, sewer water trench. Driveway and any other applicable permits. In the utility trenches, other estimation within both reach will be milled and paved is one continuous patch in accordance with the city's standards. I think the other incorporated.

And above that talks about private roadway.

Mister chairman, I think they yeah, that was part of the application. So to be. Oh yeah. And the other part is the other part of the motion beat. The applicant is encouraged to continue planting trees on both street and. In any street trees along middle path street that are negatively impacted by this construction shall also be replaced and. i think members the plans and also that the proposed roadway and associated infrastructure will remain privately owned that's it yeah it will have to be an agreement identifying the party responsible for the long-term ownership maintenance repair replacement of the private roadway water sewage drainage storm water facilities sidewalks lighting and other associated improvements i think that covers most of the memo

I think it does, Mr. Chairman, and Member Frechette mentioned that the road must be completed prior to the sale of any of the lots.

Sure. Okay. And the road shall be completed prior to the sale of any of the lots.

Are you willing to second it now? I'll second that.

Okay. Motion made and seconded. All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposition? Are you going to be in opposition too? No. Okay. Okay. So, the motion carries. Thank you. So, no site visit tonight. Yes, on that. We're not done yet, but that's done. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you for coming down.

Ah.

You can see it progressing on its own.

It's looking good. Yeah. Good work, Rich. Yeah. Coming along. Good night, sir. Make a motion to adjourn. So moved. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, we are adjourned. Good night, everyone. Thank you. You know, it's funny because when Mr. Markley asked if we would go up and do a site visit, we willingly went up there twice to sit there and watch him. You've been there once. I've been there twice at his request. And I guess at the last meeting, they requested a continuous visit. To me, that's the... Are they approaching this?

I'm just, I'm not...