Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

¶¶

Can I have your attention, please? We'll be starting up shortly. Good evening and welcome to the Lowell Planning Board for September 24th, 2026. We are live on LTC TV and also their YouTube. Tonight's meeting, the first on the agenda would be the minutes of approval of the August 17th, 2026 meeting. at the last meeting we continued them to this meeting so we would have more board members who were present at that meeting to vote on these those meetings any board members have any corrections for the august 17th of any uh statements anyone making regards to those meetings minutes

Mr. Chairman, I just will say, because there was a lot that went on in that meeting, I thought Peter did a good job with those minutes, because there was an awful lot to cover. And from my perspective, I thought they were pretty good. With that, I'd make a motion to approve as submitted.

Second.

Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes yes. Any opposition? Hearing none. Okay. Moving along to the next matter was September 10th, the last meeting where Mr. Saab, Caleb and myself were present. So what do we be voting on that matter? I'll make a motion to approve. Any board members have any corrections?

Second.

Second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

So we have three in favor and none against and three abstain.

You got it.

Okay. We have a request for continuance. I'd like to waive the order of agenda to take care of the continuance. We have a special permit for 675 Andover Street. WM and Kevin Fernandez have applied to the Lowell Planning Board seeking a special permit to divide the property into two residential lots at the above address. The subject property is in the suburban single family zoning district. The proposal requires a special permit per section 5.11 of frontage reduction and per section 5.29 for lodge SS. lot with reduced frontage. The applicants requested a continuance. They indicated that they'd be going before the historic board first and they requested a matter continue to November 2nd. They signed the waiver to continue to that date. Any other board members have any objection for the continuance? If not, I'll make a motion to continue to November 2nd.

Second.

Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, motion carries. Five in favor and none against. We do have one quick matter that's a tree hearing, so I'd like to take that matter next. A tree hearing 406 West 6th Street, St. Louis Park, in accordance with MGL Chapter 87.5 and Chapter 260 of the Lowell Code of Ordinance. The Lowell Planning Board will hold the public hearing to hear all interested persons. the proposed removal of two Austrian prime trees with a diameter of approximately 14 inches located in St. Louis Park, 406 West 6th Street. The removal is necessary for the planned expansion of the playground. The planting plan calls for six new trees to be planted. May we hear from the applicant please?

Hi, my name is Jess Wilson. I'm a design planner for the City of Lowell Department of Planning and Development. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the tree removal request for the two Austrian pine trees at St. Louis Park. As you may know, we recently opened phase one of the project, which is a new playground and splash pad. It's been a big hit with families, but we were able to secure additional funding to actually expand the playground because the equipment that we installed is designed for five to 12 year olds, and we're gonna be adding a section for two to five year olds. So we are hoping to finish that project up this fall. It'll be a pretty quick build, but in order to accomplish that, we need to stockpile some of the soil that's on site, and to make room for that pile of soil, we do need to remove those two Austrian pine trees. The planting plan calls for six new trees. And in addition to that, I'm excited to share that we recently received a $2.5 million grant for phase two to begin construction in the spring. And that project will add somewhere between 47 to 60 new trees in the park, converting an underutilized baseball field into new recreational amenities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

If you have nothing to add, I'll open up to the public, then I'll come back and ask the board members, okay? Thank you. Anybody here this evening like to speak in favor of the tree hearing? In favor? In favor? Hearing none, anybody like to speak in opposition? Anybody want to speak in opposition? In opposition? Hearing none, I'll turn it over to the board members. I'll just say since last time you're here from the tree hearing, that playground came along really very nice with that splash pad and everything else there. Looks really, really nice. Since we allowed the tree hearing last time.

Any board members have any questions? Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment that, again, to point out the ratio is two to six. We're removing two trees and then we're planting six new trees, so obviously it's... A net increase of four new trees. I will say walking out there too, that surface that's on there is like walking on a mattress. That's absolutely amazing. Yeah, first opportunity I had to do that. So that was interesting. Which is great, because kids running around there, I think it's a safe environment.

um so yeah it's a great addition to that to that section of the city and it's happening all over the city with the park so it's nice to see so thank you do you have any questions uh up caleb i'm sorry whoever uh well we want to know first uh my son have a three year so i have a great time doing this site with it so pretty big slides aren't they oh yes maybe a little too big for him i'm thinking with some of the little kids here today Yeah, so I'm supportive of the tree removal and replacement. And I want to, again, acknowledge or recognize the effort to tie replacement tree with the tree removal, so make it easy for us. And this looked like a straightforward application. Thank you.

Just quickly, Mr. Chair, great project. Got to walk around there yesterday. Was surprised how quickly it was done. Saw a ton of new trees, a lot of small saplings, hopefully those they can grow up. I thought it was a great project, and some of those pine trees look like they've seen better days, and so some of them need to come down anyways. So appreciate all the work that's being done. Thank you.

Lucia, any questions, comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I echo the other board members. It's for a great cause, and I appreciate the replanting document, where they're going, the types. And I also like the replacement trees. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Saab, any questions, comments?

I'm in favor of the project. I think it's coming along great the way it has been since we've been here before when they had the other trees. I'm totally in favor. I like to see the fact that they're taking down two, they're putting in six, and now we have even more. So I'm totally in favor of the project. So what's the request of the board? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none. The motion carries. Five in favor, none against. Good luck and thank you very much.

Thank you and I appreciate you taking me tonight. I know you have a busy agenda. Thank you. Have a good night.

Moving along on the agenda, we have a definitive subdivision for 90 Bolt Street. Meadowcroft LLC has applied to Lowell Planning Board seeking definitive subdivision approval to split the existing lot at the above address into two lots. The subject property is located in the Light Industrial Zoning District. The proposal requires definitive subdivision approval from the planning board under Lowell's subdivision of land regulations. May we hear from the applicant, please?

Good evening members of the board. My name is Tony Moore. I'm with Stantec Consulting, a civil engineer with that firm. Our firm prepared the subdivision plans that are being presented before you tonight for the 90 Bolt Street subdivision. We were before this board on April 6th to obtain preliminary plan approval. We received a staff memo. after submitting definitive plans to this board with some department comments. The comment letter states that the definitive plan application that we submitted meets the compliance requirements for a definitive subdivision plan in the city of Lowell, and it complies with the Lowell subdivision regulations. There are some city comments that were given to us and some proposed conditions in the comment letter. They're all relatively straightforward and reasonable. Last week, we submitted a response to those comments that we believe addresses all those comments. I'll go through those comments right now one by one. So there are a few, several city departments that didn't have any comments on what we submitted. Those comments or those departments are the building department. the Economic Development Department, the Fire Department, the Health Department, the Parks Department, the Police Department, Solid Waste and Recycling Department, the Sustainability Department, and the Transportation Department all had no comments on our submittal. I'll now go through all of the comments that we did receive from the various departments in our response. I'll start with the planning comments. There was a request by the planning staff that we add one to two additional street trees along Bolt Street where it was appropriate. Our revised plans that we submitted last week add a total of four trees, two on either side of the proposed subdivision roadway along Bolt Street. So we have, I think, met that requirement and the plans reflect that. And the applicant accepts the proposed condition number one. that was proposed by the planning staff. The next set of comments are engineering comments. The first comment from engineering was to provide documentation to establish the long-term ownership operation and maintenance responsibilities for Bolt Road and for the private water and sewer drainage and stormwater management systems that are shown on the plans, including the stormwater basin. The document shall also identify the parties responsible for inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement of shared private infrastructure following the sale of any individual lots. There's a proposed condition number two that essentially says the same thing. Our response to that is that the subdivision plans have been included with notes stating exactly what the comment says and that we are willing to agree to that proposed condition number two. The plans reflect that request already. The next comment was to provide the basis for the infiltration rate that we used in the stormwater design calculations. Um, and there's a proposed condition that requests that the applicant shall coordinate with the wastewater division to receive a stormwater permit. It's proposed condition number three. Our response is that, uh, the infiltration rate for the anticipated onsite soils is based on an infiltration value that is published in the Massachusetts stormwater handbook. Um, we referenced the table in our response for Sandy loam, which is what we expect to see. as a soil condition underneath the basin. Prior to construction, the applicant will coordinate with the wastewater department and obtain a stormwater permit and perform any additional required soils testing if required by the wastewater department to verify this design infiltration rate. The documentation of the soils analysis will be submitted as part of that process and we will be obviously applying for a stormwater permit prior to any construction. So as worded, proposed condition number three is acceptable to the client and we have no objection to that condition. The third comment from the engineering staff was to coordinate the proposed sanitary sewer connection with the wastewater division and to confirm that the connection to the existing 8-inch combined sewer in Bolt Street is acceptable and provide the required connection details. We actually met with the wastewater division last week to coordinate all these details. They provided us with specific details. construction standard details they want us to include in the plans. We have included those in the plans. So those have been resubmitted back to you guys and you have the city of Lowell standard details now included. So we believe we've addressed that comment. Comment number four was to clarify whether the proposed sidewalk located outside the private right of way is intended for public use and if it is intended for public use to provide an appropriate easement over the sidewalk area. The sidewalk area is actually on private property, so it is intended to be a private sidewalk just as the rest of the sidewalk shown along the proposed division roadway. The entire length of sidewalk shown on the plans will be considered private. Therefore, no maintenance responsibilities will be placed on the city. And we have added a note to the plans just to clarify that for the record. The fifth comment from the engineering staff was that all utility trenches within Bolt Street shall be milled and paved in one continuous patch. Once again, we've added notes to the plans that says just that, requiring the contractor to perform those trench patches in accordance with the city's request. as a proposed condition. Oh, actually, I skipped comment six. Let me go to comment six next. Comment six is that the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering department prior to commencing work, including but not limited to street opening, trench, sewer, and water permits. And there's a proposed condition that says essentially the same thing. And we've added that note to the plans as well, requiring the contractor to procure all those permits prior to construction. And we have no issues accepting proposed condition number four as it's worded in the planning staff letter. The seventh comment from the engineering staff was that all excavation work within the public right of way shall be inspected by the engineering department. Again, we've added a note to the plans We do request that all work in the public right-of-way be inspected by the engineering department so that is reflected on the latest of the plans submitted last week. The historic board, their only comment was that the property is not in a historic review district. We acknowledge that comment and agree. that their property is not in a historic district. The stormwater comment is just reiterating that we would need a stormwater permit. And once again, prior to construction, the applicant will coordinate with the wastewater division and the engineering department to obtain a stormwater permit. So we have no issue with that comment. There was a wastewater comment. It's very similar to the previous comment that there was a missing sewer connection detail and that it will be a private sewer system. Like I said, the applicant has already coordinated with the Wastewater Division to confirm those connection details, added them to the plans. So we've satisfied that request as well. The final comment here is from the Water Department, says there's already conversations going on on water lines entering the lots. Before we submitted the definitive plans, we already met with the Water Department, asked for their input, and incorporated their comments into the plans. And so we'll continue to do that, obviously, during construction. And any additional permits that the water department will need or additional inspections, the contractor will be obligated to coordinate that with them. I believe that will conclude all of my presentation here. I can now hand it back to the board for any questions or comments.

Could you just go over the plan since you put that nice color print up there for us?

Yeah, essentially it's fairly straightforward. It's one lot, 90 Bolt Street is essentially the entire area that's colored right now, the green, the gray, and the purple. We're subdividing that one lot into two lots plus a proposed subdivision roadway. Um, it's, uh, the lots all conform with, uh, the city zoning standards for lot size within the limited industrial district. There's a proposed stormwater basin that has been designed to accept the roadway runoff. Um, any development that occurs on any individual lot will be the responsibility of the individual lot owner. so they would be responsible for handling any additional impervious that would occur on those parcels on that parcel. And once again, I think we mentioned that in the past, any development that occurs on those lots would have to come back before the board for a site plan approval. At this time, that is the sum total of what the project entails. It's the construction of a subdivision roadway with all the appropriate utility infrastructure, sidewalks, roadway, and the like. Thank you.

Anything further at this time? Okay, at this point in time, I'll turn it over to the public. Anybody here this evening would like to speak in favor of this project? In favor? In favor? In favor? Anyone would like to speak in opposition? Okay, just come to the microphone, state your name and address, and please fill out the sheet that you're speaking. Thank you.

Yes, my name is Emily Gertenbach and I live at 124 Park Ave East in Lowell. Drop this down. All right, thank you. So my house, 124 Park Avenue East, is within half a mile of the current Markley data center, and it will be a similar distance from the new parcels as they are all within a pretty compact area. I can hear the existing data center at times even half a mile away and with Four Hill Park in between. So I can only imagine what it is like to live beneath its shadow. I appreciate that the city and the engineering team are looking at things like trees, but at this point, two to four trees from a residential perspective aren't going to do that much. So while I live in Lowell now, I actually grew up near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant, so I am very aware of the lasting impacts that industrial contamination can have. There's already issues expressed by the residents living directly around the existing data center, so I personally cannot get on board with continued expansion. And it does seem to me that this is the start of continued scaling that is downplayed regularly by the group And the city, um, I'm disappointed that the city has approved. This expansion is continuing to have these conversations and about this demolition and redevelopment during the moratorium that was passed. Uh, it's my understanding there was a carve out or a separate agreement made, and it does make me wonder what the point of the moratorium really even was. And lastly, I know that the Markley Group says that the Lowell facility is not going to be used for generative AI, or they say it's not currently on their website. It does say that the Markley experience is now available for generative AI workloads. So I would just like to ask that anyone watching now considers their own generative AI use because this kind of facility is necessary for that technology. And while we don't want or deserve it in our backyards, other people shouldn't have to deal with it either. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Chris Romero, 329 Moody Street. I do not agree with this motion. Well, not motion, but you know what I mean. I do not agree with this, honestly, because the residents have continued to speak out against Markley, which I agree with them because they do not deserve any more permits. I'm also disappointed that the board continues to keep giving Markley more and more trouble. They have caused too much chaos in the city. I've read so many articles and to viewers watching at home, watching on FTC, I urge you to go follow Honest Futures for Lowell to keep up with what's going on in the data center, because what Mark Lee continues to do is unacceptable. And I want the board to know that the residents, I may not reside where the data center is, but the residents have said, we do not want the expansion. And if we're not gonna continue to listen to the residents, you all have a job to do. Deny them. I don't care. I do not care if you don't like Mark Lee But we cannot keep giving them what they want So I'm urging the board and anybody watching at home Please continue to speak out against Mark Lee and and do not listen to their campaign keeping low in the loop. So finally the this board you see here is i believe what the lawyers and markley are saying i believe those are lies and i believe the lies that they're going to continue to con to make up regarding this so i urge the board deny them asap thank you thank you anybody else like to speak

Jonathan Grossman, 83, Varnum Ave. Given the controversial nature of the existing operation that Markley is running, Uh, it would help matters if, uh, the representatives of, of the company could let us know what the, what they plan to actually do with this site. We have, people have various, uh, speculations about it. Uh, but this is a good opportunity for them to let us know if they choose to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else like to speak?

Hi, my name is Alex Lange, and I'm 50 Robinson Street. I would like also to know why Mr. McAleer doesn't want to say what he's going to do there. I do remember that I think they mentioned in the lawsuit when they sue you that there was going to be a data center there. So that's when my antenna went up. I really need to know. We passed the moratorium here. And this problem with marketing, it ended a long time ago. I just told him, listen, let's sit down, work it out, and see how we can benefit each other. But no, he refused to talk to us. He refused to sit down with us. He just doing the hard way, whatever his way is, we have to do everything his way. And also, I was surprised at the last meeting, they didn't allow the city to come and inspect the place. You are not allowed to inspect the place. It made me feel like it's more powerful than you guys. You're just painting the wall. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel, because how is it that you cannot go there and inspect it? When I get an inspection, I got the city coming in and inspect. And this is supposed to be a contaminated site where the dust is, they do a lot of noise too. So I don't know why he cannot disclose what he's going to do. That he's going to do what he said in the lawsuit to the city of Lobo. or what he's going to do. But he has to do something. I mean, I don't understand. We can just sit down and talk like people, you know. But I guess that Mr. Markley refused. I don't know what we're afraid of, but it's really easy just to talk to people.

Thank you, sir.

Hmm.

Hi, good evening. My name is Harini Iyer. I live on 80 Smith Street. I have a couple of follow-up questions. So the engineering firm has submitted their comments for all of the comments that the city made. Couple of confirmations. So this is what they asked the continuation for in July and it was scheduled today, right? Is this correct? Correct. OK. Now that they have answered all of the questions, is there any legal barrier? Like, technically, you cannot say no as a planning board because they have addressed all of the questions. Am I right in understanding this?

Well, basically, Yeah, well, the first thing would be that as we received in the memo from staff, the first question comes out is, that they meet the criteria, the applicant meets compliance regulations for a definitive subdivision. So that's what planning staff tells us. And they list from A to N, all the way down to O, stating all the reasons what they have to do for definitive subdivision. Talking about the names on there, the locations, the street, the lighting, and all other things. After that, these plans all go to the city departments. They all make comments back to us. Like you said, at the last meeting, they got them very shortly before that meeting, same with us. And they needed more time to look it over, and we graciously gave them a continuous to do so. So now we got the feedback from the applicant and stating that I agree with every condition that the city is requesting us to do.

Yeah. So basically, they have fulfilled their part, and you cannot hold them back from dividing this into two subdivisions, right?

Right. So our job is to decide if he can divide a piece of land that he owns and put a vote in.

That's it.

Not building anything, not doing anything, like any other person who comes before us has two buildable lots. They want to build another house for their relative. They want to build it up. They have a piece of land. They meet the requirements. They do so. We haven't seen one negative statement tonight off a many city department saying anything is wrong with that plan.

You're right. That puts it in a spot. I mean, you're doing your jobs. We appreciate that. Oftentimes, this is something that you're doing off of your own time. And it's an important job you're doing for the city. So we appreciate that. Why I'm asking all of these questions is because what seems like happening is that there is this inexorable, slow, inexorable movement to the expansion of the data center that we don't know is happening in front of our eyes, but is happening. right we just want to make sure that all of this does not invalidate the moratorium which was a hard-fought victory for the residents as members of the hfl say we have not had any conversation going on and we want to make sure that this subdivision and then whatever it is just does not result in before we blink, it's going to be another building that is basically an expansion of the current data center. And that is what these questions are for, right? Like, you know, I mean, obviously, if somebody did not break the rules, we cannot really charge them with anything. other than breaking trust. So the last question that I have for you is what would be the trigger for us as residents to know that the step that they are taking is going to break the moratorium. Are you able to see it and stop it as a planning board? Or are you focused only on what is in front of you? Because subdivision, I as a resident that's far away from it, say, hey, that is something that is going to build towards this expansion. But you can't see it, because they have done all of the things that you asked them to do. What would be the criteria for you to know this is surefire a plan for expansion? Would you know it or would you not be able to discern?

So basically, usually once they come in and do a subdivision, the next process, they come back to what's called the site plan. And then at the site plan, we have a whole other laundry list of checks that we have to go through. And the same thing there. all goes out to department heads. And you know, they'll come back, engineering, you know, police, water, traffic, and then we weigh in with all of them all over again. And they put in their criteria and on the On the site plan, the most important thing we can do is health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, of the city. So we have to go by those guidelines. So like I said before, we usually go by, like, for example, I'm a lawyer, Mr. Tenzar's a lawyer, but we can't make legal decisions sitting here. The law department says, no, no, you can't do that. You're only a planning board member. Your day job doesn't matter to us. We don't care what you do during the day. So we don't make legal decisions.

So last time...

Even though, you know, we have... some legal expertise that we think we learned over the years. Hopefully, Dan might believe that. So basically, they'd have to come back from that. Now, the question about the moratorium, they filed the plans before the moratorium went into effect. The law department has told me three times, moratorium is not going to affect them. impact the bold street or any subdivision that they are creating all four that they filed were all done before the moratorium went into effect when they knew the moratorium was coming in that's why they started with the preliminary plan like a lot of people most of the time we don't get a preliminary plan they come in on on a definitive if you looked at this basically okay say it was some other developer because the people don't like the history of marketing say it was you know Joe Jones. If he came in and said, you know, I own the building across the street. I want to build this up there. You know, I want to put this in. I want to put that in. Looked at it. It's basically straightforward. And obviously, they have a big data center. They're not saying what they're going to do. The way I look at it, if Market Basket was sitting here tonight and told us they didn't know what they're going to put there, what would I think? I mean, if Walmart was sitting here tonight and said, we don't know what we're putting in, what do you think I would think?

Yeah.

If it was HannaFed, if, you know. They're in the business of doing data centers. We all know that because they tell us all. So are they going to change their hat? Are they going to sell it out outright to somebody else? We have no idea.

So technically, What you're saying is that we can't really do anything about it because they put the preliminary plans before the moratorium. Correct. So what recourse do you think as residents we have in order to make sure that our voices are heard?

So when they come back, and I imagine they'll come back or they wouldn't have gone through this process, I mean, some people, they start a project, and they belly up, and they don't come back before us again. I mean, some things, but many reasons, usually financial. We've seen things that we've approved, and we've drive by them two or three years later, and it still is the Red Cross in the building. I mean, there's one on Appleton Street. But if they come back, it would be the site plan. And then when we get the comment, when I get the comment, I call some of the city departments and ask.

OK.

I mean, if I get something from engineering, and I don't understand it, I call and ask them. If I have a question with the planning staff, I call and ask them. I know people are gonna ask me and I don't know what they're telling me unless I ask them. So we have to look at what their criteria is and whether they meet it by the city ordinance. The city ordinance, now don't forget, is made by the city council. Not us. We don't do the ordinance. People have that authority. They can come before us for a non-binding recommendation, which means we can say what we want and they can accept it or not. So it's the ordinance that the council puts in place that we have to follow. So when they come back with those moratorium, a lot of the things that people don't like, I strongly recommend because we agreed when it came before us for the moratorium, we spoke in favor of the moratorium. yeah you know you were here yeah yeah we're like yeah we agree uh some people say it shouldn't be near school put in part of the moratorium but um so when it comes back it'll be site plan we have to look at a certain criteria and like i say we're guided by the city professionals um you know i mean if we have a question i call the law department um and i say even though sometimes i disagree with the law department They're the ones who we have to rely by. If they make an opinion to us, and we got it before us, and I read that into the record, that opinion matters, not my opinion. So basically, when something comes into your site plan, you have to attack the site plan to make sure that they meet all the criteria. And it's all posted on the web, so if you have a question on any of that, You can call any one of those departments and ask them the same question. Why this or why that? And that's why they'll look at it and give us proposed conditions. We've seen things come in before from the fire department and say, this isn't safe. The road's not long. We can't get there. It's too narrow. And if we get a negative comment from the fire department, I've never voted on anything the fire department told me not to vote on. If they say we're not in favor of it, then we agree, because it's a safety issue. So those are the main things we looked at.

So technically, they would have to come to you if they have to put diesel generators on there or cooling towers on there. That would come to you, right? They would have to do the definitive plan that contains these structures, which, I mean, if you're going to build a data center, you're probably going to need these structures. And that would come to you. And then you would, OK, that is great.

So if they want to build on that, they have to come back. So number one, in our zoning now, we have nothing that says the word data center. But as Mr. Fichette says, in the light industrial zone, there were certain things they can build by right that would not even come before us. Like Chevy? Yes. Correct. Did you mention the ones on there? Yeah. So there's certain things by right you can do.

So just in the light industry zone, depending upon obviously the size and- How big the lot is. Right. How big the lot is. But we're talking about automotive sales indoor, automotive sales outdoor, automotive service station, automotive repair garage, automotive, auto body paint shops, car wash, and then municipal facilities other than those set forth in subsections. C, municipal services operated by the Lowell Water Department, water utility, radio television, radio television transmission stations, telecommunications facilities, large wind energy facility, business and professional office building, business and office gross floor area, greater than 5,000 square feet, medical, I'm sorry, telephone answering service center, laboratories or research facilities provided at manufacturers incidental to the operation of the facility. I guess the point I'm trying to make is there are some by right uses that depending upon the size of the facility that it would never come to this board. They would go to the building department and file a permit. So I guess, just to be clear on it.

OK, I get it. So technically, it could happen that once this lot is subdivided, if it's not excluded in that list that you read, if it was included in it, they don't even have to come back to you with definitive plans.

Depending upon the dimensions and the size.

What you're saying, so the building department had to make sure they had the side yard requirement, the front yard requirement, the height requirement, and all the other city standards before they would give them a building permit, which And then you have to meet the criteria. And then you'd have to get the wastewater permit and stuff of that nature. Even if it didn't come before us, it still has criteria through the building department.

Last time we talked, last time at this meeting, there was a consideration about soil sampling. And the gentleman from the engineering firm said that they will be open to doing soil sampling when structure was coming down. Is this like this would still come to you or would this go to the Department of Environment?

It would be, the city would decide that before it came before us, yeah.

Okay.

And like I say, we have no jurisdiction on, as this gentleman told us last time, they talked a lot about it, but there's no say in that matter.

So, technically...

I mean, we do make recommendations that they comply with DEP, I mean, especially when it's given to us by three or four different city departments asking us to do so.

So technically, today could be the last time this gentleman is here asking for a particular permission from the planning board. Is that right?

Well, they're asking for a definitive subdivision. But I can't say it's the last time. Sometimes they come back in and want to modify it after a period of time. We've seen projects that we've approved. And then when they start to go do it, they're like, well, We want to come back and make a modification, hopefully for the better. And when we see it for the better, we consider it for the better. But I can't say if they would come back and want to change something. I can't speak for that. Especially if we don't know what they're telling us is going on.

So what you're saying and from what, like there is a silo between like what the city council decides and that could potentially impact this versus what the planning board can do, right? Like, you know, I mean, I'm...

So most likely they'll be back before us, sooner or later.

Me, you know, shouting at you, it's not going to change anything unless the city council acts on it. And it's up to the city council to really do make sure that the moratorium really does expand to any construction, not just in a particular. Okay, well, that is a clarification that I needed.

They've established that it doesn't apply to these subdivisions, though.

But like I say, the moratorium wouldn't apply to this if it came back. Because they filed before the moratorium. Legally, that's what the law department has been telling us right along. Since they filed their preliminary plan before the moratorium went into effect, they're governed by the law that was existing the day they filed the plan.

So why is Markley doing a PR push now?

I don't know. I can't speak for him. Some people say they don't even talk to him, so I don't know.

Well, thank you, gentlemen. Really, I just wanted to clarify all of that. No problem at all.

I understand. We want to make sure whatever comes here is done right. There's no doubt about it.

Thank you. Thank you for all the stuff that you do with the planning board. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak?

Yes, hopefully with an easy one. Steve Maligoti, 200 Market Street, number 216. I'm a volunteer with 350 Mass of Greater Louisville. I don't know. I have a question, and I'm not sure that it's within the expertise of this board or the gentleman here to answer this question. And I may have misheard your earlier testimony because it's kind of hard to hear back here. But what I heard was that this facility, whatever it's going to be, is going to hook up to the combined sewer system. Is that correct?

Yes. The water department, the sewage department gave them conditions that they wanted to do, and they checked based on those, and they said they would do whatever they asked them to do.

Okay. You know that the city has a big problem with CSO, with combined sewer overflow. And then we're spending millions and millions of dollars to remedy this. Is there any explanation as to why we would be continuing to add new, add to this problem? In other words, why, why are we, why are we pursuing this combined sewer scheme when we know we have to change it? Is there an answer to that question or?

I can't answer that, no. If he wants to try, I mean, we're bound by federal regulation to take care of the CSO, Combined Sewer Overflow, and I'm sure... It actually... Well, the Water Department of Waste... No, never mind. Go ahead.

Sorry, I'll clarify what's on the plans right now. We are showing a proposed sewer connection to the existing combined sewer, but it's only a sewer connection. We were asked by the Wastewater Division and the Engineering Department to remove the stormwater component from the sewer. uh plant so we are retaining all the stormwater on site the stormwater part of the combined sewer is no longer being discharged to the combined sewer under this plant so we complied with the wastewater department's request for removing the stormwater piece the sewer has to go to sewer there's no way to avoid that

So there is a sewer connection that's still part of the plan and we've worked those details out with the wastewater department last week.

Correct and I think I don't know if you heard me when I said each individual lot once it's subdivided will be responsible for handling their own stormwater on site. So there is no stormwater connection to the city's system in Bolt Street. Each lot and our roadway as designed is responsible for handling its own stormwater on the premises. So there'll be no discharge.

And they're required to do so, to keep the stormwater on site. Correct.

The bigger picture of the municipal combined sewer system, I agree, is an issue. It's a major municipal issue that many communities of this size, especially Lowell, deals with every day. It's a very big problem that needs to be addressed, but it's a big infrastructure issue. We've done what we can here at the local level to mitigate that. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Just one other thing.

I believe you said that the various city departments had no objections to any of the... What they did is they proposed certain conditions that they wanted the applicant to abide by, and they laid the... We got that from a draft memo from our planning staff.

That's for the Bolt Street?

Yes.

My understanding, I was told that there were objections on Tanner Street. Is that correct?

We haven't got to Tanner Street yet.

You haven't got to it.

No, that's next.

OK, thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else like to speak? Anyone else? Anybody else? Anybody else? At this point in time, I'll turn it over to any board members. Is there any questions, comments?

mr. chairman if I may first of all I want to thank you for the questions that you asked in the clarity in which you brought to the situation that we find ourselves with on subdivision approval I think that's been lacking in some instances so I think that's that's helpful and I've been urging I'm also serving on an a zoning audit committee for the city, and we're looking at the new zoning for data centers, but acknowledging, and if anybody caught the city council meeting after that last planning board meeting, a councilor McDonough had filed a motion and it came out and there was a discussion that is not going to apply to any of this right that they filed the and so I just think there needs to be more public discussion of that because I know there's been a lot of anticipation waiting for that to come out but I think everybody has to understand how that applies right And I'm not an attorney that needs to be discussed publicly, but there are timelines in which that will apply and will no longer apply. At some point, the existing zoning may last for eight years, maybe two. I'm hearing different things. And then after that, then the new zoning ordinance would apply. So there's a lot of public discussion, I think, that still has to take place on that. And so I want to thank you for bringing some of that discussion to the forefront. I appreciate people coming and speaking and feeling passionate about this, but in a way I do feel bad with people coming talking about the subdivision and being frustrated with maybe data centers, but that's not what we're voting on here this evening. So I just, again, I want to thank you for that. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything to add other than I think you went over everything. To the applicant, that was a good use of the continuance. We got the comment memo late from the last minute from the last meeting. And I think you responded thoroughly to what the comments were. So from that perspective, I really don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Vitek. Caleb, questions, comments?

um my comment is uh I appreciate the company um responding and positively to the proposed conditions um um including the two trees that is added so um I think I think it's uh that have satisfied uh what is what is required thank you Danny

Quickly, Mr. Chairman, appreciate everybody coming out. It's important to let your voices be heard no matter what. Ultimately, as has been described before, we have a certain job and we have certain rules that we have to follow, whether we like it or not or whether I like it or not. So I do appreciate everybody coming out and continue to voice your opinions. It's important, especially what you see in federal government today. You've got to be heard. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Lucia?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with my fellow board members. The proposed subdivision meets all of the zoning requirements in a light industrial district, and the applicant has responded to all of the interdepartmental comments. I see no reason to deny this application.

Thank you. Mr. Saab? I don't have any comment. No comment. Okay. Thank you. So basically, as indicated when I was speaking a little while ago, we get a memo from staff. And staff incorporates all the correspondences they receive from all the city departments. So the first one was, does it meet the criteria for definitive subdivision? And planning and development says it meets the compliance requirements for definitive subdivision under the subdivision of land regulation by the city of Lowell. And they listed, as I said earlier, from A all the way to O, all the items they need to apply for the Defendant Subdivision. And they did that. And then the fact is, all the other departments who weighed in, And they responded to them. You know, like they said, project management asked for one to two trees. The applicant said they'll put in more. Then we had engineering made comments, and they agreed to those. They came out with proposed conditions that we received from staff. And I just want to make sure they... And they went along with all the conditions that was given. Whether it be from the engineering department, wastewater department, let's see, another engineering department, and then there was several that had no comment. Yeah, for the trees, they asked for two, they said they'll do the four. Yeah, and the syndication on our last memo, we were given from plenty of development. They had one condition. Engineering had a couple of conditions. And then we had comments from stormwater, we had comments from wastewater, water department, and they addressed all those comments. That's all I have to say. So it seems like they did their work and they complied with the requirements for our defendant subdivision. Planning staff tell that they did and the city department said they're doing what they requested of them under the conditions that they requested that we impose. So. Going along with that, I'll make a motion to approve. The reason being that it's indicated that planning staff has indicated that the application meets compliance requirements for defendant subdivision per section three b four of the low subdivision land regulations outlined from a to o they talked about proposed conditions and condition number one would be um consider planting two trees they came back and indicated that they would plant four trees so with condition number one i would put the applicant shall plant four trees along bolt street uh the second proposed condition was from engineering Proposed condition, the applicant shall provide documentation establishing the long-term ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities of the private roadway and the private water, drainage and stormwater management systems, including the basin, The document shall identify the parties responsible for inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the shaded private infrastructures following the sale of the individual lots. The applicant went along and said they accept this proposed condition. Proposed condition number three, before work begins, the applicant shall coordinate with the wastewater division to receive a stormwater permit. The applicant stated that the applicant accepts proposed condition number three in response to the comments. Basically what the comments were that they wanted the 1.0 per inch infiltration rate and indicates that it has been by the table, discovered by the stormwater permit. The applicant indicated that they will do that, indicated to the table area that they referred to. There was responses to coordinate proposed sanitary sewer connections. The applicant said they've worked with the waste department. Clarify whether the proposed sidewalk indicates outside the private right of way. They indicated it is a private sidewalk. Proposed condition, the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering department prior to commencing any work. including but not limited to street opening trench sewer and water permits. The applicant has indicated that they accept condition number four. And as a comment, all excavation work within the public right away shall be expected by the engineering department. I know the plan has been added to indicate that all excavation in public will be expected by engineering. I'm looking at know that they need a stormwater permit. And they will coordinate with the wastewater division in engineering department to obtain that permit. Any of the board members have any further comment as to any of the conditions? If not, that's my motion with the proposed condition.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. The only other thing I could think of when you were speaking was they mentioned utility trenches. They were to be milled and paved in one continuous patch. I think that was another condition that they had indicated that they're also... One of the conditions was that one of the... A comment.

A comment. Let's see. Yeah.

Number five.

Number five? Okay. I believe it was a comment, but again... Okay. All utility trenches on Bolt Street should be milled and paved in one continuous patch. Notes have been added to the subdivision plans to indicate that all utility trenches on Bolt Street will be milled and paved in one continuing patch. So I'll put that as a condition as well as indicate the applicant that they'll do that on the plan. Any other further discussion by board members? If not, that's the motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, the Defendant Subdivision Plan has been approved. So moving along on the agenda, the next matter we have is Tanna Street. Defendant Subdivision. to chemistry in the street and best go LLC has applied to low plan aboard taken defendants of division approval to split the existing lot. In the street in the 2 lot, the subject property is located in the general industrial zoning district. The proposal requires defendants of division approval from the planning board on the low some division of land regulations. May we hear from the applicant please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening once again. My name is Tony Mora, Stantec Consulting. I'm the civil engineer, and our firm prepared the plans for definitive subdivision for the Howard Street Extension or 2 Tanner Street subdivision. That's before you. We were before this board on April 6th to receive the preliminary plan approval. As with the previous application, we received a staff memo with city department comments on the definitive subdivision. The comment letter states that the definitive plan application meets the compliance requirements for our definitive subdivision in the City of Lowell per the City of Lowell subdivision regulations. The City Department comments also proposed conditions are for the most part relatively straightforward. There is one that I think we want to discuss a little bit more, but for the most part they're all reasonable and acceptable. Last week we had submitted a response to comments similar to the previous application. that we believe addresses all the comments. I will now go through all the individual comments as I did with the previous application. So, as with the previous application, there were several departments that had no comment on the application. the Building Department, Economic Development Department, the Fire Department, Parks Department, Police Department, Solid Waste and Recycling Department, Sustainability Department, and the Transportation Department. I'll start going through each individual comment that was brought forth by city staff, starting with the planning comments. The first comment is that this parcel, The project is located within Ayers City Industrial Park, ACIP urban renewal area, and that these parcels are proposed for, that the parcels proposed for subdivision are not identified as acquisition or disposition parcels in that ACIP plan. However, that the bordering parcel of 10 Tanner Street, in addition to 12 Tanner Street, which is a long thin parcel that runs alongside the Western edge of the 10 Tanner Street are both identified as acquisition parcels. Both 10 and 12 Tanner Street are part of redevelopment site C in that plan, which calls for the redevelopment of up to 160,000 square feet of industrial space. The comment essentially is just asking that the applicant be made aware that those parcels may be developed for more intensive use in the future. And we recognize that and acknowledge that comment made by the planning staff. The second comment identifies 2 Tanner Street as having a hazardous release reported to MassDEP and that the property is located near the SIL RESM Superfund site. The applicant should be made aware of this and follow any relevant requirements. The applicant is encouraged to reach out to both EPA and MassDEP about any impacts relative to the SIL RESM site. There's a proposed condition added in the comment letter that the applicant shall follow any relevant requirements for MassDEP related to the SIL Residence Superfund site. Our response, or I should say the applicant's response to that is that The applicant is aware of the site's environmental history as it's reported to DEP and is aware of its proximity to the SIL RESM Superfund site. The applicant will coordinate with the MassDEP and the EPA as required to ensure the construction of the subdivision is performed in strict compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. As required, all construction activities related to the subdivision will be performed under the supervision of a Massachusetts licensed site professional. So it's a long way of saying the applicant accepts proposed condition number one, that we'll agree to abide by any relevant requirements that MassDEP has set forth in relation to this site and the Sobresme site. Next are a series of engineering comments, very similar to the previous application. Comment three is to provide documentation establishing the long-term ownership, operation, and maintenance responsibilities for the private roadway. and the private water, drainage, and stormwater management systems, including the basin. The documents shall identify the parties responsible for inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the shared private infrastructure following the sale of individual lots. There's a proposed condition number two that essentially says the same thing. Our applicant's response is that the subdivision plans indicate on them. We essentially added that note to the plans. that the subdivision plan, uh, at subdivision road, uh, will remain privately owned and maintained. Um, and that all utility infrastructure, including the proposed basin will remain privately owned and maintained. The owner will be the responsible party for all inspection, maintenance, and repair and replacement of all utility and roadway infrastructure, even after the sale of the lots. So a long way of saying the applicant agrees with proposed condition number two as well. Next comment is related to the utility trenches within Tanner Street. It shall be milled and paved in one continuous patch. There's a proposed condition. that says the same thing. We've added notes to the plans that says all trenches within Tanner Street should be milled and paved in one continuous patch. Applicant is agreeing to proposed condition number three as well. Comment number five, the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering department prior to commencing work, including but not limited to street opening, trench, sewer, and water permits. Proposed condition number four reiterates that. We added notes to the plans stating the same, that prior to construction, the contractor will obtain all required contractor permits, including street opening, trench permits, water permits, and sewer permits. And the applicant is agreeable to proposed condition number four. Next comment is that all excavation within the public right-of-way shall be inspected by the engineering department. There's a proposed condition number five stating the same thing. We've added notes to the plans to indicate that all excavation work within the public right-of-way shall be inspected by the engineering department and the applicant is agreeable to accepting condition number five. Next set of comments or next comment is from the health department. This comment says we would disagree with allowing landscaping or any work starting without paperwork from DEP and EPA that the land is able to be used. There are multiple comments from March 30, 2026 regarding the Sill Residence Superfund site and the proximity of this site to that site. There's a proposed condition number six that says the applicant shall receive documentation from the MassDEP stating that the EPA, MassDEP and EPA stated that the land is usable prior to starting any work. This is the one condition where I think the wording is just a little bit off. It's the requirement to receive documentation from MassDEP and EPA. There is no mechanism to request that from DEP, so whatever The document that the Board of Health is requesting, there's really no mechanism for us to request that. The MassDEP and EPA don't routinely offer up letters saying a site is okay to be usable. What we are agreeable to is essentially proposed condition number one already that we're agreeable to already says we are agreeable to complying with all applicable local, federal, state environmental regulations. So that should cover this comment. If there's any concerns about whether the applicant will follow any of those conditions, the applicant's already agreeing to that in condition number one. So I believe If you just want to reiterate proposed condition number one again, here's proposed condition number six. I think that covers it because, as I said, there's no mechanism to request this letter that's being asked. We could ask for the letter and then never get a response, essentially, because there's just no process in place to get that letter. So that's our only hang-up with the wording of the letter. But the spirit of the comment, I believe, essentially requiring the applicant to comply with all applicable federal, local, state regulations with regards to any contamination or environmental issues. And if we just reiterate proposed condition number one here, I believe that would satisfy that response. The next comment is the Historic Board just stating The project is not in a historic district, and we acknowledge that it's not. The next series of comments are stormwater related. Comment nine is asking, what are the elevations of the drainage manhole that receives outlet control structure 101? We've added those elevations to the plan, so that has been satisfied in the latest set of plans that we've submitted. Next comment, plans still do not show where the drainage network terminates, but it is mentioned in the stormwater report that it is River Meadow Brook. The plans actually do show on the plan and profile sheet, which is sheet C003, where the ultimate discharge point is for the stormwater. When I reviewed this comment with the wastewater team last week, they acknowledged they just didn't see it on the plans, but. It is there, and that comment is addressed. It's on sheet C003, so that comment has been addressed. Comment number 11 is just stating that they would like to meet with the project engineer. As I mentioned, we met with both the wastewater staff and the engineering departments last week. We spoke to them to make sure that they were okay with our responses to comments. We got all of the applicable sewer connection details that they would like to see on the plans and we added those to the plans. There's a proposed condition number seven that says the applicant shall obtain a stormwater permit from the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility addressing any issues from the stormwater team, and we are okay accepting that condition number seven. As I said, we met with the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility and the engineering department last week, and we believe we've addressed all their comments. The next comment is, next couple of comments are wastewater comments. plans need to show elevations for the sewer line and the proposed sewer manhole or which existing sewer manhole is to be used. So we have added the sewer elevations to the plans for whatever reason they didn't print originally. So we've added those and the revised set of plans do now show the elevations as we shared with the wastewater team last week. There was some confusion about which sewer manhole we were connecting to and that is largely because the city's record is City wastewater utility records are GIS based and their GIS system showed two sewer manholes very close to each other. So it looked like there was two sewer manholes there and they were asking, which one are you connecting to? The reality is there's only one sewer manhole there. So it's probably a little glitch in their GIS system. If you go out there and observe, there's only one sewer manhole visible. So it's likely a glitch in their GIS system, but we're going to connect to the existing sewer manhole that is visible in the street at the intersection of Tanner and Howard streets. I kind of jumped the gun a little bit to the next comment. Plans indicate a new sewer manhole, but GIS shows two in that location, so we just discussed that. Essentially, the GIS system does show two sewer manholes, but you can look at it on Google Street View. You'll just see the one manhole there. So only one is visible, and it's likely just a glitch in the GIS system. The next comment is a water comment. Water Department essentially says it doesn't have any issues. Our infrastructure around the two sites is adequately sized and can handle the proposed projects with no problems. And we just acknowledge the comment and indicate that we continue to work with the Water Department as needed throughout the construction of the subdivision. That concludes my presentation. So I'll hand it over to the board now for any comments or questions.

I'm going to ask you if you can address your plan again, please. Absolutely. Just have a nice colorful up there muzzle.

Yeah. It's the same as the previous site. The entire colored area is currently to Tanner Street. It's one part in the, I believe it's the general industrial zoning district. And we're proposing a new private subdivision roadway right at the intersection of Howard Street and Tanner Street with private utilities, private sidewalks, street trees, all the utilities, and just subdividing one lot into two lots. That's essentially it. Fairly straightforward.

Thank you, sir. This time I'll open the meeting up to the public. Anybody here this evening like to speak in favor of this project? In favor? In favor? In favor? Hearing none. Anybody like to speak in opposition? In opposition?

Hi, my name is Alex . I'm part of the . I would like to ask a gentleman here, what side is the train station? This side?

The top or the bottom?

The train station? Yeah, the train. To the left.

To the left.

The left? Yep. This one? Yep. OK. So, and exactly...

The railroad tracks. The train station is back behind it. Railroad tracks go on the left-hand side, over by where the gray is. I was there today when the trains were going by.

Yeah, you see where the green area is? That's the railroad track, this part here, right? So, I'm exactly across you, the other side. And in the last two months, there's been a lot of noise there. I don't know what kind of permits you have, the demo permits, I know that you took down a lot of things there. But, you know, it will be really nice that when people do a construction like that with a lot of noise to notify the residents. Because my house was shaking and was banned, banned, banned all day long. Sometimes at 7 o'clock in the morning. And sometimes later than 5 and 6. uh it's concerning to me because i'm too close i hear everything and i can see everything because i'm in the hill right across so i wanted to ask you so what is the plan for this site because they've been doing a lot of noise and they they building something there i saw some towers that they put in there so i wanted to know can you disclose what you're going to build there or you building something

I do recognize that there has been some demolition on site. Our firm isn't involved in any of that, so I don't have any information to share of what's going on on that site. But I do know the building has been demolished, so there has been a lot of activity. I'm sure they pulled the demolition permit for that activity. I'm not sure what the notice requirements are for any of that. But I'm not involved in any of that, so I don't have a lot of information to share on that. So I'm sorry.

Well, my house is across there. I really would like to be more informed about what they're going to do there. And especially as a courtesy, you know, when we're building something, oh, I was doing the stairs in my house. I had to notify everybody around in my neighborhood that I was building something. So I don't know why they are exempt to actually send letters to a neighborhood that they're going to do a demo. Because my house shake, shake really bad, and all my pictures were out of place when the demo occurred, and they didn't tell anyone. The second thing is they are building there something. I did see that they were putting something on the ground. They look like columns. So I will advise the board to send somebody there to see what's going on.

I do appreciate the work that you do, even if I feel that they already know how to go around with the law. I understand, yeah.

My second question to you is about the new law, the Mary Haley passed in Boston, how it's going to affect us because it passed a law that if the residents don't agree, the data center cannot be built. So I would like to know where you guys stand on that and what's going on with that.

It's up to the law department. They'll tell us.

OK, thank you.

Yep. Thank you, sir. Anybody else like to speak?

Harini Iyer, AT Smith Street. I am not going to talk a lot. I'm just going to say I just want to record my opposition to the expansion. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak?

124 Park Avenue East. Again, not going to speak at length. I just also want to record my continued opposition to this expansion. And I do have a follow-up question. In discussing the previous parcel, you shared information about what can go into a light industrial district without further approval beyond a building permit. Do you have any information available about what is allowed in the general industrial district that may be different from light industrial?

I would encourage you if you go to the city website and you go even to the planning board in our documents the zoning ordinance is in there and it would be in the table of uses it's for everybody to see and the general industry is to the far the far right thank you grid right and it's a grid and if it's a y that's by right if it's pb it's a planning board special permit if it's sp it's a zoning board of appeals special permit great i'll just give you an idea what what can or cannot be built but then there are other things that trigger site plan review as the chairman said as well got it thank you thank you anybody else like to speak

Anybody else? Anybody else? At this point in time, I'll turn it over to the board members.

Mr. Chairman, I don't really have much to say. Although I will ask Engineer just a question on the And I understand what you're saying about the landscaping in that condition that was. Put in there. I guess. And I don't know if there's a, under the Cellarism Superfund site, if there are, I suspect there will be limiting conditions that are put on depending upon what's happening with the site. And, you know, similar, there are deed restrictions that get put on the properties that you can't dig more than, 10 inches below. You can't plant the garden. So I'm assuming that that would, at some point, would be applied to what's happening on the site.

That is tied to the property. And that's all publicly available information. So that's not something that we would need to necessarily notify anybody. City Board of Health can go online and get the information. It's publicly available. That's the mechanism, essentially, is that. If there is information that they want, they can just go get it. It's a publicly available information. If we write a letter to the DEP or the EPA asking if the site's usable, it may go unanswered. So that's our only issue with that request is that there's no mechanism for that to get a response. But we fully agree with complying with all applicable laws and regulations according to the DEP, EPA as applicable. If there's anything related to the socialism that affects this property, we'll agree to abide by that. So that's the spirit of what the comment, I think, is trying to say. We're willing to abide by it. It's just the wording of it was a little bit tricky because there is no mechanism to get a response.

And the number one condition is more of an all?

That one kind of covers it all. It's kind of a catch-all. So if we agree to abide by all applicable environmental laws and regulations, I think that should cover it. At least that's our opinion. I just want to point out one item that I just noticed as I was sitting down. In our response to comments for proposed condition number eight, I think we copied proposed condition number seven twice, but the message is the same. We will agree to comply with proposed condition number eight as it's written in the planning staff comments. Our response to the comment letter just copied it, copied number seven twice. So I just want to make sure that that's clarified, that we are willing to comply with proposed condition number eight as it's written in the comments. So we've already addressed it as well and discussed it, but I just wanted to clarify that.

I got you. Yeah, no. Right. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Okay, great. Thank you.

So basically, even if we don't give a condition for the stormwater permit, you still need it. Yeah, that's correct. It's still going to make you do it, whether we allow you to do it or not. Stormwater's going to tell you.

I want to put some perspective to a lot of the conditions that are on it. You have to do it anyway. We've got to do them anyway. I just want to make that clear.

I'm not going to argue with something we have to do.

I used to call those non-conditioned conditions. I mean, you're going to have to do it anyway.

If we don't put it on there, they make you do it. We've got to do it anyway. Yeah. If they bring it to our attention, and they ask you to do it, you know you have to do it. So it's usually not an argument, per se, because you're like, yeah, I've got to do it anyway. It's what the board tells me to, because wastewater is going to make me do it. Yeah. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OK. Caleb, any questions, comments? I want to follow up on condition one. Everyone is concerned about hazardous materials and the construction that might disturb it in any way. Can you share more about how the licensed site professionals roll and who they will be? Are they part of the contractor or independent of their contractor and how they will ensure condition one and all the applicable laws will be complied with?

It's not my area of expertise, but I'll try my best to explain it as I understand it. So if a environmental condition is discovered during construction or is known about as part of the applicant's or owner's due diligence, they discover something, there's a process in place that's outlined by DEP of what they're supposed to do and how they're supposed to proceed. That whole process is managed by or overseen by a Massachusetts licensed site professional, which essentially is a fancy word for saying somebody who's a contamination expert and is well-versed in what the laws of both the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, which is the set of regulations that governs contamination in the state of Massachusetts as well as any federal EPA requirements. So a Massachusetts licensed site professional would be called upon by the owner to manage that process. And then whatever that process is through DEP, through EPA, the LSP would be overseeing that. and ensuring that all construction is proceeding in accordance with all the applicable laws, all applicable regulations, and it's their job to ensure that the letter of the law is being followed. So, that's a layman's way of explaining it, as best as I can understand it. I'm not a licensed professional, so I'm sure there's more nuances to it than I can explain, but that's the overall gist of it.

Mr. Thank you. That's all I have. Mr. Okay.

Tony Tanja?

I want to follow up with one of the participants mentioned demolition and the noise and notification. One of the things I think that's an important issue, not something that we deal with, but that's something that you should bring up to the counselors. The City Council would have jurisdiction over that. They could set rules and regulations, if there aren't any, that would indicate notification within a certain geographic region. So I hear your concerns, but please... follow up with the council on that to address that for the future, because there will be future. There will be other projects. There will be other demolitions. So speak with your city councilor on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Ms. Walker.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just one question. I wondered if there's been any communication with the EPA or MassDEP

If there has, I'm not aware of it. Like I said, our involvement on this site is limited to just the subdivision. So if there has, I can't speak to that. If it's required, I'm sure it has been. I just can't speak to it.

Sure. Thank you.

That's all.

Any questions?

No question.

Well, I know in the comments, I believe first what they were telling you was, you know, there was some contamination on site, which you said, yeah, we'll wear that. And then they want you to basically make sure that you follow up. As you said, you do DEP and EPA. I mean, obviously, when they say to you, you know, there's a contaminated site there, obviously – You notice of that and I don't know if you know before he and you probably get a lot of time to go to do your testing all that stuff before you. The seat of this side, so I think a lot of that was you know. There was some contamination in the past you have to address that issue make sure you know about it. Coming up that happened. years ago, I want to say was like in the 80's and then they had to truck a lot of it off-site, which was a big expensive thing. It was a big to do for the city. It was very expensive cleaning that up. But I think as indicated, you did address all the Both conditions and I understand what you're saying with, you know, the health department, you say you want a letter. I mean, if they're not in the business of giving letters, it's kind of a condition that can't be fulfilled. But as long as you're going along with, you know, the mass DEP, like I say, condition one, number one, blankets that as well, as Mr. Bichette said. So I think, as you indicated, condition one encompasses what the health department is basically trying to say. Yeah, that's all I have to say. Oh, one question. We had the stormwater on comment number nine. It said, what are the elevation of the drainage of manholes? And you said that they were added to the plan?

That's correct. Yeah.

you know what the elevations were last weekend or just if not it's okay i'm just curious as long as i mean obviously stormwater would have addressed them once they looked at it with you anyway so yeah it's on the plans i don't have them committed to memory but if maybe i can yeah as long as they're on plan of stormwater so i'm i have no problem with that they're on the plants now so yeah um okay that's all i have thank you Any of the board have any follow-up questions?

May I add also to Alex? Alex, right? Yeah, I think to your concern about construction noise and hours, and if you think they are building anything, I think that's something that the building inspector will be the person to take care of that. The planning board, if it is something that is operational, ongoing, that a new facility will generate noise or et cetera, then it will come to us. But otherwise, construction is for the building inspector to enforce. Can you speak to the mic, I think? Thank you.

Yeah, my bigger worry is they're still working in the place. And they've been working in that place every day. And the last week, they haven't worked that much, but they continue working there. And the dust that comes, I have video. All the dust they make, they come right to us. And we know that, you know, that dirt is contaminated completely. So it's to who I supposed to tell him that? To tell somebody?

Yeah, it's the building inspector. It really is. Operationally, it would be the building inspector. Call the building department and speak to the building commissioner or the building inspector.

Yeah, because I have a video. The dust was really high.

No, I mean, there are hours of operation, too, for construction. You're not supposed to be able to start before a certain time, and you have to end at a certain time. And they should be able to at least give you what the requirements are, as far as, like, hours of when you can begin working. So... Yeah, a lot of that, I know, Member Tanza had mentioned calling a council, I understand that, but there are some, as a resident, the call should be like to the building department and say, look, this is where I live, this is what's going on. And again, if you don't get any response, operationally, because To all due respect, a member of TANZAT was a city councilor at one time, for those of you who don't know. So his path is to go that way. But I would operationally even go to the city manager. And then if you don't feel you're getting responses, I'd check with your city councilor. But I mean, operationally, the building department should really be the one you should be making that decision.

Are they going to disclose how contaminated that place is? Can they disclose to the public? Can you guys disclose?

Well, no. Cellarism is very well known, that whole area, as far as the concerns. If they had a permit was issued for demolition, then they would have that on record at the building department. And then they would have what they have to comply with. Okay.

Thank you. Oh, by the record, out of polls, still expansion of Berkeley.

Thank you. Do board members have any further comments? Hearing none, let's do a request of the board.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the definitive subdivision. Similar to what we did with the last one, the applicant did a good job addressing issues and concerns, but it's still incorporating the conditions into the approval. First condition being the applicant shall follow any relevant requirements from MassDEP and EPA related to the Cell RISM Superfund site. um second condition the applicant shall provide documentation establishing the long-term ownership and operation and maintenance responsibilities for the private roadway and the private water drainage and storm water management systems included the basin the document shall identify the parties responsible for inspection maintenance repair and replacement of the shared private infrastructure following the sale of the individual lots Condition number three, all utility trenches within Tanna Street shall be milled and paved in one continuous patch. Condition four, the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering department prior to commencing work, including but not limited to street opening, trench, sewer, and water permits. Condition number five, all excavation work within the public right of way shall be inspected by the engineering department. Condition four. Number six, the applicant shall obtain stormwater permit from the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility addressing any issues from the stormwater team. And condition number seven, the applicant shall update plans to show elevations for sewer line and propose SMH or which existing SMH that is to be used. And again, noting that the applicant has made pretty much all the changes that were recommended from staff.

Do we have a motion on the board? Do we have a second?

Second. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair Volchius, any opposition? Hearing none, the motion carries. Five in favor and none against. Good luck. look okay moving along on the agenda let's see um on the agenda uh on the matters um we did receive tonight um a meeting schedule for 2027 with the metal with the middle deadlines um I believe we usually take a vote to approve the meeting agendas. Anyone have any questions about the meeting agendas? If not, I'll make a motion to approve the 2027 meeting schedule and submittal deadlines.

Second.

Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, the motion carries. One other matter that, let's see, is usually either late September or the first meeting in October, we do our election of officers. So, Mayor, if we can put that on the agenda for the next meeting. We usually try to do that September, sometimes it rolls into the first, it says our bylaws, like usually the annual meeting in September, which is either first or second, or sometimes it's later, depending on the quorum and depending on how busy the agenda may be. Yeah, so we can put that off the next meeting. And with that, any of the board members have any further follow-up?

Mr. Chairman, if I may, just on the zoning audit subcommittee, we did meet on August 26th. We did look at a draft proposal for the data center, more zoning to add to our zoning code. There was several concerns that myself and the representative from the Zoning Board of Appeals had regarding a section on electricity use. and and you know trying to uh regulate uh land use and zoning based on electricity use and felt that uh that needed uh council we wanted some council review of that uh there was some other language that um i think uh need to be looked at they certainly took into account a lot of the comments regarding setbacks which we didn't have in there a lot of the a lot of the um accessory uses that go along with this facility where we had the towers and the misting towers and so a lot of that is addressed but we had nothing in the zoning code so it's being worked at worked on the they have consultants that are looking at language that other communities have used but the other concern is is even though some of the communities have passed some of some zoning relative to that has it really been tested in in you know how how actually How much teeth does it actually have in some respect? And a lot of it comes to, when you start talking electricity use, do we do that with any other land use? Other businesses? Do we do that with Old General Hospital? Do we do that with University of Old? Do we do that? You know, so it's just kind of interesting. I don't know if that can be challenged, if that's something that you can regulate. So that's being looked at. There's some other items that I think, you know, I will tell you we've had some back and forth on floor area ratio and they They wanted to eliminate it and I was dead set against that. And so it looks like we've come up with a compromise. So there will be something that will be in there. And then looking at larger properties, larger homes in all zones in the city. And if they cross a threshold and they've they've been in existence for a certain period of time you would be allowed to make multi-family units even though when they're in a single family zone so we're looking at that um and there's a lot more to look at um and i will say that the meetings are very um we're laying it out on the table and we're being you know i think we're discussing it as but as frankly as we possibly can and see what we end up with. I've been a part of several of these over the years and it's the only way you're gonna come up with something that perhaps works. And we may do all of this and find there's a lot of things we may not be able to move forward on. But ultimately it still has to go, whatever comes out of that committee's gonna have to go to the zoning, subcommittee for the city council with the you know recommendation to go to the council to send it to us for a non-binding vote and recommendation and back to the council so and they are i will say dpd is actually going around to seeking input from from other organizations and i believe they were out to the belvedere neighborhood association so trying to get some some input from from the community as well so So stay tuned on that. I think there'll be a lot to discuss. Because the target was to be something to present by December or the end of the year. So honestly, there's a lot that has to happen between now and then. And I've been involved in a lot of these over the last 25 years. And I don't know if a lot of it, I don't know if it's going to get done, truthfully. But it has to, right? covered until the end of the year. Yeah.

You've got to continue with Clinton writing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So that would be a report. I'm going to call it a report of progress. Nothing on the book.