Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Right. [Music] Um, I will open this meeting for the Maynard Planning Board. It is August 26th at 7:02 p.m. This meeting is being held in hybrid for format which means that members of the public, the board or the applicant can participate here in town hall or virtually using the Zoom link that is provided on the agenda. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. We have all four members of the board present in town hall tonight. Uh Chris Klein, Mark Alf, Natalie Robert, and Bill Pranch. Um let's see. We'll do the minutes. We can do the minutes left. Um we'll move on to item number two. Uh the minor major minor modification determinations for 115 M Street. So Bill,

yes. In our last meeting, we discussed the first part and conditionally approved a minor modification for the wall. That's correct. Um, which some updated current as built were provided. And then we need to finish our discussion on the drainage. Correct. And I I also have would uh madam chair, we also have John who's uh town bure is joining us as well on set. Great. Hello.

Can you hear us? Okay, John.

Yep. All good. Thank you. So, we we did receive some comments um and responses um from the Apple and from Paul Ker, their engineer. Um they were just recently received. So, I thought maybe the best way we could uh use the evening um would be to I can you I said them all to you, but and I can pull them up here uh and we can walk through them and having John uh available uh probably be of help as well. So if the board is agreeable, I I would say the applicants could walk through the changes. Maybe walk the responses side there and get as much done as we can there. And um maybe uh maybe it would be a good idea to have John ask any questions he has to start. He had anything that was carried over from um

I don't think it was the last meeting. No, was it? Okay. So um does that sound good? Yes, sure. Um, just bring up bring up the letter for the audience. John, you got this, but I don't You probably had a chance to look at it yet.

Correct. Yeah, I have not reviewed any of this information yet. Okay. Um, okay. Can you see that? Can you make it bigger? Uh, yeah. There you go. How's that? and skip down past the retaining wall stuff. There you go. All right. So, um, do you want to leave this, Paul?

So, uh, we received John's letter first of all, Paul Kersner, S McNary. Thank you.

Here on behalf of the applicants, uh, we received John's letter. We went through provided responses each of the comments. So, Uh in terms of substantive changes that we've made to the proposed modification, we've replaced the uh catch facing great with an ADA um rate. Uh we have provided some additional dimensions and and elevations in the details that we provided for the modified overflow. So that it basically amounts to being more specific in the details about the actual rim elevations proposed,

the uh actual stone mortar trench elevation proposed and then the the depth had already been identified but the width of that um trench through which uh the the storm water profile. So that information was added to the overflow details. That plan has been stamped. We also provided a sketch plan. It was really the same plan we provided previously that identifies the modification areas, but we put it on a plan with our uh title block and that has been stamped. So that that was one of the concerns highlighted in um in John's letter is like who's owning this? we put our sample over there. So, we feel that we've addressed that. Uh, additionally, we did provide calculations. I certainly know that it takes a lot longer than five minutes to look through those calcs. So, um, I can go through them if you'd like, but in summary, you know, we modeled it, uh, consistent with the detail that we provided. Uh it results in the two and 10 year design storms flowing through the uh the stonework um we exclusively 100year will bubble up on top of the catch basing grate 2 in uh and that was actually less than the model that had been submitted with the original solar report predictive. the the approved plan did result in the 100red-year giant storm overflowing via that edge basin. Of course, we're now proposing to use that as our exclusive overflow. Um, but the modifications we've made with the weir, you know, as shown by the calculations, it's actually slightly less water uh over the top of that grate than what was

calculated in the uh calculations submitted a couple years ago. So, uh, We think that the the modification is actually an improvement over the existing conditions. We feel we've addressed the icing concerns. The maintenance is going to be pretty much identical to what was already approved. Of course, you now have this uh trench that would have to be cleaned with the when the catch basin is clean. Um, but that's really all going to act as one structure and and uh it's it's not a big difference in terms of maintenance. So,

I can go through the comments one by one if you want. That is really the change. All right. Thank you. Um, let's start with concerns from either the board regarding uh did anyone get a chance to look at the letter? I know that it just came in or the rather the responses. I did not neither. Do you have any thoughts? No.

Mr. Boick, I know that you also did not have time to review probably the hydraologic calculations, but um are they do they seem to be in line with what you were asking for? Um I honestly I have to go through it. Um one thing that I would definitely ask for is uh the 25-y year storm event um to be modeled as part of this Paul, have you had a chance to put that in the hydrocad?

No, we we uh we did not provide that in the in the cal and we just stuck with what was uh done previously. Okay. Is that in the original comments that they were supposed to respond to? Um I'm sorry. in in my comments. Yeah, cuz we have we have a letter with responses to I guess your comments. Yep. So,

yeah. So, um typically um we do the 2, 10, 25, and 100year storm events uh when these models are put together. So, I would just ask um if we can have that. Um I originally didn't have uh this model with this design specifically. So um again I would have to go through it and um respond. But that would definitely uh be um one of my comments to to review the 25ear storm also. Well, Bill, what do you think? I mean, not everybody has had a chance to um go over the responses. Do Should we do it one by one so that the board can

I think that would be I talk about it? I think that would make the most sense. It's not that much. It's not that much. And and it can be we can get as much work done tonight as we can and keep it moving. Okay. and and if um if there's something like that, let's see what John what John has for other stuff that's outstanding. Maybe there's some stuff that we can can just be provided. Okay. You know, post screen we like that. Paul, would you be willing to go through the drainage system modification review just to go through the ones that you know need need a response of some sort?

Yeah. Uh so can we actually look at the uh one of the plans that you just sent? Yeah, it's in this packet. I think it's going to be this one. Okay. So just when I've uh referenced it later. I think it's just helpful to see this. So got our title block on it.

We reference the um in our notes. We're referencing the uh plan it was taken from. I mean, of course, this is sketch on the approved plan. We're identifying, you know, keep the electrical box, remove this pipe, modify this in accordance with uh the stormwater overflow detail. Um, and you know, we make clear that the point of this plan is only to communicate those changes. So, this is the stormwater overflow detail. As I said, we replaced the catch facing grate on this structure with an ADA grade. We specify the uh the model here. Uh coming down to this section. So this is your retaining wall on the left edge basin. It'll overflow here. Essentially what's going to happen is storm water runoff is going to be able to bubble out through here and then spill into the river. We have a scupper here so it stays away from the wall. 15775 is the catch basin elevation that was on the approved plan. This is a 6 in uh deep uh weir here. So 15725 is the elevation of the actual weir. And this is just looking straight on at that overflow. 15775 on the top 15725 of the actual rear elevation 6 in tall. And then in order to support that frame, you know, the it it's actually 1 ft 10 in not 2 feet wide weird. Um, you know, in order to to support that frame. So then going back to the comments, um, I don't have them memorized, so I do I kind of have to read them in order to talk about them. Uh, BC recommended to all parties. This would not be a stable case, no proposed system. icing long-term maintenance. EC recommend the discharge either be piped

directly through the wall or solid as proposed. Um we do have a response here. We did provide the grates over the top of it. We're not creating an open pit or anything. The storm water will have an outlet. So uh you know during a 100red-year storm uh event water will bubble on top of that that uh catch basin about 2 in is 1 to8 as shown in our calculations. Uh that is less than the 2 that was shown in the approved calculations and realistically the water bubbles up but it has a pathway out. It's not going to get stuck. Right? If we go back to that overflow detail, uh really what that means is it's going to bubble up through the top here, be two inches above the the the rim of this structure here, but it will settle out and overflow here. And that's at the peak of the storm. That's not a prolonged discharge 2 in above that is at the high point. So just to make that clear. So I I I don't think that icing is going to be a problem here. I think that great addresses that. Um

can you zoom in a little? Yes, absolutely. Town engineer prefers you don't connect to their system. Uh our original submitt did include include uh calculations. We didn't provide them that we provided them straightforward. Uh BC recommends you just install through the wall. Um, of course that could be a solution, but I wasn't involved with the initial permitting this project. My understanding is DPW did not like that. Um, I don't know if you want to speak to that, just confirm, but that's what I've been told. They didn't like it, so that's why we're not pursuing that alternative.

They Well, I did just talk to um just and um Wayne was he didn't he didn't recall looking at particular plan. Um it was just I just asked him how

this was um it was Jackie McDonald one of our original meetings seven or so years ago um regarding this wall and where is the water going to go? What are we going to do? We had with our original engineer pose several pipes through the wall and it was just shut down immediately with our engineer in the room. Wayne was there. It was Justin. It was everybody. So this is why we didn't go that route. And they had reasons. It wasn't that they didn't prefer it. It was for whatever reasons at the time. I don't remember. We were just present for this. Yeah. So when we originally came up with these proposals, we were working with VPW and at the time Wayne was with VHB acting as the town's engineer.

Yep. And this was a consensus that was made. So which is why we're not revisiting it at this point. Y thank you for the context. Okay. So the next comment uh regarding including a manhole cover on the structure obviously that influx of what we're trying to do here. Y um

so we can discuss that if you would like but given our proposal I don't think that we need to spend time on it depending decision. Uh the next comment is about providing uh a full updated storm water report uh including you know redefining the subcatchments and I think part of that comment stems from the retaining wall location. We did submit that plan which showed it's it's very close. The difference in the subcatchment area here is going to be extremely small where it's not really going to have a tangible impact on the calculations. Um the calcs that we submitted can show a reduction in runoff rates reverse posts. Um so modif providing additional calculations recalculating everything redoing the whole storm water report. We don't think that it's measure it with the modification we're proposing. Um this proposed modification is exclusive to the overflow. It feels appropriate to model the overflow only our couch. We did provide all that was provided in the initial solar report. We took their sub catchment numbers. We inputed it to our we use different software than they did. So just to ensure that we're totally transparent about the information I'm providing show it all in our software similar reduction. Of course using the same methodology so you're getting the same results more or less. Um so we just feel that for the modification that provided are sufficient and that's really what my response here says. Uh rip wrap at the bottom of the the plunge pool here to prevent scour. There is rock there now that is solved as part of the table construction. some

rockets part of the bag. Um, this is only going to overflow when it's raining. The two-year storm event is the lowest storm event that you've analyzed, but that is over 3 in of rain. So, not as significant. Uh, the river is going to be running at that point. I'm not I don't think that scour of the river bank is going to be here. It's going to be full of water, so it's going to have a place to cover. uh we stamp the sketch plan and provide that other stamp I showed you that identifies the modifications. Uh next comments we added an 88 great this the point letter where John says if you're going to approve this at least do this. So uh we added an 88 grade and we provided the calculations I go into some detail as I said two inches above the roof and that is our story. Okay.

Thank you. Um, are there any comments from the board?

I I guess I do I do have concerns with the the the weird design instead of the standard outflow pipe through the wall. I understand which where you're coming from about this was decided long before I was here. Um, I don't know, Bill, how if it's possible to figure out why that decision was made. I don't necessarily want to go against something that was where there was a consensus on against a design seven years ago and why the applicant went a different direction. Um, but I mean I see infrastructure like this often um of what water does going down walls and I don't I don't like the design is open still or you guys Yes, you can reply. Okay. Um, if that was an option, we would not have connected to the town's overflow. Like this would not have gone this path to connect to the town's overflow. So just so that it's not just like, oh, they had a conversation and it was like some, you know, one time that is why the design was made the way it was was because we couldn't go through our wall. So this whole thing that's happening although it's less than ideal it is better than connecting to the town's system and DPW are on the same page that that is not ideal for anybody. So this is the option based on all the information that we have. That's why I mean of course it's not ideal but it's going to work. I mean it's going to work. So that I just want to make it a point to say we would have made it the passive path of least resistance for us from the beginning and we had to go that route and then

if that makes sense

and then James McDonald and then we accepted the tie into the talent because like Jackie said this was seven years, five years, four years We would accept almost anything, but I'm a builder. I know how these things work. This was the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of in my life. Backflow pretor. So the water when the water would rise in the river and come into this pipe, it wouldn't come onto our property. A backflow pretor in a good year will last maybe two years and get stuck open or closed. So that's never going to work. So now when a river rises, it only has to rise 4 feet today and it's the lowest I've ever seen it. It only has to rise 4 feet and it's into that pipe. 4 and 1/2 ft. It's into our pipe coming into our now. Once it fills ours, it's heading for our building in our garage. So we would be nuts to accept this. But we felt we had no choice because this was just going on and on and on. And most of those meetings we couldn't even talk. Not like tonight we can talk. Most of those meetings we couldn't talk. So we had pipe shoved down our throat. We accepted the pipe just to keep going. But it's ludicrous. It's nuts to put this plate the way it is. So now we'll come back with an internal. Paul's been excellent. He come up with ideas. The reason this is so high is because this water has to be I forget the word, but it has to be filtered. Okay? You can't just run a pipe under the bottom of it because then that water comes off your parking lot, goes into the tank, runs in the river. It's not what I call filtered. If it goes up,

it does the tank does its work, comes out the top, now it's treated. So that's why it probably why it's so high on the wall all the time. So that's my story. Yes. Thank you for the context. Yes.

My thought on this is I mean BL usually focuses on the surface and leaves the subterranean to the specialist. So as far as a minor major modification to me the surface treatment that's being proposed the great new stuff and position of you know that's a minor and I'm just wondering if somehow you know any possible vote could be contingent on the specialist working out the subterranean stuff as long as the surface stuff doesn't change.

Do you mean who do you mean by the specialists? I don't know. Peer view and PPW and PPW, whatever. Well, I don't care how the water once it goes underground go. I don't care. I just care that the surface works for the people who are on the plaza. Yep. Um, this is what conservation is also looking at. Correct. Yes. I mean, I I I didn't attend. Was it continued? Um, yeah,

I think what Bill said might might be good if you guys review that. Um, see what Well, maybe we should hear from John too we have here, but but uh it seems to me that's a good way forward and and um and possibly uh you know, conservation's going to address what they're going to go on the water, what they feel about that. So if uh um the the issue here is determining whether it's a minor or major modification, that's a possible way forward. I think John, do you have anything to to What are your thoughts from what you've heard? You're muted. Oh, there you go.

Yep, I got you. Um yeah, I I uh I understand the context now. I wasn't aware if uh this had came up and um they were pushed in the direction of um connecting into the town system. I do know that uh the town engineer prefers not to connect into the town system um and that has MS4 implications. It has backflow implications like um McDonald had stated. Um and I do I do agree with that. Um I do like having the outfall at this location. Um my only concern is it's just not a typical um outlet structure. Um, you can achieve if this was a piped system like I had recommended, you still can achieve an elevated um, outlet structure, you know, the original outlet was 155. Um, they're currently proposing 15725, so you're gaining, you know, a foot and a half or so. Um, if this was a pipe right under the surface, you know, you could probably gain a foot. Um so you are gaining elevation in the outlet and the likelihood of searchcharging backwards is much lower um than the town's original the town's pipe um connection that was originally uh permitted. So I do agree that this is a better solution in this location. Um it's just my concern has to do with this structure overflowing. Um, you know, it seems as if I know it's called the 100red-year storm, but we seem to get them quite often. Um, another concern that I was thinking about as we were looking at this is, you know, ideally you want to have a controlled flow at the 100redyear storm event. Things don't always work out the 100redyear storm event, but you want to have a controlled outlet. Um, and I'm not sure offhand

what the uh volume um would be going through this grate if it was to overflow, what that looks like. Um, that's one of my questions. Um, so you don't have any uplift pressure on that grate itself. Um, and that's that's pretty much it. I just I'm interested in the reverse flow through this grate at the 100year storm event. I'm also interested in the 25-year storm event to see what happens with this. But I do think um as I had recommended that a pipe solution, a closed solution um where there isn't a possibility, zero possibility of this um being an issue at all with the uh with the walking path or you know during a rain event or anything. Um and again um I mean you could put a backflow pre on an outlet pipe in this location. Um, you know, we use them all the time and they do last a long time. Not talking about like a gate valve or uh just a plumbing backflow pre like an actual uh red valve type um inline backflow, but I don't really think it's necessary. Um it'd be better having passive th flow through a pipe or a double barrel pipe if you wanted to gain more elevation. So that's my two cents. All right. Uh

I do have one comment. Um this property is within the 100year flood plane. There's at elevation 160. Now of course the site could experience a 100year rain event where the entire watershed does not. But if the wershed experienced a 100redyear rain event, the whole thing's flooding no matter what we do. It's our elevation 160. So 2 in I mean you're talking 2 ft over the top of the bed.

So this really is going to be the two in the tent is when it's going to be overflowing. The old design overflowed via the catch basin during the tent. we're proposing the two and 10 or providing a defined overflow whereas of course John's made his comments we've made some modifications as a result I mean we when we initially submitted this we were just proposing it to go over the top of the catch base and now we've added the the weir we've added the ADA compliant grates we've given it a defined place to overflow it's going to overflow during the tent anyway we've added the tube but it's a a more intentional design than it was previously I think this is just a unique situation storage right along the water. Typically, I I would prefer a pipe. Uh but just due to clearance connecting the pipe to the uh to the chamber structure, providing an overflow, there's limitations on what you can do. Uh the elevation of that uh overflow right now is 15675. that the reason they did that is cuz they really couldn't get any higher uh while keeping it within the structure just due due to clearance. I mean maybe a little bit but but not so much. So we'd be dealing with the same problems here and it's sort of an unconventional situation where there's no low point to to provide uh an outlet. It's either connecting to a pipe or connecting straight to the river. I think this provides the most capacity possible. This is going to result in way fewer storm events actually overflowing into the river.

Excuse me. I think John was not involved before. So of course he doesn't know the reason why we couldn't do this pipe system. Like Jackie said, of course it would have been our Yes. lease. So we can't do a pipe system, right? So a lot of this stuff

we kiss can't do it. Yep. So, so let let me So the way this works, you have this coldtech uh recharge system, right? That's the bottom. And then if that fills up during a huge storm, this is going to backflow into your catch basin, right? And then that's zero overflow. What we're talking about if that system fills up. Yes. And then

so really we're not and maybe I'm wrong. Uh maybe Bobick will tell me I'm wrong, but I don't see us getting like a giant storm that's going to fill up that system in the wintertime and fill up that catch basin and then ice at that time of year and cause an icing situation over the top of that. So last winter it's rain rain last four years rained unbelievable. Now the last couple of months haven't but we've had that system in for a long time now. But if it's raining, that's probably going to dissipate by the time it freezes. Yeah, that's working perfectly. Apparently, how the system installed is what I was trying to say,

right? I I guess the biggest thing isn't the biggest thing I'm worried about is long-term degradation of the wall with if it does ice. But now I'm trying to see how that works. It's going to be like a trough so it's not spilling. My biggest issue is just erosion of the wall and below it long term. Those are the things I'm thinking off. It's going to be like cement that's going to push it out. It's going to push it out so it won't actually hit won't actually hit the wall. It's not run through the wall. Does that have enough grade on it to not come back? Yes, I guess that would be Yeah, that I'm sure it was designed that way. Yeah, you already mentioned that. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, thank you. I have May I ask a question? Yeah. and of the um and of John. Um given what we've heard of this, would the board be comfortable con uh conditioning their minor modification determination on uh offline work with John and Paul to get this anything last minute stuff rectified? Well, my question I mean conservation already has to approve this, right? Right. It has to for them either way. So,

I don't do we even need to condition it on that? That's already we don't even need to condition it on that, do we? Well, John had mentioned he wanted 25 year storm added to the board can determine whether or not they are right. Yeah. I mean, we don't have to confirm. I'm personally not super concerned about providing 25-year storm modeling given that we have what was originally provided and given that the some of the outcomes are decreased from the previous system personally I don't know how the rest of the board feels.

Yeah, good way. Like I said, you know, as long as the surface doesn't change, then as long as the surface doesn't change, it's it's a minor and you know, they can cons or whatever can play with everything subterranean or me.

Mark, anything? Yeah. All right. Okay. Yeah, that's from the Oh, yes. Uh, oh, right. It's just the major minor location. Sorry.

That's a good um All right. So, what are we looking at in terms of language? Oh, the proposed change will revisions um provide the applicants um submittal from today constitute a minor modification um as far as sport's concerned and would be um obviously have to go through the conservation commission and the one thing that uh we need are the um that they're going to follow only the um recommendations that they've agreed to with that John had sent already in their letter today and that um a uh set of asphalts at the end we're going to need as we said but they're finding that the the proposed change constitutes a minor modification the site plan and the special um I do have one other question that Junior and Jackie made Um, regarding development agreement, do we need to do anything for that at this point? We may need to add

probably update the plans. Probably update the plan. Yeah. Well, the as Yeah, just the as I mean the development agreement as far as the prominade and the maintenance and the easement and the accountability and the insurance and everything has already been updated, right? So the last thing to be updated in that into the development agreement. So we'll do one more amendment at the end with the as I think that makes sense. And maybe this survey as well once we discuss that

you're just looking upate the development agreement exhibits as applicable if it needed. Yeah. Right. All right. If there's no other comments from the board, um is there anything else that you'd like to Yeah, go right ahead. Yeah. Um this I think we're on the same page here, but just to be clear, there are comments in the review letter that we are refuting. So, we're not asking you to vote to uh No, as discussed tonight. As discussed. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yep.

Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page and we'll make sure that when it's written up that that's clear so that we won't, you know, sign anything until it reads what we've been talking about. Right, Bill? Yeah. But we're not going to, this doesn't get a decision. It's just a letter certification of the vote as an as an exhibit. So, I guess I guess I'm a little confused by the last name. In other words, Paul they like were your responses here, right? So, we have provided detailed responses, right? But like for example, you know, uh one of these comments is put a manhole cover on top of the structure

that conflicts with what our actual proposal is. So, basically, we're saying no. So, sorry, I'm not as quick with motions as our regular chair. So I'm going to roll this. But so the only things that we need to put in are updating the development plan as necessary to uh uh update the development agreement. So okay,

yeah, I got we got three things. Okay. First of all, if it would be that it determining whether it constitutes a minor or major modification. Um I the where um I had mentioned to Jack is that part of that uh is that we will need a set of AS bills at the end and we we will probably want to incorporate the final plans as bills into the development agreement as an exhibit which we can just we can do after condition. So that's easy. What I got what I'm confused about is probably me. I'm sorry. Um, okay. John. Oh, did you lose John? I'm still here.

Okay. Um, we should get, you know, the everything that Paul has agreed to and and the McDonald's have agreed to, you've heard. Yep. It's already on there, Bill. So, everything we've agreed to was already been implemented. Yeah. And so, anything that was not, you're saying, right? Is there any question about that, John? I guess that's my question cuz I'll just use this as an exhibit. No.

Okay. So, can we just say consistent with conversation tonight uh and with the applicants date? I think the letter stated today. Yeah. 8:26 and the plan dated today. 8:26. And I'll just include them as exhibits and write your letter. Make sense? Yep. You don't want to use this one. That's okay.

Um, all right. I'll make a motion to uh determine the proposed changes to the drainage system from the approved plan are a minor modification um for the river prominade. to the approved special permit and site plan. Um provided that the final as built will be provided and updated plans and exhibits consistent with the conversation tonight, including the letter dated August 26, 2025 will be included in the Oh my god, guys. Um,

that's it. Yeah, that's it. Right. The determination in the determination. Thank you. I'll second. Thanks. You uh uh well, all in favor, that's 4 Z. All in f in favor of the minor modification determination. Good. So then you guys So we'll just connect on that. And when are you going before the conservation? Is it the 9th? So now it's their problem. Two weeks. Okay.

Okay. No,itionally, John. Thank you for your Thank you for coming. Thanks, guys. Have a good night. Thanks. Are we understanding that the wall was conditionally approved? Yes. And I haven't talked to Chris, but based on this, it looks fine to me. Yeah, I I got it. I have it drafted up um being better last. Okay. And and the condition this I have a large copy if you need it. I don't know. I Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you. And maybe can we get that Chris? Yeah, I can get it. It was only off by Yes, I think I need to know Oh, and then you try to throw a curveball with Harry. Yeah. Is she? Yeah, she's her hand raised.

I think that's Is that not just the cursor? No. Oh, don't believe so. I don't know how long it's been up. I'm not sure. Oh, it is. You have a hand cursor. Okay. Sorry. It's right by your name. You're right. It is the cursor. Sorry, it is Abby. Right next to your name. Yeah. Anything in here at all? Um, okay. Uh, yeah. Jack, you want to stand back? Oh, I just It's good. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Um, next on the agenda.

We have uh we have two items. Uh, I need to open them. Well, we yeah, we we we opened They're both open. Okay. But we couldn't we discussed the planning uh the uh parame overlay district and but we didn't have a chance to discuss them now. Okay. So, but whatever is the board's pleasure tonight. I both I think we have two uh folks attending I think that want to address the powder mill. Um oh my neighbor too Abby who's on who's okay online. Well, we got she's working tonight. So, E may be in and out. Oh, there she is. Hi.

Hi. I don't have a comment now. I was just I was hoping to listen in for a little bit and then I absolutely So, we we have two eggs. So, one is a text and one is the M. All right. Um, two minus five. Not yet. Not yet. In a second. Right. We have to reopen the hearing. Yeah. So, can I do them both? Can I open them both or you want to do them one at a time? You should do one at a time. Okay. I'm going to reopen the hearing on the powder mill overlay district, not the map. We're going to talk about the text first. So that's agenda item four.

Um greeting zoning regulations for PMOD subjects subdistricts DE and F. Um because I am Did we basically finished talking about that last time? Correct. But here's the math I can pull up. But I was approved. Did we approve it last time? No. Okay. We've made a tiny couple tiny edit. Yeah. Right. All right. Um Yeah. It's just that if we're if my I had a question. If you're going to talk about the items that are pertaining to the map. Yes.

I haven't we're I'm pretty late to this. So, um it won't make sense. It won't make clear sense if I don't know like looks like you're pulling it up now, but Yes, we'll pull it up. Okay. Thank you. Because I'm If you're talking about certain areas, I won't know where the We'll make sure we pull it up as we're discussing it. Thanks. I appreciate it. Um, yeah. So, there's nothing that there's nothing new that we haven't discussed. Can't see anything. Um, all right. So, I mean, this is TEF. Yep. And, um, you know,

and where they're located. I'm going to try to pull the map of my mind. So this is Powdermill Road E begins. I can't see the streets. Powdermill road is the on the on the screen. It's the white corridor going correct. So the um the yellow is the residential the houses on one side of the street. The housing complex on the right. I live in one of those and so does my friend. Let's see. D extends from the old John Deere building down to those landscaping guys, which is basically the northerly edge of the Elks Club. Okay. All right. I must be

closer to see where are you? I'm at 99 Powder Mill Road, which is the cross street is Birch. We're right right across the street from the senior residence. From the senior Oh, you're way down there. Okay. Right. You're closer to You're closer to F. You're one or two streaks over here to the left of F there in the green. Oh, okay. You're about here. All right. Yeah. Yeah, we're Yeah, that makes sense. What number are you said? 99. Yeah, you like right in here. I'm across the street. Yeah, because there's a a vacant home across the street as well, right next door to them.

So, just to clarify tonight, C is the residential area. We're not actually making any updates to the plan about C right now. Everything is staying as it is. Um which is a little beyond that just sorry you know one at a time please. Um it's you know what it is right now. So single familyo homes mostly on the one side of the street and the housing complex on the other side of the street. Nothing will be changing at the moment for that. Okay. Right now we're just talking about the commercial elements in P and E and then F. Okay. Which is the um the storage place. Right.

Right. Okay. No, that's good. Okay. Great. Well, no. I mean, I'm still interested in all this point. So, I kind uh 70. Yeah. Uh and right here. Let's see. You got pull it up on here. You might have this bring it tonight. We do this. Well, you go ahead. Is that the plaza? Was that big building the plaza? My lips, sir. Plaza get 76. You got middle sex.

Okay. All right. So, this is my property. My property and my property right there. We right there. Yeah. Those are my You're in G anyway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Dawn Road is here. Yeah. That's right across. Do you have commercial or Okay. So, um, Phil Cranchov, was there anything we were going to discuss about this or is this

um, none of the regulations. Regulations were discussed last time. Um, big picture is the overlay is the home here thing. If if the owner of the property wants to use the overlay rags, they can. Otherwise, they can just use the existing base regulations. It's up to them. Um and the overall themes are A and F are going for um well F anyway is going for more business uses. It's currently zoned industrial which has a relatively limited pallet of uses and trying to get uh more business options. D and E are already zone for lots of business operations and this mostly is focused on mixed use. So that you know currently business doesn't allow residential but this overlay would allow mixed use with a commercial on the first floor and residential upstairs. It's like you wrote it.

Yeah. So, what we've done just for since you're here, we've already um a right that's designated. We haven't done anything with B. We haven't done anything with C. We're not sure exactly because these are mostly existing neighborhoods right now. And so the idea was these are the most suitable next right so this is going to be sorry Melissa Pal 16 do we show public comment okay

just for the minutes and stuff uh I'll officially open the meeting to public comments if you yes state your name and your address for the

uh executive of the victor a Maran tonal trust at 68 and 70. I'm a little concerned with why it's taken so long number one to get to E and D and then it it looks like from what I can tell you guys have changed the setbacks instead of you know it I have that you changed the setbacks going from to increase to 175. Do you mean that it's taken us so long to get to the zoning?

Uh, well, from my understanding, this was supposed to be voted on three years ago, right after my dad died at town meeting. Um, as I'm sure you're all aware, the property is for sale because both of my parents are deceased. And uh, we've got a number of people very interested in our property, but this has taken so long and every time we come up, we get or potential buyers get a completely different take on what's going to happen with END. So that's that's why I'm here because

so END are I mean they they are you are allowed to have businesses there. They're already zoned for what they're zoned for. This is an overlay district that's optional in terms of why it takes so long. This is it. We're we're writing it and we're doing it. But look I mean I made us do a first. Yeah. The state required us to do a first. Since then, we've held a lot of public meetings and usually to be fair, it's it's us in this room.

Oh, I My father used to say that all the time. My father used to come up here constantly. My father knew everybody in the town building. So, I understand that. I'm just getting to the point where I can understand what's going on with all of this because I really understand it. So, that's why I'm here. So the big picture is whatever you can do on any of those properties in DNE today, you can do that same thing tomorrow. Nothing changes that. But you now also have an option of if you want to do some residential, you can do that, but you got to go by the new rules. But anything business you want to do today that you can do today, you can just keep doing it. Same setback, nothing changes. But there's if you want to do residential over commercial, do a mixeduse project, then you can if you follow the new rules.

Is that an increased setback? I'm just curious if you have residential what's the fact she was lots of different setbacks in which I thought that they increased I I so my engineer basically because I have gotten an engineer plan now to see what we could do um it said now all of a sudden it's multifamily without Mixed use is not allowed. So I have to It's not allowed. Matt,

it's it's not allowed and it won't be Yes. The the proposal is that it will have to be mixed use, which means a mixed commercial and residential project. See, I didn't understand. I didn't understand either. I thought it was either or up to you. Yeah. that I thought because you know if somebody wants to put 40 apartments there on my property, they can't do that unless they put retail on the bottom. Correct. That's absolute. Yeah, that that's the option. If they wanted to do that over in a they could just put a big old apartment building, but along the river it can't be a standalone apartment building. It has to be mixed use

because the whole the whole point of the revitalization of the corridor was to not just drop in more only residential units but have m mixed use I didn't realize that it's not another great road like actton right yeah no because they have limitations on how high you can go but today you can't even have any residential theoretical can we since the concern seems to be setbacks Can we scroll to the setbacks? I don't know. I'm just I'm just I'm just wondering where she mentioned it. I think we're talking about It's not my It's not in my area, but I don't know if they're the same. Yeah,

that's what PI engineer said. Yeah, I was just curious. Is this the river the river setbacks that we were trying? Well, maybe that's what they're talking about. I don't know. I mean there's no change in existing setback for existing business uses. Here's what we have current rules but if you wanted something new I think I have that excuse that we have some slightly different numbers.

Oh there okay so what do we say you're you're in E. Right. No, D. Okay. So, so I have to it would have to be 1,000 square ft per unit, right? So, and you can calculate all the area. So you can build on it like you have an easement of yours or you have whatever maybe a set back on the um on the river what you know from the you count all your land in other words

and so it works it gives you extra in that you use it you just can't build it in you're not supposed to move but you can use it here make sense nothing makes sense right now I'm a little too tired for it to make sense but I'm here you're not losing. In other words, the number of units, whatever the calculation comes to, let's just say for argument sake, it's 25 units. Okay? You might not be able to put the 25 units in this particular location because it's a conservation area. But you would just move them over here. You could have twice as many here. So, you're not losing anything. You're just ready to go. Okay. All right.

So, is George is your engineer? Yeah. Okay. So, I sent him a draft of this. Yes. And I And this is more or less the same. Probably changed a little bit, but Yeah. And actually, one thing I do recall I was doing early on is we actually increased the height allowed like by 5T or something over existing just to be able to get some extra residential. Yeah. But most of these most of the setback stuff really hasn't changed. No. Uhuh. I don't I don't remember. I don't think it's changed at all. I think I think what they got mixed up on

is it the I think it's the open space 100% beyond 175% back from the front edge. Right. So, this is talking about to keep people from being able to build too close to the river. Um what we did is because the river edge is always changing as I'm sure you know, it's not a static thing.

Yes. Instead of trying to calculate how close to the river edge you can build, which it will be different in 30 years than it is now, we calculated it from the frontage line, the front line of your property back towards the river. Meaning that you can't build closer than 175 ft from your property line at the street backwards in terms of building a building. Okay. Well, I can only Okay, I'm getting there. Okay, I'm getting there. Yeah. So, it's from the front. Yes. Back of the sidewalk. Yes, that's good.

Okay. And then it's 50 ft. And 50 ft. Okay. I just printed this up right before I left. So, yeah, the front edge and the width that that definitely did not change. That's what it is today for the existing businesses that are allowed today implement. Okay. I can't really think of anything else that changed although that I think height increased allowable height I think increased from 40 ft to 45. I think it did. And additionally our 100% beyond 175 ft of frontage is already more generous than what conservation right didn't we already talk about? Yeah, it's actually

conservation won't let you build beyond that anyway. You know, uh you're not fair. Well, what I have on my paperwork is that they're going by the flood plane that affects the area. Yes. To count to count to calculate the area. Well, they're talking I have two I I have a 100redyear flood plane. Yep. And a 200year flood plane. Yep. And now I guess conservation is saying that we have to when this whole thing first started we could build up to the hundredyear flood plane and now they're saying no we can't we can only build up to the 200 year that

that could be that's that's not their decision though that's usually state I mean that's that's nothing we did and other than like if there's something that's contained and and it it has become exclude up to 20% wetlands or something or uplands and so there are a few restrictions there but even if that was the case building there you could still use most I think majority of the area to calculate how many units you could put it then yeah you get a an acre of stuff that yeah there is says you can't build on it's like fine right means I can build 40 units next street

when you're calculating area and you can only use so much that's not top one that there's I think there is an exemp in the bylaws there's a little bit there is a certain exemption but it's minimal I think it's 20% but yeah all right well there's some comments online oh yes are there any comments online if there are you can either use the raise raise hand feature or just you know turn on your video and raise your hand and we will we have uh is it

yeah we have several people so anyone who wants to make a comment please raise your hand okay Wendy and yeah I believe Wendy is my sister are there any more comments I don't online Okay. Okay. So, what this this one I'm completely new to the party and you just say your name and address

sorry on 99 Pill Road. Um my understanding right now is that area C is still sort of pending. Yes. Is there any sort of pending is kind of a strong word. Yeah, I know. We haven't even started looking at started it. So, so when because I haven't been to the town meetings, um I don't know how large they usually are. Um I also own a home with my family in a napkin. Um we're not that big.

Yes, I see that. Um, and I'm very worried because I'm on a very busy street and I already have a lot of current concerns about the traffic, the lack of sidewalks, the lack of the crosswalks.

Um, I almost um, so I have a lot of concerns about safety and pedestrian friendly and even just being outside your house friendly. Um, and I see that there's a lot of that written in these plans that you're making, which is great. Um, but as someone who is fixing up my cute little house, um, I I'm very worried that I'm going to have just a lot of um, you know, buildings and parking lots and not you know, more traffic, you know, unm unmaintained traffic, so to speak. Um it's

they've got they've got big rigs and people flying past my house shakes. I mean nobody adheres to speed limit and um I'm shocked that there are no side no crosswalks. No crosswalks. I mean none of my neighbor doesn't pave the road clear the the um sidewalks so you can even use the sidewalk. Yeah. So thank you for your comment for sure. That's just a general thing about all of these projects. Yes. You know,

so I mean one of the reasons that we wanted in conjunction with Actton to tackle the powder mill corridor as we call it is because we know it's heavily heavily used. Um there are a lot of problems in terms of updating you know accessibility for pedestrians, for bicyclists and for making it you know appropriate for commuters too who do need to go through. Um so these are all things that we

have to that we'll that we are taking into consideration. Um all of the overlay you know the overlay district that we've that we've written makes people who use the district make pedestrian improvements. Um we've talked a lot about uh complete streets which is you know the program that the town does to to make the streets more appropriate in terms of having sidewalks having signal lane having crosswalks. Yeah. Um people don't follow the speed limit. And if there are when without I do believe that when you have more crosswalks, drivers are reminded. Yes.

And I mean I literally it's terrifying if I'm gardening right in my front of my house with the sidewalk. I feel like I'm going to get hit by a car just like creamed not and big brakes falling. I mean it's just the speed limit I think is actually just too for sure that without enough break that specifically is an enforcement issue which is not us but these are issues that we are definitely taking into into consideration and we'll continue to do so. I mean, we're we haven't tackled C yet because we know that the residences that are there and uh the residents, you know, we we hope to maintain the neighborhood feelings that we have for the neighborhoods that are there

and um make sure that, you know, it just becomes safer. So, no, that's good. And I and I do appreciate that these things are mentioned in the planning. I mean, I see that there's, you know, when it comes to enforcement, I mean, that's always the

Well, it's more than enforcement. I mean, the the overall plan as it is the legally you're allowed to drive too fast. Um, legally, it's not a, you know, it's not a side, it's not a pedestrian friendly space. So, when I read these plans that sound great, I'm like, nobody is actually doing anything to maintain and create that in what we've already got. So, it's sort of like, you know, I just want to make sure that it's not just a part, you know, parking lots and commercial use that then is just adding to the pool of non-compliance and, you know, nobody's enforcing.

Yes. Well, I think there's two things if I can. Yes, two things. It's and I we're hearing it and and this board is very sensitive with pedestrian and non motorized vehicle circulation. Um I we try to be the best to do what we have. But with this plan, I think the overlay, one thing that's important to remember is this offers an option to what can go there now. and what can go there now probably would be something you wouldn't like as much as the mixed use where it is a more a less car oriented environment. So right now for example in in do some of the business uses

might not have any resonance it just be a more intense business or whatever it could be. So this at least the overlay the idea is to give it a shape and a cohesion together so it works together. Yeah. And the other thing that would be of interest to you and and we don't have this so but we've applied for it but um uh the chair mentioned um complete streets and you know that's basically more of a philosophy than anything and I think what you're talking about is the poultry is automobile and people feel it's okay to go fast. safe. You know, you know, the pedestrian secondary,

there's ways of designing to it's sort of like the invisible thing, the things you can add that slow people down without speed bumps or even necessarily the the speed limit. Um, obviously it's a throughway for emergency vehicles. I understand that. I lived right across the street from it and you know, they're amazingly quiet and don't actually don't bother me at all. It's the big regs and the just car speeding. Um

but I'm not anti- business. Um no at all. It's not that. What I what I am worried is that when you add more and add more and then nobody's doing anything with the other problems and maintaining the sidewalks that we already have and you know and I'm not sure who I know this meeting is specifically about these projects but you know I'm pretty new to Maynard so I haven't been you know I'm not aware who I speak to about the sort of you can always call you can always call I can do you call my office and we can always We spoke briefly at one of the um I think at the powder mill. Do we just speak? Did you go to my house? No.

No. But one of the outreach met sessions there. Yeah. No, I don't think so. This is literally my first Okay. thing because now I'm getting worried. I think so. What I was say what I was going to end with what I wanted to say is that we have a grant we've requested the town has to do the whole corridor uh planning and and engineering plans for new sidewalks and uh we're not sure exactly where we but but we're hoping bike uh lanes uh and things that would naturally traffic calm so we'll know hopefully we're working on that as possible crosswalks I think are key kids Yeah, but I see strollers and little toddlers

crossing with no like they have to stand there in the road waiting. It's crazy. This it is crazy. This is a good I think that we should connect you with Bill because he also in terms of enforcement he can connect you with the right people. Stop that. You know, it might be a matter of I know that there's a new um also traffic and safety something, right? Yeah. with the police department in terms of identifying places around town that really need some extra eyes on them, that sort of thing. So, Bill can connect you with So, back to the bike path though. Is that going to be a separate off the road bike path or you just trying to put one on the street? It hasn't been it hasn't been planned. So, if we get this

I can barely get out of my driveway. This is a larger redesign. This is starting a whole new design and it will be a process where public will be involved and everything. I'm just saying that we're taking steps to try to get that. We recognize what right two lanes I can for me to back out of my driveway I butt into the other lane. So I'm just even that is a safety issue. Yep. You know. Yep. So all right. Well, thank you. Anyway, not to be a big, you know, naysayer or negative. I'm just worried that's all. Um, could you speak up? Yes.

All right. So, uh, since we opened this and we just, you know, we discussed basically last time all the changes that we had talked about the small tweaks, is this something that we can vote on now? The language for what you're going to Yeah. What I would ask the board was vote on uh the text um that I'll pull up first and then we to open the hearing again for the Yep. on that. Are you going to check for any more comments? Uh, we can. Let's see. Do you want us to vote on the text before we open the map? Well, you got to close this hearing or something. So, sure. Close it now and then we'll vote on the text or vote on the text and close it. Okay. No. Does anybody else have any comments online?

All right. None. Uh, I'll make a motion to close the gearing on the text of the powder mill overlay district subdists DE and F. Second. Um, all in favor raise your hands. That's 4 Z. Bill. Okay. Four to zero. Thank you. Um, and now I will make a motion to What am I doing? I'm going to make a motion to recommend amendments as prevented to section 9.7 to the town meeting. All right. We're going to recommend approval. I

make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment creating zoning se regulations for PMOD subdistricts DE and F and updating and updating wait sections as as and updating section 9.7. Do I have a second by Mark? Seconded by Mark. All those in favor by hand. That's 40 to recommend the proposed amendments to town meeting. So now you have to come to town and um let me and then if you close you want to close that hearing.

Close I make a motion to close the hearing for POD subdistress D and F text. Wait. Oh, we already did. We already did that. I did close it. I got correct. I will open the public hearing on the zoning map amendment for the power mill overlay district subdistricts DE and F continued from June 24th 2020. And here's our map. Bill, what? No, the other one. Do you have anything to say about the map? You don't want to I'm sorry. I was just seeing if he had anything to say about the map. Yeah, I know. I'm trying to get the map. You want this map down?

Yes.

All right. The map boundaries. Section F is basically the piece of Wendy's that's in Mayard and um the uh self storage place. Um D goes from the old uh John Deere building down to the uh northerly edge of the Elks property which is wooded. E goes from the Elks property down and it touches what is the boundary for the DoD, the downtown overlay district. So it touches that and those are the items. Okay. Are there any comments from the board regarding the map? And Bill, you've discussed this with Chris. Yes. I don't think Chris has any questions about the map.

Chris Arsenal doesn't have any questions about the map. Okay.

Um uh I will open the map up to public comment if anyone in the room or online has any questions about the map as it is currently shown or as it was currently shown. Um, all right. So, this makes sense since that's Am I going to be given an opportunity to ask a question on a specific house after this the map? Um,

is it in one of these? It's not in it's in C unfortunately not tonight but I we would be happy to talk to you offline about specifics. Okay. Um we just haven't even delved into C yet. But yeah, somebody told me the house had sold. So I I just wasn't sure and someone else told me that the city town of Mayor may have bought it. So I'm just wondering what that empty house belongs to. Now we don't know anything about that. Oh, okay. Bought it. No. All right. Um

so this one after after you close quote hearing what we're doing is we re it would be uh vote whether to uh recommend changes to the town zoning map as

so and that right and the recommendations for town may but this is not this is to town zoning map. Okay. Um I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. seconded by Mark. All in favor, please raise your hand or nothing. And now I will make a motion to recommend changes to the town uh an amendment to the town zoning map for powder mill overlay district subd districts E and F uh to be recommended at town meeting.

Second. Thanks Mark. All those in favor, please raise your hand. That's 40 to recommend the map to the zoning to change the zoning at town meeting. Thanks, Bills. Wolf, thank you. Um, sure. What's your minute? I mean, only so I was here, but I wasn't voting on these matter. Yeah, I'm just going to glance real quick because I read these a while ago. Sure. Anyway, nice to meet you.

Thank you for your time. Bye. Thank you. Sorry. Don't be sorry. Thanks for coming. Get that get that card. I will. Thank you. I don't have your card ready.

I didn't. Does anyone have any comments on the June 24th year? I was these a long time ago. I don't remember. It looks a couple times. We just never looks okay to me. I'll make a motion. Oh, I'll make a motion to approve the items from June 24th, 2025. Seconded by two different people but marked first. All those in favor raise your hand. That's four nothing. And now July 8th 20 minutes

yellow thing in the front yard. No, that's next door. That's across the street. That's Yeah, look too

Hey, Bill. We're probably still picking you up on video on audio. Bill, in a lot of cases like looks like the speed and stuff it get in there. We're gonna pick you up here. No, I up on audio. Yeah, it's probably transcribing your whole conversation. Um, all right. Any comments on the July 8th minutes? Anybody?

Yes. [Music] Oh yeah, there was a brief brief two to three minute internet out. Was that that night? Hey, what happened to our exciting night? Did we approve those minutes yet? Was that this night? No. You mean the the Yes. Zoom bomb? Yes. Did we already do those? That was a while ago. Really? At Blooms.

Did you? I know. I had to edit I had to edit video. I bet you did. So, was a friend of yours? Well, so on Minnesota July 8th. Yes. It's the very last page. It has references to Mar voting which is fine but I don't understand why we need it but all the votes all night by nothing. What was different? Chris had to leave Chris the He was still there when he was nominated for chair.

Yeah. Oh well, I think the notation is Chris don't or something. All right, let's see. Oh. Oh, I didn't vote and he didn't vote or something. That sounds right. It doesn't matter. Strike mark. Mark vote in because we don't care. We care about you. Good. Not that. You really want to strike it or do you not care? No, I'd strike that to say Chris did not vote or or just add Chris did not vote. The last page, Miss Robert nominated Chris Arsenal as the chair of the planning board. Seconded by Mr. Black, right? Add on to the next line. Chris didn't vote. Chris Arsenal didn't.

And then do you want to do the same thing for me? I think so. He probably And then after the next one, you can say Natalie didn't vote. Okay, let us close. Who cares? But okay, back research 100 years ago. Yeah, research is a hundred years.

What kind of Who's this art guy? All right. Nobody knows. Any other comments from the board? I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 8th, 2025 with the two additions as discussed tonight. Second. All in favor raise your hands or nothing. Is there a planning update? Oh, did you do the 24th, right? We did it already. It pass with nothing. Uh planning update. Um Okay, great. When do you think you're going to hear in some these grant proposals?

That should be usually they come out about 700, so it should be soon. I got four in. We're writing new ones in the meantime. So, but we got four good ones. I want to get the I I really need that housing production plan. I need the ADA. I need them all. But I just write them again. And um that's it. I'm uh I think we're good. I'll make a motion to close the meeting. Second. All those hands for nothing to All right. So, we're back on schedule now for the second and fourth. Yeah. Now, uh Jeff is out. Jeff is out the next one, too, he thinks. So,

I'm here. Be on deck. I'm here. I told you. See, we get right up. Hey, shut it down. There. Make sure that