Planning Board - Regular Meeting

this meeting may be broadcast or be rebroadcast on Westford cat uh we are missing one but anticipate he will be here uh we'll start with open Forum Joe that no Mr chair anybody on the board no thank anybody in the audience all right moving along uh we do have a public hearing this evening pb25 3 185 littlton Road can I get a motion to wave the reading some Mr chair I'm wondering if um wait don't it's up to the applicant um you may be having uh one additional board member show up you are seeking a special permit you do need four out of five votes I don't anticipate this being an issue no I think we got good comments back from so I think we'll be good all right so uh motion to wave the reading so moved second uh before we open the public hearing uh they do ask for a waiver to reduce the uh plan size for in the for the submitt and then request a waiver of additional plan requirements under 9.44 94.5 let's discuss those you guys okay with that waving the plan submitt that's Rel to the site plan have plan indicating the approximate location of where the existing pylon is just certified PL plan not you're comfortable with that it's the same location it's remaining in the same location they're changinging I'm fine all right uh all right is there a motion to open the public hearing well you V you didn't vote on uh waving the reading yeah thought we had a motion in second I'm not sure say I no thank you well do we need to vote on the waivers now or do

it with the V on now so we don't foret motion to wave the plans side submitt is the wave the additional plan requirements as requested and discussed so move second all those in favor say I I motion to open the public hearing so moved second all those in favor say I I thank you good evening my name is Carol and Parker three laori and AV Worcester Massachusetts I'm here representing global who is the leasy of the property at 185 Littleton Road basically just had to remove the manual prices so people don't have to go out and change them on a daily basis to install just one LED price sign that's the way people are doing it now they're not showing you three prices they usually just regular and if they have diesel they'd show that so it's just a reface maintain the location the square footage the sign's already illuminated there is an LED price sign across the street at the hner so great um I'll go to the board any questions Bob yeah the only question I had was about that single price I thought it was odd because I think some of the other locations have three and four digital prices still but it's really is it going to rotate no it's going to just stay one price for un leted basally yes and that's what most people are doing now like I said unless they have diesel they'll have regular and Diesel on the price side if it's a if it's a did you know um LED like that no I have no questions thank you any questions no it doesn't blink or anything right no that would be other clients I like the kick yeah yeah all right I just say one question I had is around the brightness of it this sounds ridiculous but it was LED lights um are usually brightest during the

daytime and they dim as it gets darker out um any problem you know you have a a 1 to 10 for brightness they usually put them around 8 if you have a problem you come around the corner you're like holy crap um give us a call we'll take care of that you can it yes guess Rel to that question the amount of light being emanated um should be less than what is currently there with the reflected light off of the manual sign correct yeah okay and some people have lighting bylaws and I don't know how they can tell if the sign's not up and how to you know what I mean so and it has a lot of landscaping around it so yeah thanks all right um fine anybody from the audience any questions concerns staff anything you want to add no she answer my one question in response to her last comment we do have to worry about lighting emanation here because of know I understand but some towns have these you know let me finish this comment you so just just because we do have to ask about lighting on anything we do because we have an agreement with hyack Observatory for seti so um I think you're going to have more light off that canopy then you are going to worry about we have more light as I was indicating already from the reflected light today right as opposed to the emitted light from the LEDs exactly so but I know you made you have three gas stations on you know three corners so right but that's not going to be a problem all right can I get a motion for Pb 2503 185 Littleton Road for a special permit within section of 5.3.5 we need to close the hearing make a motion we close the hearing for 185

little all those fav say I I I all right want to make the uh motion for the permit Bob I'll make a motion um that we approve a special permit for Pb 2503 for the the new sign at 185 Littleton Road motion second all those in favor say I I thank you very much thanks have a good night you too okay moving on General business PB 21102 Defender subdivision for 0 and 37 carile road Diane Lane request for minor modification reduce the number of plantings and monuments set Mr JT so um this is kind of in conjunction with item uh B on the under General business with the street acceptance but first is this minor modification um just going through process trying to wrap things up there were two items reduction of monuments uh for figuring out the geometry of the roadway um the engineering department did opine that they were fine with that they still could do that even despite the reduction of the two monuments and then the other one for request to reduce Three Trees within the right of way um from 44 to 41 I imagine the applicant may explain where some of those came from I'm guessing it probably was result from conflicts that were unanticipated like with a any infrastructure underground or something like that with the root system but let them speak to them uh engineering have any comment on the um The Monuments they were fine with The Monuments uh reduction um they didn't comment on the trees all right I'll go the I stole Three Trees to put at my house and didn't want uh this is a case of between lot five and six really it is a conflict with utilities in a case like this would the front is reduced we a driveway a gas line a water line and

power but also when we get into the space between lot five and six that's that's open space recreational but we left it fully wooded and we're looking probably for credit there we didn't think it made sense that those some of those trees run out to the right way we didn't think it made sense to put trees in there that would fall Under The Canopy of those Tall Pines so we just it just applied a little Common Sense while we were doing it and and moved on all right um I'll go to the board B any questions um actually the question I have is about the quick claim deed I believe it was page 65 in the packet and it references um providing an easement for Access by all inhabitants of Westford for Lot F it didn't specify the equivalent for lot e okay and I thought it should be the same for both since this kind of Trail access is back into the open space yeah loops around back up to the road yeah behind it Loops in between five and six and comes out between um three and four so she Melissa's probably going to have to fix that when we send the the final draft of the deed over for acceptance after we get through the select board meeting or town meeting I guess we'll send that final over so um this kind of ties into the next agenda item but Street acceptance is a three-step process the first is the select board declare their intention to laid out as a public way and then they remand it to the planning board for non-binding recommendation and then they followed up with their public hearing process so this is all part of uh the first step the Second Step that the applicant refer to is actually town meeting where they vote to accept it and then the third step is actually following through um with the actual conveyance and that means making sure that all the documents are in order there's they have 120 days from town meeting vote to actually take care of that and obviously this is something that would be reviewed by Council for

consistency with all the requirements but if we have that question now we can certainly uh warn them in advance of that and it's just want to make sure we don't forget about that access over on lot e y because I remember from our site walk that also provid Ed access to the adjacent um area um to the north a I don't where though where to the specifically well the North to the West there was the uh was it Autobon land we're not it's either an perit or it's an Autobon regulation we're not allowed to hop the wall and and approach on the aabon land that that's I I don't know specifically it's if it's on our approval or if it was something that was given to us by a on but they they did not want us in there so yeah I just wanted to ask us to find out what's happening with we do have a trail system in there it was approved by conservation which we delineated with signs and cleared um trimmed and cleared and red that Loops that stuff but not no I mean there's a wall there it seems crazy to me Bob that someone wouldn't H the wall but that is not what they wanted to happen there so we didn't formally provide access and remove any stones to hop the wall type of thing that's not uh but your plans do show a a conceptual Trail on Lot F the tra yes the Trail's there to your point and it should Loop up would and come around e that's a little housekeeping we need to deal with it does loop all the way around we we build it we did build it we had we had sign post put out at the road on both ends um we cleared it yeah we spent some time on that thing so was there not a trail easement already recorded there is correct okay so we'll just make sure what supposed to be Trail is is covered we'll make sure Council reviews that anything else Bob that's it joonie um I just have one silly question uh in the lantech letter it says um on paragraph 10 it says 40 trees were installed so

just you might want to correct that if it was 41 yeah I think that was a older I think the updated later has 41 trees and that's the correct amount okay um I think I at one point I had 40 and then when I was recounting I double double double checked and we were at 41 that's fine I just wanted to not that I think that was my only question really nope questions are answered that you I think uh I think that oh actually do one other I'm sorry question on paragraph 11 of that same letter talks about the trees installed in the right of way not installed in the right of way not on private property and then it says along the edge of the right away so who's responsible for the trees and I I only asked this is from my own subdivision we had a tree that fell that was in the right of way we thought we as a community had to take care of it and actually it wasn't it was the town's tree so are the trees Town property or are they on private property for you I believe they're supposed to be planted within 10 ft of the property line on the property line I think it's the subdivision regulations I think the intent is to have it on the private property but in proximity to the line so it's considered a street tree but it's on private property I know if you asked our tree Warden he probably would prefer that they all be on private property but uh um I mean it's planted where it's planted at this point and I don't know how long it's been there um couple years so my yeah my question is really now is it the town's responsibility or is it the private property owner's responsibility that's might depend on exactly where no is the tree is Joe can you pull up the asot plan it does show all the tree locations yeah there's I'm looking at it there's several that are

in the right away but majority look to be outside the right away right or on the line right on the line right so it's kind of I just I just don't want the I I know it turned into a big deal for us on what we were supposed to do and went back and forth so um just don't want if something happens I don't want you know residents have a problem trying to figure out who's supposed to take care it and then if they take care of it then it's a problem they shouldn't have touched it kind of thing yeah I mean with the sidewalk on the south side I think the majority would just be in question would be those ones on the North side and like you said they either fall right on the RightWay or down and there there's a one or two that fall within the RightWay so that lower section of the roadway is uh Pro probably due to the slope there's a hill we had a cut right there so they probably brought down somewhere where they'd grow and be stable so those some of those might be on the edge but that's not really can you bring that down a little more Joe uh sorry down that's open space so it it would be it's not it's not a particular home owners lot at that point it would be part of the HOA or or the town yeah those are right on the line Y yeah common land due to really hardship of the topography so there is an HOA yeah anything else no that's it thank you um thanks 41 43 trees I mean I think that subdivision after all said and done came out really really nice so thank you I think it was a success so I'm fine with it um so since it's kind of combined anybody have any questions or comments about the recommendation to the select board about the stre acceptance Bob no Joanie uh no my only question was was it because this was pre when I was on the

plane board was it always envisioned to be a town it was yes it SM question yep good question but yes there good all right then so for Pb 2102 can I have a motion to approve the minor modification to reduce the number of plantings and monuments on 037 carel road Diane Lane so moved second all those in favor say I I I uh for 037 car Road Diane Lane can I have a motion to recommend select board uh accept this as a public way so moved second all those in favor say I so before moving on I had one slightly related not to Dave but to Joe and Jeff and there was a very good document in here from KP law regarding the primmer on the process for laying out accepting roads it's it's buried in our packet I think that's a document that like many others maybe should be pulled out and published up on the website somewhere with the planning board so that others have the benefit of seeing that document yeah good recommendation all right thanks guys nice to see you thank you stay warm all right moving right along we have PB 2427 new sub Vision uh flexible development 115 Depot Street Tall Pines so just wanted to make sure we didn't forget this has approved by Town Council so I guess at the end of the meeting we have it available here for your signature okay now to 0829 Beaverbrook Village request to release lot one from the Covenant Jeff

Jones 21 want to start us out on this I'll start um so this is from an older uh subdivision flexible development uh here in town Beaverbrook Village um several of the Lots were released but for one reason or another lot one was was not released in the past and somehow it got sold and is now up for a sale again um so as the title exam was going through um you know somebody caught that this lot was never released from the Covenant um um so now we have you know propably looking to change hands so we have a draft document um has been reviewed the applicant is fine with it um this is a slightly updated version from the one that was in your packet um it just is more the the standard form that we have nowadays versus back um when Beaver Brook Village was first uh going through their lot release process uh it just includes uh the subdivision plan book page uh number as well as the reference to master l chapter 41 section 81 um so again the applicant fine with the language it's it's our standard form um so just be looking for to release the the law at this point engineering hasn't had any issues out there they didn't cite any in discussions with them I don't know if the has anything to add no so as far as we know there's always been in compliance that just kind of slipped through the CL cracks as far as we know no and there might be one last straggler lot not yet released but there is also I believe some form of security so we hope to have a future agenda item to clear up both of those um it's to think that all of the dwellings got built sold occupied it doesn't make any any sense um that they weren't released so but before the last one we want to at least see what's

what and if nothing else there's probably some security to be released ballpark 25,000 probably just the retained age at the end Bob a couple questions um one the road has it been public has it been accepted is it a private way a private way um we have received Daz built plans um as it kind of went through the process um again for one reason or another I guess some of the stuff just kind of fell through the cracks um not sure exactly as to why but I I believe there was some staff turnover around that time period um but I don't know if that's related to it or not yeah is there anything in the notes or uh when they were um producing the um restrictions and the the plan for release about why they were holding lots and do we know if those conditions were satisfactorily met nothing for what I could tell in Old minutes that I was reviewing it seemed like things were going long but for whatever reason they were releasing one lot at a time right um and you know who knows why exactly again could have been staff turnover um but just they never released the final two lots as part of it Joy anything else about no that's no no questions thanks no the only question I would have had was shy and it sounds like Jeff's already you guys have looked at that so yeah we're we weren't ready to bring it forward to this meeting but we wanted to be um you know sensitive to their timely request um and there's still another lot remaining and we do have to do it's a lot more research for the security so we we didn't want to rush that we want to get all that information

bring it back to you folks great well in my opinion it's been so long even if there were issues for us not to act on it in 10 11 years 12 years it's it's the town's problem not the applicant not the sub firey so I certainly don't have any problems um releasing this um so for um is there a specific lot we want to mention on this Jeff a lot one lot one one all right so for Pb 08029 Beaverbrook Village uh motion to release lot one from the respective so moved second all those in favor say I I I Lu sir what's interesting is it looks like lot one was an existing dwelling is that correct yeah it's even you're hitting all the highlights B so uh it was already existing and you know normally you would not include such a lot in the restrictive covenant because it's already you know there however it was getting uh access probably from that new um but there is no access from it's just it still gets its access off baver Brook Road it created a new front so then it wasn't meeting the front yard set back or at least not without having being the reduced set back under the flexible development standards we're wondering if that's why but that's Str okay y yeah it wasn't a one for sure thanks all right thank you all right and what's the process for once this is signed notorized do I pick it up from you do you guys just pick it up okay so I'll be in touch with with you y and then if you're kind enough to provide the recording information sure um then that would be great not a problem all right all right thank you thank

youe okay I'll just leave it with here thank you all right next up review the draft site plan review application form and request uh for request under the new mmod bylaw so we are anticipating applications in the very near future end of the month bylaw end of the month this month um specifically for 37 Powers Road um so we wanted to have a application form for you all uh it's very similar to your current site plan review application uh we had a a couple spots highlighted uh just see how the board felt on the number of completed packets and how many paper copies we're getting of things um you know I know a number of the board members now you know just have an electronic packet you don't have a paper packet um so know if you wanted to make some of these numbers consistent uh throughout um the submission requirements and you know what that number may be um because right now they that kind of jumbl all around um right now we also might want to include a list of anticipated waivers and special permit requirements or requests rather under the bylaw was kind of looking for that under the concept plan when we got a couple of those um early on um so again that guess kind of the standard information have any other application and then the only other thing that kind of changes here instead of being development standards under 9.4 we have the specific site plan review section within the so um we have them address each of those uh and then there and then part party billing form for the legal notice like we do any other application that would be about it so um

this is a a first but decent pass and we appreciate if you you know want things added or changed we're certainly open to that but but we would like to have something for the application uh to come in say next week so um if if you're not happy if you could at least give us some guidance so we can get something for at least this first application is there hoping to get on your March 3D so the number of plans is that consistent with the plans that we the people request currently so that's what we have currently under site plan review those sections that are highlighted y I don't know why we say just three complete application packets to go along with three of the storm water uh drainage calculations and then varying numbers of the large PL sets and reduced PL sets um not sure where that came from but again I don't know if number of board members want to continue to use paper packets or just use an electronic packet how you feel about that or if you want to if you'd prefer getting larger plant sets versus I like the bigger plants so I can see them but and and I would say for these type of subdivisions where there there's so much to it I would definitely want to see a large set to possible I normally can look at things on electronically but not on something like this okay and the other question along those lines I was going to ask I don't see any requirement for them to submit an electronic file version of this um uh in the red red here the last one ah okay all right um Joie any thoughts that

you want to add uh no other than getting large plans for this one bees um no typical typically I don't pick up paper plan set to johny's point a lot going on here I probably grab the paper one okay with a lot going on versus on the computer so okay still get those I don't think it affects this but I expect we're going to be asking for this new one coming in to look at the traffic with the adjoining parel that's fairly large so we're going to need plans for both on on one sheet so not sure we don't think we have to specify it here but we do anticipate that this board will be looking for third-party peer reviews for a minimum of traffic and potentially architectural to stand you know make sure the architectural standards and depending on engineering potentially for uh civil and uh storm water in general um that's at so at the opening of that hearing we would also seek the board to authorize us to set up peer review yeah plus integration of the roadway systems so we're looking that was one of our comments when we had the initial review an internal traffic flow as opposed to pushing everything out to the surrounding public streets so if we're talking about 37 Powers Road specifically right now you're just talking about the internal site circulation there they with that and the adjoining site can you going up to Westford West you talking about the tech Park the tech Park West okay we talk about that during the initial review with them so I know they're open to communicating with those folks I think

they've already engaged in conversations with them actually but it's that's something that'll come out of the the traffic review and then depending on the willingness of the other property owners I think it's kind of specific to the site Bob because some of these yeah that's what I said I'm not sure we need to put but yeah I do want to keep in mind how we we obtain that yeah the application I think it's Case by case I think right no I like this the uh the generic the standards as well so I think it looks good in my opinion yep any else for us on this Jeff think so just I guess it'd be nice to have a vote in that way we can always amend it all right um is there a motion to adopt the new application for the NBT Community community's multif Family development um a guidelines application application application second all those in favor to say I I just one note on here I noticed the revision date of the form said 102 didn't want to be too presumptuous but we'll we'll we'll update that just just no because I like to reference what rev we just approved it's kind of hard to do that when it's an old Y and it's also seems to be missing page two I don't know what that was well that was um one of your other applic but we just R making sure that we B down your packet that much more it's rev 10 10222 as amended here

tonight all right next uh we have meeting minutes is there motion to approve the meeting minutes from December 16th 2024 moved second any discussion good good Bob um all those in favor say I hi all right see correspondence I know we do have the decision in here or the update from this is very interesting to me I got I need some I need somebody to translate this for me um it basically just gave them a reprieve to go back and fix it it didn't yeah it says that state had a had to change a few of their guidances but they had the authority to impose it so the law is legal the guidelines that were prolongated afterwards didn't follow the necessary um process and so they're not yet enforcable but they've since filed uh they've taken action to correct that deficiency so it will be enforcable and they do have new abbreviated timelines to come into compliance no impact to West basically correct Milton do they now have to comply or pay the price yes now once the new so they still can enforce it and same Authority interestingly enough I had a discussion with Jeff Hall about this the other day and he reminded me this is a lot like when the 40b legislation came came into play the same arguments are going back and forth with how can the state tell us what we can do with with our zoning and whatnot but there's next a discussion probably offline all right uh anybody have

anything else a motion to adjourn so moved second all the favor say I I thank you thank you