Planning Board - Regular Meeting

2025 is called to order at 7:04. And I just want to make a personal note that my dad would have been 97 today if he was alive. So, so first item he's yelling at you to speak into the mic. I'm gonna like get a little headpiece. You're gonna get right there. Yeah. Like Janet Jackson. There there are better there there are better analogies than that I think. Uh but thanks. Um I'll try to make sure I don't have any malfunctions here. Um so first next item on the agenda roll call. Dr. Benoy here. Dr. Roberts here. Mr. Porter here. Miss Ramos

here. Miss Manard here. Chair is here and Mr. Oier is not going to be attending this evening. Not feeling well. Next item on we have no minutes to review. Is that true? Yes. Okay. Um so next item on the agenda, disclosure. Does anybody on the planning board have any potential conflicts or matters u to disclose on the matters before the board this evening? Um well I'm just noting that I'm recusing myself from the um one of the that's not in this instance. I would say that would be one of the topic comments. Okay. All right. Same thing.

Thank you. Um, next item, um, disclosure and notice. Does any planning board member need to disclose any exparte communications about any contested or material adjudicatory facts or opinions concerning the merits of any application before the board this evening? Hearing none. Uh, so our voting members um currently will be Dr. Benoy, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Manard. Um we'll change that as needed when there's recusal.

Okay. So for the first item we have the request for extension uh the BON Street Conservation Development. Give us a summary of that please. Uh Mr. Chairman, the Buckston Street Conservation Development was here approximately one year ago. Uh they had applied for a condo development. I believe it was six twounit buildings. Um, and they are here asking for an extension. Pretty straightforward. Mr. Chair, I'll be recusing myself from this item. From this item? Yes. Okay. You'll need to down there. Thank you.

Uh, good evening everybody. I'm Raphael Manzo, Council on behalf of the applicant here. I think this one is hopefully very uh straightforward. Um the decision approving the applicant's master plan uh was recorded in the town's land evidence records on August 17th, 2023 under Rhode Island general laws 452339 C7I. Uh, an approved master plan is vested for a period of two years uh, bringing us until three days from now with the with the right to extend for two one-year extensions upon written request by the applicant who must appear before the planning board before the annual review. Uh, that brings us to tonight where we're simply just seeking our by right extension. And

this is the you haven't previously taken any. There have been no previous extensions. So this be the first of the two left. First of the two. All right. Any questions from the board or anything? No. Okay. I want to make note that uh for we're voting on this. Correct. Correct. Um I'll make a motion to approve the before you do this. Need to change the uh voting members for this for this particular topic will be Dr. Benoy, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Porter, Miss Ramos, and myself with Mr. Bernard recusing. Make a motion to approve the requested extension. We have a motion to We have a second. Second. We have a second.

Okay. Roll call vote. Dr. White, yes. Dr. Roberts, yes. Mr. Porter, yes. Miss Ramos, yes. And the chair votes yes. All right. Thank you. Have a good rest of the night. Thank you. Good work. Good job. Mr. Manard will rejoin us here. Okay. Um, next item on the agenda, the pre-application concept review for Marshall Platt, 55 Greenville Road. If you could give us a summary of that, Mr. Carillo.

Mr. Chairman, the Marshall Plat is a subdivision that had been before the planning board several years ago. Um, at the time, uh, I think it was a classified as a major subdivision. because of the change in the statutes, it's now considered a minor subdivision with a request for a zone change. Um there's a there's a substantial uh parcel that the applicant would like to subdivide to create four new lots for development while retaining the majority of his property as an individual lot. There's also a request that's not directly related to the planning board. It's more to the council um to acquire an abuing piece of town property. Um the attorney is here to make a presentation. Um but the the lots that are being proposed in the zone change is consistent with the adjoining uh subdivision and platted properties to the north and to the west. So, um, while it will require a comprehensive plan amendment for the future land use map, I would say that it is consistent with the, uh, surrounding neighborhood and the comprehensive plan.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Scott Pardington, for the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Carulo. Um, as as uh the planner has stated, the matter was back here um in 2021. when it was approved. It's essentially the same plan or the proposal would be going forward or would be going forward would now is essentially the same plan with the exception of how um this strip of land that's owned by the town would be received. Uh basically uh on the corner of Village and and Greenville, you've got this strip of land that would basically run the whole length of what the frontage would be um on Village Way pursuant to the subdivision if it went to RU um zone if the council granted our request. So without that land, without that frontage, and I checked the ordinance, and I know that um there's a lot of cities and towns that have different ways of dealing with corner lots. I didn't see anything uh in your ordinance that so I think in the absence of that you probably got two frontage requirements or 100 100 feet for in in in the R2 RU zone if it was granted. So um I initially had talked to the planner about a simple reinstatement um given the fact that it was approved not only was the preliminary approved but there was a positive advisory um on the zone change um and um as as Mr. Cool has also stated now it's changed and that would be a minor. If we would start over again it would be a minor um for preliminary before this board uh and it would be also a request for the advisory um then with preliminary we could go back to the council and then back for final here. The only a couple of things I I want to mention. The first was the possibility of um of a reinstatement and I know that's that's within your preview to do that. I guess the only difference or the question would be at this point is um is

how that previous um that previous approval um presupposed that there was going to be a merger of that strip of land owned by the town and it was not a purchase. It was actually um it was going to be kind of a swap. the town was going to get an utility easement across the back of what would be lot I guess lot 173 which is uh the marshall's lot now. So I I I and I also don't know I'll be honest I really don't know even in a reinstatement how the recommendation would go forward the advisory it's it usually deals with the plan itself a reinstatement but um if if if we don't if we don't if not able to work out an arrangement with the town about possibly a swap for that parcel for the for our frontage on villageway um for the utility easement then we'd be in a position where we'd be coming to to the board um not only for the advisory and the preliminary but also for a request for dimension relief for the frontage on village way

which in essence you know without that again without if you look at the map without that strip we would I think would be about zero frontage on for that front lot um certainly yeah sorry to interrupt it would be helpful if you could point Oh yeah illustrate not only the uh the town land you're talking about but also the easement. You were talking about the the utility easement. And I I by the way I have someone here from Insight who did the plan. Um and I can if I'm if I'm incorrect, which I often am. Um the the uh the the town strip would be right here. It goes down here to this corner from what I can recall. Thanks, Paul.

Um and the easement I believe would run across where the where the red Oh, it goes Okay. It goes north south. Yes. Okay. So, in essence, this all this is is taken out by by the town land. It's it's a strangely shaped lot. It's about 6,000 plus square feet. Is there any history as to why that town owns that very small sliver long sliver of land? I I I don't know. I I It just seems odd. It it it does. Um, I mean, unless it was part of something else prior to Village Way being there, I don't know. Is this

So, I I I I know this is an informal concept review and I'm just kind of

I'm throwing some ideas out there that the the the most opportune obviously for the applicant would be a reinstatement of the plan. um with the with the understanding that we would again go back to the town um about that swap so to speak um for the the utility easement. Um and I I I did review your ordinance and I I um it's pretty much I know the statute is the same, but uh I know that it's going to it's within your purview to reinstate. I I had a conversation Mr. Curillo about it. Um we didn't really come to any kind of agreement or disagreement on it. I just wanted to throw it out there as a possibility because of the previous approval and the positive recommendation on for the zone change.

Mr. Krillo, what what is your opinion on that on the reinstatement? Well, so my I don't think the reinstatement advances the application any further because under the new statute, this would come in as a minor at preliminary and the reinstatement would be for a master plan because this would be a major I it would go so it would go back to being under the old rules. It's 61 half dozen. It well it would because that's that's what it was reviewed under, right? I mean so That's a good point, Mr. Crow. That's true.

It's it it would be the same outcome with regard to the frontage and the the acquisition of that property. The lot that we're referring to, which is 173, is a pre-existing lot. So, it doesn't require frontage on on Village Way. I mean, it's certainly the the applicant's prerogative if they want to acquire the property from the town. I have no objection to that, but it's not necessary. And what it ends up resulting in and I I think um I think Mr. Carlson is here and he he has designed the plan is lot proposed lot four and that's the lot with the angle on it. Mhm.

Paul if you can

Yeah. So that lot right there is short a very very minor bit of frontage. I don't know 3 4 feet maybe. I can't read it on my plan because it's so so tiny. But um the acquisition of that frontage lot accomplishes making that proposed lot for a fully conforming lot. Even if the town council wasn't to agree to relinquish that property, they certainly have the ability to request a very very minor dimensional variance. I think it might even be under the new uh uh building official purview to grant that under the

modifications. It's so minor. So I mean there are way it's really up to the applicant how they want to apply. I well my only and and again if if if the town's position is that even notwithstanding the subdivision that we don't we're not required to have our 100 Yeah. You're I I don't read it that way. I read with that property being there. I read that as only having frontage on Greenville Road cuz it does not abut Village Way. Technically, there's an there's an intervening town property there. That is true. That is true. If it was right of way, I would agree with the interpretation. If that

if that intervening lot was part of the village way, right of way, it would be providing frontage. But it doesn't. It's a freestanding lot. It's got a lot number. But but going that route, it it seems to imply that it's not an issue because of the Greenville Road frontage and the fact that they don't have frontage on village. That's fine. That's because So you take So you take that step and you move forward. You say, "Okay, now we're going to move forward one step and then the town says, "Okay, you can acquire the land." That doesn't change anything, right? It changes nothing other than it it it provides relief for that minor frontage deviation and on lot four

which I think under the modification statute probably could be done administratively. I believe it can. Yeah. I mean I don't know about the rest of you. I I just see that strip of land as being an anomaly and it's it's one of those things that we come across every now and then. Some historical things. We don't even know why it's like this. And again, it's up to the town council, but it seems like just make the problem go away. You know, I I I I did, Mr. Chairman, I did research the deeds. I read the deeds, and there was some transfer of a of a form of corporation, and it was related I think it was related to some property on the other side of Greenville Road that the town also owns, which is open space property. Oh, yeah.

It it I don't know why. Maybe it was just under common ownership when that property got transferred and it got transferred as part of that trans, you know, the the the the real estate transfer to the town for that open space. But there's nothing in the deed that preserves it that defines it as far as being for right of way for an easement. Nothing there. It's just a transfer. you know, you don't if I'm not speaking for you, but if if I were in your shoes, I would want that problem to go away just in case, you know, the town some some, you know, 10 years from now town says, "Well, we own this land. We're going to we're going to put some stuff on it." And you're like, "No, no, no, don't do that." You know, uh just

Well, you're right. It couldn't hurt. I mean, if in fact, if they were willing to give up the the easement for it, uh the utility easement, then it's just more land and it can solve the problem of that corner. Um right. Uh, also with respect to the I appreciate Mr. Krill's remarks about the surrounding area. I found that to be true as well. Um, as far as the future land use map goes, I got to be honest, I I I tried to to zero I I I tried to zero that in. And um, I think it's I think it is low density, low to medium density zone now. And if we go to 20,000 square foot lots, you're saying that's a bump up.

Yeah. Yeah, it is. All right. So, I mean, yeah, whatever that I mean, that's something we would, you know, um we would have to deal with as far as any amendment to the to the comprehensive plan, the land future land use map. Um, so I I I I understand Mr. Krue's comments about, you know, about um how reinstatement I guess it's true, it was reviewed under but it was given preliminary approval, though. It wasn't just master plan. So, I I am just giving it a shot, you know. I mean, I it's irrelevant to me. Yeah, you if it's a reinstatement, it's a reinstatement. Well, they I'm just And again, as part of the

I think the the hold up and and I've been going I I've had discussions before before the current attorney was involved with the with the previous attorney and that um the process if it was a reinstatement, the next step would be to go to the town council to get approval for that land transfer. But the well yeah because then yeah for the zone change right right so so but if but since we're currently under new rules and this is a pre-application the reinstatement is not even a

it's not an action we'd be taking not even oh no no oh no I I again I I use these preapps to try to get an idea especially with a project like this is when there's a couple of options and one that is that is a little more expedient if it's available I mean I when I saw that I I read the pre previous decision and again it seems to be it's the same it's essentially the same project. Um so um but again that's that's that would be within your perview to to accept or deny it. I can discuss it further with my client. Um Mr. Porter.

Yeah. Uh Mark, the previous stipulations that we had in the previously approved preliminary plans, have those all been taken care of in this new one that's been pre that's being presented tonight? The only one that I know of I didn't mean to reiterate for Mr. Kru. I'm sure he can't. The only one that that I I know of would be the uh uh the merging of the lots was discussed, but an actual um an actual condition was that the right of way, the uh utility easement, okay, be granted. I I didn't mean to speak, Mr. Cru. No, that's fine. And and and

so so you you know the stipulations were the utility easement, right? It was to get the zone change. Mhm. And then final approval was to be through the administrative officer. Right. Okay. Which again the issue here um it's the same plan. There's there's no doubt about it. Right. Um I why it didn't proceed previously, I'm not really sure. It just never went to the town council. Um but the the the conditions are still the same. And if it came back as preliminary, the conditions would likely be the same. Yep. Right. Right.

So I I'm just wondering, you know, obviously we have this as a preapp this evening. So the next steps for the applicant is to go to town council, request the the lot merging and the zone change from us. Do we need to repeat our previous decisions as a recommendation to the council to well provide that zone change? Couple. So so the I didn't see a recommendation to the council. Okay. But um Okay.

I'm I I wouldn't the reinstatement if they would apply for the reinstatement. The board would grant the reinstatement and they would be free to go to the council and that's going to be at a at a future hearing when the application comes in or the application for preliminary. And what I'm saying is one would just be a reinstatement and one would be a new decision with findings also submitted to the council. So it's it's basically the same. I I didn't know if they had to go to the council. Their next step was to go to the council to get the zone change and the lot merging and then come back here for preliminary because that was part of the conditions that they get that well they so to proceed

without without getting into getting into the weeds. Sure. the the the prior planner and the planning board granted a preliminary approval. Preliminary approval requires that you find it's compliant with zoning. It's not. I'm if if the board chooses to do a reinstatement, I am absolutely fine with that because it's the same project and my recommendation would be to approve anyway. Um but you wouldn't be able to find that it's compliant with zoning. Sure. And I my recommendation would be it's not compliant with zoning and final approval is conditional upon a zone change to make it compliant.

I don't want to get into the weeds on that. I mean because it's it's really just complicating a simple application. Sure. Sure. No, I I I just didn't know if there was anything further beyond giving an approval as a letter of recommendation from the planning board to the council that we f even though it's zoned differently that we found it, you know, we're in agreement with what you're thinking. Yeah. that this board is, you know, of the same mind that you couldn't make that determination tonight because that is not on the agenda. What's on the agenda is a preapp. So that that recommendation would either come it could be I guess we could address that at the reinstatement. Yep. We could we could we could do a reinstatement with a with a

request of a referral to the council in support of the zone change. We could do that or we could just do the I think that's how I I think Mr. Kulo I think that's how it went. Um uh Mr. Kravitz was the plan. I I think that that's how it went. And um I I see your point. I mean one of the one of the findings has to be that it's compliant. I guess the fact that it was conditional upon the zone I I guess and that's something I can also discuss with Mr. Leozi. Yeah. you know, as far as before I waste anyone's time with that, I want to make sure what what the position is going to be. It would be again expedient for us and it would be um good for the applicant considering they've been through the process once, you know.

Is the end result going to be the same either way? Because I I'm I'm more concerned with the end result than Yeah. No, I I I would say so, sir. Yeah. meaning meaning that the the townland will become part of this parcel and there will be an easement to accommodate utilities. Well, no that that's a good qu that's the question I I brought that I think that is the operative question with respect to reinstatement sir because what what it didn't make it a condition the the the vote back in 21 didn't make it a condition that the lots merged. It was discussed and that was going to be what was going to be done

and then uh but the condition was for the 20 foot u for the excuse me for the uh utility ement excuse me right it just seems it that's the one question I had as well is is because that was part of the discussion is the reinstatement and also my question was whe the rein and I've discussed it with Mr. Leozi and with Mr. Corulo is whether the reinstatement of the plan then uh presupposes that the advisory remains the same. So I I actually have never come across that before to be honest. But if if it it seems like everyone's in agreement that if that sliver of town land was no longer a sliver of town land it cleans up some loose ends.

It certainly does. And so certainly from my perspective I say we need a process that gets us to that. Yeah. I mean, if there's more than one get one way to get there, that's fine. But alternatively, I I think I that little sliver of land is not going to have any bearing on whether or not we approve this going forward, you know, because Well, other than the other than the frontage issue. Well, the front Mark said the frontage is met on on No, no, it's doesn't it solve the solves the other problem. So, that's 9 and a half ft. I understand. So I I think we're we're we're really getting down to a very microscopic level of of intricacy here.

Overall, you know, if this is essentially the same plan that was presented to us in 2021, I still have no issue with it. Okay. So, you know what? That sliver of town owned land really to for me has no bearing on whether or not we would approve this. Um Oh, I think that's fair. I'm just saying we should if we have the opportunity to clean up this loose end, we should do it. Yeah. And I think in the context of a re reinstatement of of the previous vote, maybe that's something we have to consider as well. Maybe we can wipe all that out when we come back for reinstatement. If we that's the route we take, maybe we can work something out on that as well. If we know that we can if we can swap it and the clients are amendable, maybe that makes things smoother for reinstatement as well.

Yeah. It see it seems like if you talk get, you know, get the temperature on the town council about that sliver of land first, right? And that might, you know, you said they say, "Yeah, we should just make this problem go away." Then okay, and then you have a clear path. I agree. I I I agree. I agree. And if I may also one thing I forgot to mention, and I should have started out with this. I wanted to offer my sincere apology to the fact that that uh that no that you were here and no one else was at the last meeting. Um completely 100% my fault. Completely. And I mean, I got you guys out and and away from your homes and stuff and I I I really apologize.

It was raining very hard that evening also. Appreciate you taking ownership for that. It it did allow us to set a new record for the shortest meeting in planning board history. Well, and then I I was reminded of it when there was no minutes from the last meeting. Yeah. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Yeah, we should have had seconds from the last meeting. Yeah. So anyway, so um sorry, one more thing. If if um if there are any any other questions, I think we probably covered everything, but again, Mr. Carlson is here from Insight. I wanted him here just in case you had any other questions about the plan. Thank you,

Mark. I think when this applicant comes back, it would be good to have Mr. Igliozi kind of give us a procon list of either doing a reinstatement or just doing a new application. I'm sure that will get vetted out between the two of you. um just so we get a really good understanding of of where we land here because

again if this is still the same plan as 2021 I know that the rules have changed for the for this kind of game but you know it's still the same thing. What I would suggest is that uh the solicitor, the attorney, and myself um have a conference call, discuss it. Whatever the outcome of that discussion is will provide direction for the future. It either be a reinstatement or new application. I have no objection to either one and be honest with you. And it is the same application. So, it's just a matter of getting it back before the board in the in in its proper form and then allowing the applicant to proceed to the council. The the only caveat that I would have is that, you know, if we go back with the reinstatement and the council for some reason um does not authorize the acquisition of that property, the resulting subdivision will need a minor minor dimensional relief. Right.

If that relief cannot be um granted by the building official, and I don't know that it can't. I think that it can. It would it would have to come back to you. No. If it was reinstatement unified plan. No, but if it was reinstatement, we would no longer be under the unified plan. Wouldn't it be the zoning? You're right. It it might have to go to It might have to go back to zoning. Exactly. That's that's why I mean it's it is the same project no matter what. But so maybe that's why I say if you can maybe informally get a feel for how the town council let's just find the easiest way possible and get rid of the problem. I

I think Mr. Chairman part of our discussion and and in the interim we we we can we we can both um review the statute to see whether that would comply under the modification by the building official. If it does, it becomes a moot point. If it doesn't, that raises that issue. Well, I mean, that also brings us back to if they need to come back here, they treat it as a new application. We have to give the variance anyways. So, you know, you're saving yourself a stop at the zoning board, you know. So, it's right. So, so it's not clear which one is the most expedient. That's what that's what I'm hearing. So, we'll be able to appreciate comments. That's all right. No problem. Great.

Thank you. Okay. All right. What's next up? It' help if I had the agenda in front of me. Here we go. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, next item on the agenda. Um, pre-application concept review Eminem terminal fuel tank. Mr. Kulo, you could give us a summary for that.

So, uh, Mr. Chairman, board members, this is uh again a pre-application for um an approval of a um pre-existing fuel tank that was installed, I think, without a permit, but with the understanding of the building official at the time that he would let the applicant proceed on their own under their own risk. Then after the fact um issued u a notice of violation. It went before the zoning board, multiple applications before the zoning board, multiple hearings, and the zoning board determined because it was a commercial property and other um parameters related to a prior approval um by the planning board that it should come back before the planning board. Now, in the interim, this is I think this has been going on for over a year. In the interim, again, the statutes have changed. So, this application coming back before the planning board would come under unified plan review as a development plan review with a special use permit. The property is now under the um wellhead protection overlay district and I believe there are dimensional variances necessary with regard to the sighting of the fuel tank on the on the rear portion of the property as well as a pre-existing stipulation that the the the rear of the property shall remain in its natural state which obviously no longer exists. So there'll be a presentation and at the end of the day this will likely be coming back to the planning board unified plan review um for what I would

consider be to be an accessory used to the principal which is a trucking company.

So uh good evening. My name is Damian Demetri of Konico Engineers and Scientists at 4 First Street in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. uh here on behalf of my client Eminem Transportation Services uh for the project at 44 Railroad Street as Mark has just described. Um the Eminem Transportation Terminal is an existing non-conforming transportation terminal building. Um the project uh that has occurred uh was the construction of two concrete fueling pads, a 10,000galon envirro vault protected above ground storage tank uh for diesel fueling. Um as well as some minor septic and lighting improvements. Um we are in front of the board today as we've um the work has been completed and we are seeking to lawfully permit the completed construction. Um the existing trucking transportation property um are permitted uses under the manufacturing zoning district um and um the above ground storage tank fueling are incidental to the existing trucking and transportation operation and otherwise considered a law as from my understanding a law for a permitted accessory use. Um so you know what I would like to do you know as we go through the uh plans and um I just kind of discuss um as Mark has already noted uh we will be coming back and submitting an application under the unified plan development review. Um I'm here to feel out the board and and see what you know the best way for us to move forward and and how we can kind of make this process you know get get us up and running what you guys are open to and and kind of just you know work through the process the best we can. Um so would you mind page two? All right. So what is presented here um up on the plans um was a aerial view. Um we digitized what the site previously looked like. Um you can see um it's difficult to see um uh you know but there are grass areas. Um the edge of pavement kind of existed along the property line. Um and then you know this is this is the larger grass area and

then the rear of the property where the septic um leeching tanks um exist was uh also cleared um you know landscaped non-imperous area. It wasn't necessarily nice grass area or a heavily vegetated wooded area. It was kind of a you know um bare earth and soil kind of not not wellkept um in that first place. So then on sheet three um this is what the current condition of the site is. Um as you can see that uh landscaped area here um has you know um it has been reduced. Um there is the you know and then the rear of the parcel back here um has the two fueling pads and then the um diesel fuel tank is the shorter rectangle between uh the two uh not smaller but more square rectangles. Um so that was the you know improvements um to the site. Um note that the improved septic system wasn't an increase in design flows. It was an incre you know a upgrade not a new construction. It wasn't to increase flows. It was just you know repairing a previously you know disrepaired septic tank. Um and that that was done by the contractor and permitted accordingly. Um so uh and then additionally we should I wanted to note that there has been monitoring wells um installed um for under groundwater water quality monitoring. Uh from my understanding from the testing that has occurred, there are no concerns from the current conditions. Um but you know the existing monitoring wells will let us monitor that as a site progresses in time as functionality continues so that we can understand you know if there were to be any impacts and you know how we can mitigate those if said conditions occurred. Um so um on our proposed plan so she 4 um you can see the hatched area

around the rear of the parcel. uh that was an extension of the pavement that gone beyond the property line. Uh that would all be removed. There'd be portions of the paved concrete pads that would also be removed. Uh the concrete pads themselves would receive positive limiting barriers. Those are the grooves in the pavement that you often see at gas stations. Um you know the jersey barriers that uh were on the encroaching and butter those will be um adjusted. Um this four is this? No, this is the demolition sheet. One more sheet. Um, you know, would be adjusted to be on the parcel. Um, so, you know, again, bringing in more of it. You know, we we recognize where there was encroachments and issues, you know, already going into it knowing that we're going to need to make some adjustments out there. Um, you know, additional concept, you know, drainage features we've con conceptually added in uh to improve water quality, to control any type of, you know, issues that would be with the site. We're proposing proprietary water quality units. Um catch basins deep with deep sumps and hoods to prevent and catch anything. The existing catch basins on our site are just standard small catch basins installed back in 1990s. Um you know they don't have any water quality aspects to them. We'll be going in and adding those in to improve um for that of the existing conditions. Um a trench drain with a deep sump along the um edges of the concrete pads. Um and then as I already mentioned a water quality unit to help treat you know most likely some vortex type unit um that will you know remove sediment and um oils and you know anything that would occur from the site. So you know from a water quality standpoint there would be improvements for the proposed design. Um again conceptually wanted to talk with you guys on how we move forward in the best process but this is where we stand with what we would like to do moving forward. Um so what that brings us to now is would be the requested relief for the

conditions of the site. Um you know as market noted that there was stipulations um to the site from a 1995 zoning board decision uh for the project um you know upon my client's purchase of the property. They didn't they were not aware of these at the time um you know and they went forward with the construction of this as such. um you know these included screening impervious limitations on the site um of the such um you know it was a misunderstanding um so we're looking you know before we proceed with any of that would be you know first making sure that we can get those stipulations you know how the board would feel about those um you know that after those stipulations you know we understand the board's um belief that we could get relief uh from that we would um again the extent at plable the authorization or relief to authorize the accessory features constructed on site the above ground storage tank um and the concrete fueling pads um again I you know from our understanding those are locky constructed um you know I believe Mark had mentioned that there was a potential for a setback uh relief necessary as an accessory use they are outside of the 10-ft setback uh note that the cross the site is a not exist existing non-conforming property. I think the the required building setback is 40T. The bu the lot itself isn't 40t wide. Um you know so we can't so so you know that's existing non-conforming those things. It's a it's a small lot. It's you know slightly more than a third of an acre. Um you know uh so there's only so much space there. Um so once we have on that uh get that then um you know and then the understanding of how we can control our storm water flows. Um so that would be the relief uh discussed

there. Um let me so purpose of our feedback as I discussed is to get the uh current you know with the current design what is in front of you what are you guys comfortable with where you know where do I want to proceed with our design storm water drainage what are you guys accepting there um you know but before we go forward with anything else again it's you know prior to finalizing and asking for relief from that we have to understand um you know get the relief from the previous stipulations um again misunderstanding of a 30-year-old decision. Um currently note that you know we have not received any outside objections. Um you know the the property is within a um zoning district. The he the client has worked with the butter um that is adjacent to the property. The other butter is a you know decommissioned railroad um on the other side. So you know there's no one that is you know we're not reducing buffer zone to a residential area. we're not we're not causing any harm that you know is foreseen from anyone at this point in time. Um and the work was you know um so I guess we'll open it back to the board with that you know and then then we'll jump into the proceeding

um concerns I guess. Anyone have any questions comments on this?

Dr. Are your above ground concrete vaults uh state-of-the-art for this day and age? Uh yes, from my understanding um and and the people I've worked with, you know, again, not a designer of them, but they they can um it's above ground, it's in a concrete vault, it's an envirro tank. Um that they have all of the, as far as I know, bells and whistles to alarm in the, you know, event of a spill, and I'm, you know, it's encased in, I believe, in a concrete, you know, facility. It's a it's a rather secure structure. It was, I believe, very expensive to install. Has your client had any unfavorable releases since he's been there? Uh, not that I'm aware of.

Thank you, Mr. Mark. Mr. Mr. Chairman, is I don't think there's any fuel in the tank. Is there's currently no fuel in the tank. Is is No, they they've never had they've never Yeah. put fuel in the tank. Oh, yeah. Well, that changes the whole picture. So, no, there hasn't been any fuel released from the empty tank. Um, all right. So, that sort of implies that there's still a process to go through in terms of perhaps putting some fuel in it, make sure it doesn't leak, you know, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. It hasn't been fully tested.

Yeah. We you know the client had constructed the site in its entirety and upon getting fighting building permits and approval uh from the fire department you know these issues of of the permitting process and and who that's where that came up and that's where we we you know he was halted um and prevented from you know the putting fuel in the tank right okay Mr. All right. So, the question I have is the building official that is currently in place, was that the building official that was there when this project was started? No. Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead, Dr. Roberts. Um I don't know if this is for Mark, but I just want to understand um when you were giving the context behind um why this exists and why there's the application. I I don't understand why it was built like I wrote down that the pre-existing fuel tank that a building official allowed them to proceed at their own land.

So So the prior owner, not the current owner. because this property transacted in the interim um started to install the fuel tank or installed the fuel tank under a prior building official two building officials ago. Mhm. When the new building official came in um they actually were applying for the permit he rejected the permit. They had already started the project

at that time. They provided to him a letter saying we would like to proceed at our own risk and continue to install with the understanding that we would go to zoning yet a subse subsequent approval. He allowed that to happen. They went to zoning. The project had been before zoning for a substantial amount of time and at least three or four separate zoning hearings. I believe they withdrew. I'm not really sure, but I believe the applicant voluntarily withdrew from zoning and decided to come before the planning board.

So, under perfect circumstances, would this have been a more linear like you don't proceed until you have permission? Under perfect circumstances, if the prior owner would have applied for the building permit prior to initiating construction, those issues should have been addressed and resolved. Right. But this is sitting there empty. How how long has it been sitting there empty? Um I did have a timeline. The construction site was completed in 20 spring of 2023. Okay. So I thought

yeah because I just want to say my my concern it's not actually about this exact situation but it makes me concerned that other businesses would be like oh we can just do what we want and then get permission later. So, I just want to name that because that makes me uncomfortable and it's like once something so vast and expensive and huge is already in place, it's not likely that people will be like, "No, you can't have this permission." But I don't want that to be a trend in our community. That concerns me a lot. Y um Mark, you said that you said this is in the water overlay district.

Yeah. So again, so when the project was started, um this property was exempted from the overlay district. Subsequently, the overlay district was reinstated for this area the tank was in. However, it was not a permitted use and not a permitted tank. So today when they apply and I've had this conversation with the engineer um we have different standards than we would have yesterday right so

that's why he's going through this litany of discussion about installing new catch basins and drainage and upgrading the system to address the watershed protection overlay district requirements because I don't believe that the improvements that are being presented here have been implemented yet. I'm not sure.

So that the pre-existing condition I believe on sheet four is what exists and what's being proposed on sheet five and six. No, on sheet five is the resolution to the existing condition to bring it as in compliance as it can possibly be brought to meet the current standard because clearly the lot right is pre-existing nonconforming and you know paving from property line to property line wouldn't be something that would be authorized today but yep

I mean in order for the the the the site to function that's a necessity. Um, sure. And I believe the concrete pads do not have the catchment as it exists as they exist today. They're just flat pads. Yeah, that's what it looks like. Yeah. I mean, I've I drove out there and actually Yeah. tried to pull my car around. It was kind of difficult. I assume they'll be backing the trucks in because So, it's a very tight site. So, so this was built without doing like real planning. I mean it wasn't

I mean normally I mean normally would have you know normally there would be you know the the the water runoff you know where the where the catch basins all this kind of stuff and there aren't any prior you know so when they built this three years ago they didn't do those kinds of plans. So you're retrofitt your the attempt now is to retrofit it as if it was done back then to the greatest extent. Which really means in some cases perhaps some level of demolition and rebuilding. Yeah. Yeah. This this engineering firm was not involved in the original installation. All of this is coming after the fact. Lucky you. Yeah. That that's that's my biggest concern is that

you're not 100% sure on what the existing conditions are. you know, you have you done cores in the existing concrete pads? You know, what's the condition underneath the fuel tank that has been previously installed or do you know that information?

Um, I guess clarify what from what extent are you concerned with the existing, you know, material that was beneath it? Well, I'm I'm just wondering if, you know, they had a set of drawings that say, "Okay, this is supposed to be just for generic ter terminology. This is a 6-in concrete slab and they only poured 3 in." You know, something like that. And although and now you're working to modify some existing conditions that that I I don't I'm not sure if you've fully confirmed what is in isn't that makeup of those concrete slabs and what that fuel what's underneath that fuel tank. you know it has you you you don't have a 100% knowledge of what's that existing condition is.

So to that extent the concrete pads and stuff of that the contractor that did that work um you know took a lot of photos has all the information um those were pads that um came with the envir you know were speced out per the envir envirro tank for the use of that structure um and how those were to exist there. Um we have had you know um I myself am not personally knowledge of it. I'm not going to go out and say that I individually know but uh from my understanding those are properly designed and constructed concrete pads. um you know and the the additional design and you know we we do have and I don't think it was submitted in this um you as we would be you know supplying it in the next actual application um additional um letters from other you know engineers who are more associated with the design of slabs and you know and the use for um these um for fueling and and things of those extent. No, I I've just been a a part of a number of projects where we get existing drawings and then we go to find go to the existing conditions and that's not what's reflected in the drawings.

Yeah, that's right. So, I just want to make sure because we're in such a a a highly scrutinized overlay district here that we are 100% sure of what's ex what's existing now and and that we are confident that there will not be any sort of uh breaches or anything like that because even if there you know even if there's a crack somewhere in the slab on the underside you know that's that could grow. you don't know about it, you don't see it, and then all of a sudden we have an issue on our hands. Um, so that that's that's my biggest concern is that, you know, we have existing conditions

again and maybe it's just because I'm jaded that I have had with existing conditions drawings that um I I just don't fully trust them all the time. Well, and and we've had some fairly recent projects that we've reviewed which which involve fuel and and proper containment, you know, when there's a spill, all that kind of stuff. And to Mr. Krillo's point about the slabs having that those grates that you see limiting barrier, right? So, if if those are not there, don't you have to dig up the slab to do it? because there has to be a containment area underneath the slab to get that or or something for runoff.

Yeah. No, so the pausing lia is the grooves within the pavement. Um those are designed to hold a certain volume of an initial spill, right? So if a guy's you know currently fueling his his you know and and leaks out a little bit or you know he he drops the hose or drives away with the hose that will catch the fuel that would be within that right. Um, so that would control like that th those are the grooves around and then that would all drain into what you know are so in theory he would assume as he notices any any type of spillage would be cleaned up. That's what they're designed as professionals to do, right? Clean it up. They'll have the um the booms, they'll, you know, throw down the the dirt. They'll they'll get it cleaned up instantaneously. um anything that would run off from that would then be captured into the drainage system in which we are proposing the trenches and everything like that. Right? So none of that is currently you know um the trench drain that sends it to the water quality unit and any of that the previous site conditions which it was a transportation terminal and you know all of that stuff did not exist. So we are proposing an improvement to a previous existing dra condition for the drainage and the water quality that would come off of the site

because I just and You know, I'm thinking of the um the project that we recently talking about with the the gas station and all that kind of stuff, and there's been there's some substantial um infrastructure, I'll say, underground to capture this kind of stuff. And that's what I'm concerned with. Yeah. I I think the one you might be referring to, Mr. Chairman, on on um Eddie Dowling. Yes. Those were underground storage tanks. Well, no. I'm thinking of the uh the gas station um south of uh on 146 the drive-in. Yes. Yeah. Similar. Those were underground storage tanks. Well, yeah, but it was it was really for the spillage when people are pumping fuel and all that. It's really that.

So, the those G I was surprised to understand how much fuel those grooves will. It's gallons. Yeah. Well, I I don't know exactly off the top how many gallons, but it's several gallons of fuel that would be contained by those grooves and then that could be either vacuumed up or cleaned up or absorbed with booms as he's saying. That's an that's an initial catchment. Um, and then the the tank would have a warning mechanism as well as a shut off, right? So that when that comes off, the tank shuts off and no more fuel comes out. So the fuel that was in the hose or whatever got deposited on the ground would be caught caught and hopefully cleaned up.

To be honest, I'm sure the you know these are prefabricated tanks and all. So I'm less concerned about the tank itself um and more with Yeah. the guy drops the hole, doesn't doesn't shut it off correctly, drives away and now it's just sitting out there pumping fuel, right? It's going to be a lot of gallons potentially before someone notices. And then to Mr. Porter's point, you know, what's underneath all this, you know? I mean, no, I understood.

That's that's where the concern is. And obviously, you didn't build it. It's not your it's your it's your job to fix, but not to, you know, I guess that that to Mr. Porter's point about the current existing conditions and what you'll be able to do to mitigate. You may you may discover stuff underneath that changes your project, which maybe is all the stuff you have to do prior to coming back to us. I don't know. So I'm still trying to understand what the concern is with the with the condition underground. So you know with it being paved or you know it's often called you know capped at this point in time. So if there was anything that were to to leak out of that right all of that is no longer being you know transported through groundwater because the surface now has an impervious layer over it. So if there was anything if you're concerned about contaminants or anything to that extent then

contaminants you know what what has occurred would prevent some of that. contaminants and settlement. I mean it's these obviously when the tank is full it's going to weigh a lot more than it does right now and the the weight of the trucks loaded whether whether the underground the base sure the pad itself may be fine what's it sitting on

understood okay so that that is more of your concern all right so then that was you know again the environmental tank not done under my you know direction or something to that extent but you know um those were submitted to you know from the environmental um envirank company, the manufacturer, uh, from my understanding, the contractor worked with them to, you know, properly set the tank based off of loadings and what would be required, you know, as far as a concrete pad. They, you know, again, it's not, we're not, uh, you know, um, Joe Landscaper, you know, just coming in and putting, you know, it's a it's a large, you know, manu, you know, Eminem transportation, you know, you they're here. They're not going in and just setting a tank, you know, on top of the surface and saying, "Okay, we're going to fuel out of this." It's a It's a pretty competent system.

Yeah. Well, and and it sounds like what you're saying is that we'll learn a lot more at the next phase because you'll have that documentation or the all that information from the the company that actually did the site preparation and building because, you know, it's one thing to say, "Okay, they actually did do a six-inch pad just like they're supposed to, but is it on sand? Is it on gravel? I mean, what's it on? You know, what's the condition? Yeah. From my understanding of the previous test pits and from the contractor that was out there that the material out there is is title five beautiful sand. It it is one of the best, you know, material. They they want to quarry the giant hill that runs next to it. Um, you know, because that the material is uh of course, right? Okay.

Yeah. And part part of the the other concern is because you you do have such a tight lot here, you know, you can only control what's on your lot. You you can't control what's going on at the railroad beds. So, say th those grooves now get filled up and the the it slopes down towards the the railroad, you know, once you you know, have a breach and it's overflowing. And you know, I I understand I'm I'm probably catastrophi catastrophizing a little bit here, but it I'm just when it comes to situations like this, I want to make sure that we are there's no room for mistake here, right?

Because then otherwise, you know, all of that fuel is going to start running into the Branch River going downhill. And um that that's that's really my biggest concern. Um, the other the other thing I the other concern I see looking at this these plans is it looks like you have Ballards right close to the fuel tank, but you also have your neighbor parking right up against that lot line. And I I get concerned that, you know, somebody can pick up enough speed and then you're you're into that into that fuel tank regardless of the ballard. So

on that line, yeah, I was just looking at that with the aerial. I couldn't tell whether there are other ballards separating the parking spaces or it's just like, you know, curb bumps, you know, right? So, it seems like it might be worthwhile to put a, you know, a couple more layers of protection. So, because I know they they have track trucks going back and forth. They have uh if that's going to be the parking that they have existing

that, you know, let's try to make sure we're protected from all sides. um you know, almost taking the manufacturer's recommendations for that fuel tank, but you know, maybe uh adding a little bit more just for for those protections because of the the conditions of the lot. Yeah. And again, and again, as Mr. Croll point, because it's so tight, will they be backing in? And again, if they make a mistake while they're backing in, it there's not a lot of room for error. So I think and I think this is kind of what you're saying is really tightly enclosing that whole area you know to to make sure if there is a problem it stays there.

Okay. All right. So

as far can I just add to that too just because of the you know the proximity to from the tank to where they're backing into. Um, you know, worst case scenario, if somebody was to back into the tank and cause it to spill, is the is there does the plan include like catch basins that would be able to to absorb catch the the volume of fuel that would be stored in that tank. Um, so the tank itself is a doublewalled tank uh with with you know leak prevention and all of that. Um, it I'm again not a professional on the exact tank but I understand it you know it it's it's you know envirro vault is the name of the tank. It is a vault. Um you know it it it concrete encased from my understanding large steel. um it would take a lot of effort um for them to puncture through that and then it you know and then it would turn into a spill catastrophe right DP would be called there there would be a significant amount of you know other people outside of standard you know planning and and that would for the cleanup of that in which the client would be responsible for all of that you know right again and that that is you know

we don't want to catastrophize as as stated by you know um Mr. Porter, you know, that I understand that we could potentially have that um catch basins and things of that extent, you know, they do hold larger volumes of oil and everything like that that would instantaneously be cleaned up, you know, as quickly as possible. Um you know, to prevent any type of spillage from there, you know, um catch basins also, you know, they have the sumps, but those are filled with water, right? So that from an extent you can't you can't plan for the infinite you know for for an airplane to come in and crash into it you know per se and I don't want to minimize what you're saying. Um but I I you know again to an extent we have to play within the regulations that require

um from my understanding you know the tank has been designed in place per those regulations. You know we're here for

what is in in in terms of the ballards we you know in the satellite photo you can see the ballards on one side of the tank. I assume they're on the other side of the tank as well. But what is on the, you know, as M. Ramos was saying, if someone's backing in and they just totally miss and they actually they're going towards what, you know, the front what I'll call the front of the tank, right? The the the the side of the tank that's on the Providence PL pike side that what is there to protect that to protect the tank itself? So, so the fuel, you know, I I again the fueling tank itself, um, you know, there are the ballards and the ballards are actually at the front between of a fueling pad. It's hard to see on these plans and the other plans. Um, so are there ballards on three sides? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, there are ballards on all three sides and and along the front there's also the fueling like meter um that's out front as well. So, they would have to get through all of that. You know, it's not like they're gonna just back into Yeah. There are other warnings or pokey yokes to, you know, prevent them. Okay. What's the volume of the fuel tank? 10,000 gallons. Okay.

Any other comments? I'm going to ask it's a double wall tank. What is the the protective outer tank is steel? Yes. And the inner tank also steel or fiberglass? Yes. Yes. What? I I I maybe clarify that. Are they both steel tanks? One steel tank inside another steel tank or fiberglass enclosed in a steel cam. Um I will not you know I don't know exactly again the the specifications of the tank. you know, we can provide that more information. It's under, you know, again, port press of the preapp meeting. Um, I can definitely make sure I have more knowledge on that information going into our next application.

With with the questioning I've been hearing, I think the concern is if you have a 10,000gallon tank, the expectation is you can capture 10,000 gallons. So, come back with a solution for that and we'll be all happy. That makes it simple. That that that makes it simple. You're right. Sums it up. But I think that also speaks to to what we were talking about before is really enclosing the perimeter of the area because that would help in the terms of yeah you know catastrophic sit you know

Mr. Kua would it be appropriate to mention a previous project where we put a special requirement under fuel tanks? It your prerogative it wouldn't be inappropriate. Okay. Uh we had a situation where they want to put underground tanks and they're very close to sensitive water bodies and it was suggested that a tertiary containment is possible with a bladder underground that would be able to contain the ex the total volume. So you may research that if you wish. So a tertiary containment for the

going to be a big bladder underground to to collect anything that were to spill um would be collected into a you know a separate storage tank is underground. Um okay

anything else from anyone Dr. Robert? It's kind of an overall comment. Again, I just want to point out that um I'm glad that the standards are higher because the land and the aquafer have not changed in the last few years. It's just the rags that have and it's preferable to have better protection for our water overlay districts. So, I'm just naming that because many residents in our community are extremely concerned about our aquifer and our water um overlay and we have a history in our community of contaminated water. So, we're very concerned about this as a community.

Yeah. Thanks. What What is that just a curious what is the applicant doing now for refueling? Where are they doing that? Um they do it at a site, you know, further away. Um and that that's you know this the use of this would prevent additional travel of the trucks. You're right you know and so you know um I've heard claims that you know it it would significantly reduce the you know off-site distances um at which the trucks would have to you know make their pit stops um because they only took over this property a few years ago. Yeah. Because it was railroad property right that office the office building and all that was part of the uh a long time. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Um I'm not completely clear on that history component. Um I know my client um I believe purchased um you know the property back in you know 2022 I believe or so. Um so um so okay. Anything else? Anyone? I think you I think you heard our concerns and recommendations. So

yeah. So, so I I would just like to before we close it out, ju just kind of confirm again the relief and an understanding from the board at which you know again those those initial stipulations, right? From my understanding, my perception here is that that that is something the board is amendable to. Um you know the the impervious the impact of the previous site from the previous stipulations that the board is amendable to granting some relief from that. Um then secondarily the you know the use of the tank on site again amendable given um the installation of protective features and the improvements to the sites that we've proposed and discussed about here. Um you know so is that accurate? Am I making it accurate? Say that you're amendable

as long as as long as it includes the what sounds like the uh the additional addressing the the concerns that we had as part of that. Okay. Yep. Understood. which I understand you haven't drawn the plan fully drawn the plans yet. Yeah. Yeah. And that that's you know again it was coming in with these conceptual plans the drainage design the components of that are still in flux and and again th those initial stipulations right if I can't get past those then you know that that's that's where you know then there's no point of me going with that continued disaster. I think Dr. gave you the specific simple sentence that can drive the design and if you meet that I don't I don't think we're going to have any problems. Okay. So there you go.

Okay. Um and then so then with the you know the last of the conditions you know that um you know with all of those said again very tight site small amount of imper you know it I believe the additional impervious on the lot was uh 6,500 roughly square feet. um trying to get you know the net zero increase to storm water runoff you know is is somewhat dimminimous uh you know is is a of a smaller value um you know making things work in that extent for you know the control of peak fo flows um you know what is the board's amendability to things like that right I'm going to do the best I can to make it that but again we're we're in a you know a tighter situation

understood I I I think again Dr. Dr. Benoy's suggestion about the um the the kind of the third level of containment, the underwater bladder is is a very good one. Okay. Um because that can have that can have some serious capacity and it might it might make might actually be easier than trying to like you know build this thing into an above ground swimming pool that can capture 10,000 gallons of fuel, you know. Yeah. Okay. So, well, the storm water overflow would that be something that would be caught in those divots, if you will, know the that you'd be installing.

So, I mean th those are only for small, you know, releases of gas, right? The storm water overflow that you know what what we're running up against with and we we've had a conversation with D about the project already. Um, you know, we would not need to file with them for the current project if you guys were to simply approve us. You know, they they they've looked at the site. There's nothing we're not within a wetland resource area. Um, we're not uh impacting more than an acre of land. Um and currently there's no proposed underground infiltration or underground injection um you know wells for the site right so what we have to do with the storm water design is do you know maintain the property um you know to the grace it without having you know um without meeting any of those three thresholds right and that that you know would allow us within the town standards the it's the peak rate of flows off you know often with underground infiltration we don't necessarily want to do that with the flow you know with um the use of the property, you know, fuel, you know, trucking sort industrial area. Um injecting stuff into the ground, you know, we we want to do it on the surface, but we're limited by again the smallness of the site and the amount of impervious is, you know, it's very hard to make up for the the the very minute amount of flow. So, you know, again, we'll come back with the best design we caply have and just wanted to kind of understand um the board's amendability um you know, to potential relief from those as well. Okay.

All right. All right. I think we're good. Awesome. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. All right. Last item on the agenda here. Oh, there it is. Okay. Um, next item on the agenda is the administrative subdivision informationational purpose. So if um if you Okay, Oleg. I I assumed it was Bobby, by the way. That's the name of the owner, Oleg. Oh, Swedish.

We just we just call it the Oleg subdivision. But anyway, um pretty simple. He uh went from two lots to three lots. Okay. Um, is there a good reason? I don't remember.

So, just a under the new standard up to prior to July up to five lots would be approved administratively as would have prior have come to the planning board for a minor subdivision. This is a minor subdivision using two lots to create a third conforming lot. So the two pre-existing lots with homes on them will be conforming in the third lot which is in the middle which is a 45,000 foot lot over an acre. Um will also be a conforming lot. Oh, so proper frontage and all that kind of stuff and

has appropriate frontage, lot width and area and and it doesn't have the little flag stick thing you like to avoid. So that's nice. So while they're defined as minors, they're actually reviewed administratively, right? Okay. Any other questions or anything on that? If not, we'll be looking for a motion to adjurnn. Move that we adjourn. We have a second. Second. Those in favor? I opposed. No, we