2026-09-09 - Planning Board

Summary

Written from the auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard.

The opening caption gives the meeting date as Tuesday, September 8, 2026 (a Conservation Commission member the next night referred to "yesterday's" Planning Board meeting). Three approval-not-required plans were endorsed unanimously: 50 Washington Street (transfer of about 29,000 sq ft to Windbrook Acres where existing homes sit on the neighboring parcel), 304 South Street (one lot split into two) and 14 Shell Street (interior lot line dissolved, two lots created).
481 Washington Street (PB-26-6, site plan for a roughly 6,400 sq ft building with a 2,400 sq ft food service use with drive-through and about 32 parking spaces, on a former gas station lot): the engineer said peer review comments from the town's engineer had been addressed with revised plans (new construction sequence sheet, revised accessible space, narrowed 36-foot Route 20 curb cuts) and a second peer review was received only the Thursday before. Members worried about the Route 20/Elm Street intersection (a member cited 37 accidents in five years, a blinking signal, and an Elm Street entrance about 80 feet from Route 20), westbound drivers trying to turn into the right-in, right-out driveways, and asked for a physical barrier and signage. A resident asked the town and developer to push the state for a light. The traffic consultant's signal warrant analysis found no signal warranted. The hearing was continued to September 22 after the Zoning Board of Appeals (September 17) readvertises the drive-through special permits.
512 Washington Street (PB-26-8): first hearing for retroactive site plan approval of a truck service business's rear lot expansion, where about 400 cubic yards of stone was placed over an area of cleared trees. Staff said work began before approval, the building commissioner treated it as an expansion of use, and a minor land disturbance permit was issued the previous week. Neighbors described lost tree screening, light, noise and a retaining wall along the property line; a wetland scientist said the wetland and buffer have not been delineated and that a Conservation Commission filing is needed; a Conservation Commission member said a violation may have occurred. Board members raised fencing height, buffer, lighting and drainage. Staff will confirm whether a conservation filing is required; continued to September 22.
190 Washington Street (PB-26-9): major site plan modification replacing one 102,000 sq ft warehouse with six buildings totaling about 75,200 sq ft (up to 23 tenant spaces, 150 parking spaces, maximum height 32 feet versus 41, half an acre less impervious area). The traffic memo showed a net reduction of about 96 weekday trips. Windbrook Acres residents repeated traffic and safety concerns, and the applicant said Route 20 work (a turn-in lane into Commerce Drive and an acceleration lane) has just been permitted by the state and should start this fall. The modification was approved unanimously; construction hours are 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to noon Saturdays, and residents' noise complaints about rock work at 50 Washington Street were noted.
Data centers: staff presented two alternatives, a one-year moratorium through October 27, 2027 or a ban in all districts. A resident criticized the draft as too broad, since small server rooms could be caught. After debate the board voted to recommend the one-year moratorium to the Select Board, and voted not to recommend the ban.
August 11 minutes were held over. A National Grid central-to-western Massachusetts energy improvement project was noted for information, with comments open until October 9. Next meeting September 22.

Issues discussed

Sources

Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=v49iKbKlF3k

Video

Transcript

These are auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard.

Transcript

00:05[music] Good evening everyone and

00:06welcome to the town of Auburn Planning

00:09Board meeting of Tuesday, September 8th,

00:112026. Now call to order at 7 p.m. This

00:15meeting is being recorded and

00:18broadcasted live by local access

00:20programming. Is there anyone here in the

00:23audience tonight that is recording

00:25tonight's meeting?

00:28There being none, please rise and join

00:30us in a salute to the flag.

00:36I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

00:38United States of America and to the

00:41republic for which it stands, one nation

00:44under God, indivisible, with liberty and

00:48justice for all.

01:08With respect to the agenda, we're going

01:11to go to number six

01:13first to get those out of the way. Uh

01:16the approval not required plans.

01:26On the number six, AN26-3-50

01:32and 120 Washington Street. Is there

01:35anyone here representing them

01:41from the applicant?

01:47Did Did you think they would know?

01:52>> Dorian, just to confirm, are you

01:53representing the applicant tonight?

01:57>> Okay. Do you want to come up and just

01:58give a brief overview? If not, you

02:00don't. I'm happy to provide it as well.

02:04>> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman,

02:06members of the board. Um, this is a long

02:08time coming. This is the encroachment of

02:11Windberg acres on the 50 Washington

02:14Street when the um when Eastland

02:16Partners first made their presentation

02:18to the board of selectmen, excuse me. Um

02:22when they were um

02:25interested in buying and the town had

02:27the option to exercise their right of

02:28first refusal. Um they had mentioned in

02:32their presentation that they would give

02:34that encroachment to Windbrook Acres.

02:37Unfortunately, you know, and and I think

02:39they were even be before this board um

02:42with different members and said they

02:44were going to give the encroachment.

02:46Well, some things happened and it didn't

02:48happen um as quickly as we had hoped.

02:51There were some back and forth, but now

02:53Eastland Partners after reviewing the

02:56tape of the board of selectmen where it

02:58says they were going to give the land is

03:00now going to give the land to East um

03:03Windbrook Acres, the residents here can

03:05finally take a deep breath knowing that

03:08their homes will be on their land. So,

03:11we've all worked together and before you

03:14is the ANR and then we have the proposed

03:17deed to file with the register of deeds.

03:20So it all it all worked out. It took a

03:22long time, years and lots of lawyers,

03:25but it worked out. So I thank you for

03:27this.

03:30Through the chair, if I could just add

03:31to um so the ANR is to create parcel A.

03:35This is the portion of um where some of

03:38the existing homes at Wreck Acres are

03:40located, but it's technically on uh the

03:4350 Washington site. So this would be a

03:45transfer of land. There's no frontage

03:47being modified. Um it's simply the

03:50creation of this parcel A. It's about

03:5129,000 ft to the abuing property owner.

03:54Um so it's on a public way. Um staff has

03:58no concerns about the endorsement of the

04:00ANR plan as provided.

04:04>> No monetary value.

04:06So everything here is good.

04:15[snorts] We'll do one at a time.

04:20Do I have a motion to approve a under

04:23number six?

04:25>> I'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman.

04:27>> Do I have a second?

04:29>> I'll I'll second that motion.

04:31>> All those in favor?

04:33>> Ricky,

04:33>> I

04:34>> I

04:37>> I

04:38>> myself I it is approved.

04:41>> Thank you so much. I'm excited to share

04:43the good news with the residents

04:44affected.

04:52Under 6B, AN26-4

04:57304 South Street Public

05:10through the chair. I'm not sure if we

05:11have anyone in attendance for this ANR

05:13plan tonight. Um but before you um today

05:16is existing it's a single family with a

05:18garage you can see on the um plan north

05:22side. So it's one large lot today. The

05:25applicant seeking to split it into two

05:27lots. Both lots have in excess of the

05:29required 180 ft in the residents R

05:31zoning district. Um it's along South

05:34Street which is a public street of uh

05:37typical construction. So um staff have

05:39no concerns about the endorsability of

05:41the ANR. I looked at it today and it

05:44looks fine.

05:47>> Any questions, Rick?

05:49>> Nope. Chris,

05:50>> no. It looks very straightforward. Nope.

05:53>> Do I have a motion to approve 6B?

05:56>> I'll make the motion to approve 6B.

05:58>> Second.

05:59>> All those in favor?

06:01>> I

06:02>> I

06:03>> I. [snorts] It is a vote

06:08under 6 C26-5-14

06:15Shell Street.

06:22>> That's just the subdivision too.

06:26The chair, I can give a brief overview.

06:28Um, so this is existing two lots today.

06:32It's kind of hard to see, but there's a

06:33bit of a funky lot lining running

06:35parallel to Bernett Street. Um, so the

06:38applicant seeking to dissolve that

06:40interior lot line. It's not present on

06:42our tax maps, um, because the properties

06:44are in common ownership. Um, but this

06:46ANR would eliminate that lot line and

06:48then create two lots. One for the

06:50existing single family to sit on, um,

06:52which has frontage along the culde-sac

06:53on Roshelle Street. It also has frontage

06:55on Bernett Street. And then it would

06:57create this new lot to the south um with

07:00um plenty of frontage on both Bernett

07:02and I think it's Rosdale Street to the

07:04south.

07:05>> Um so both all streets are public of

07:08typical construction um and both

07:09properties have adequate frontage in the

07:11zoning district.

07:15>> Any questions, Ricky?

07:16>> Nope. Chris.

07:19>> Uh no. No questions.

07:21>> No, sir.

07:22>> Do I have a motion to approve?

07:24>> I'll make that motion.

07:25>> Second.

07:26All those in favor?

07:28>> I

07:29>> I

07:30>> I

07:31>> I It is a vote.

07:34>> The A Thank you, Rose.

07:47Do you mind if I pass these down?

08:19How was he Okay.

09:00So, these are the three mileers.

09:03>> Nope, it's they're all the three

09:05different ones.

09:06>> That's what I mean. And that's

09:14like a big fat

09:18sign.

10:00It's

10:02going to

10:25See yours?

10:34>> [snorts]

11:53>> All set.

11:55[clears throat]

11:57All right. Uh, first item on the agenda

12:00is public hearing for 481 Washington

12:05Street, PB-26-6.

12:10Public hearing. Site plan approval to

12:13construct a 6,400 square foot building,

12:16[snorts] 2400 square feet of which will

12:19be operated as a food service

12:21establishment with a drive-thru

12:24accompanied by 32 plus or minus parking

12:29uh spaces

12:31facility on other associated site

12:33improvement.

12:36We have a motion to open the public

12:38hearing.

12:40I'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman.

12:43>> Second.

12:44>> All those in favor?

12:45>> I I

12:46>> I

12:49>> Is the applicant present?

12:52Would you state your names and

12:56companies and

13:03>> Branded Realy Group too?

13:06>> You speak up a little bit. Uh, Robert

13:08Brana, Brandon Realy Group 2 LLC. Our

13:10offices are on 72 Shrewsbury Street in

13:12Western Massachusetts.

13:18And before you begin, it says here,

13:21[snorts] uh,

13:24which will be operated as a food service

13:26establishment with a drive-thru. You

13:29already have the approval for the

13:30drive-thru.

13:33Uh we were before the zoning board and

13:35they seemed very receptive to it except

13:39that they had to continue to September

13:4117th because they advertised only one of

13:45the special permits we were looking for.

13:47We were looking for three pieces of

13:49relief and they only advertised one. So

13:51out of abundance of caution, they

13:53continued the hearing so they could

13:54readvertise it. But we did give a full

13:56presentation.

13:59uh one that

13:59>> But you don't have the drug. No,

14:02>> no. Uh but they heard basically the

14:04same.

14:04>> I'm curious, why would you come to if

14:07because usually I think in the past

14:09people have said if if they don't get a

14:11drive-thru, a lot of people won't

14:13construct whatever they're proposing

14:15here.

14:17>> Would you still build the 4,000 square

14:20foot convenience store and the regular

14:23Dunkin Donuts if you didn't get a

14:24drive-thru?

14:25>> No.

14:26>> Okay. That's why I'm just curious why

14:28you wouldn't have it before you came

14:30here.

14:31>> Um,

14:32>> do the terms of the purchase and sale

14:35agreement that we have with the seller

14:37require us to do everything all at once?

14:39So, that's what we're doing.

14:42And they will affect the cleanup

14:45assuming we get the permits. They will

14:47then come in with their LSP, clean up

14:49the site, remove the tanks, uh remove

14:52any contaminated soils and any other

14:54violations until DP blesses it and the

14:57fire department obviously um monitors

15:01the removal and disposal of the tanks.

15:03Uh and again, it's in the aquifer

15:05protection zone and it's right on a

15:07wetland. Um so

15:10obviously everybody's concerned wants

15:12that to happen assuming that we meet all

15:14the other criteria that uh the planning

15:17board, zoning board and conservation

15:18commission uh and meet any conditions

15:21that they impose.

15:24>> Okay, you can continue with your

15:26presentation. Thank you.

15:29>> All right, good evening. My name is Alex

15:31Wood. I am an EIT civil engineer with

15:34Thompson Liston Associates. Um on behalf

15:36of the applicant, um since the last

15:40meeting, we have received uh peerreview

15:43comments from Graves Engineering

15:46and we have um issued a revised set of

15:49plans um according to the comments in

15:52that letter. Um if the board would like

15:54we can go through any of the specifics

15:56of that uh comment response letter but

15:59just to give a general overview. Um a

16:02significant portion of the comments were

16:04pertaining to some notes uh new notes

16:08and modification of existing notes on

16:10the plans. Um nothing too major. Uh we

16:13did add a new sheet to the set um which

16:16is sheet C1.3.

16:19The purpose of adding that sheet was to

16:22add a construction sequence to the plan

16:24um which was requested by Graves

16:26Engineering and then we also brought the

16:28erosion control details onto that sheet.

16:31Um we revised one of the accessible um

16:36parking space configurations

16:38um per Graves comment um and there were

16:42also two comments um which Kimley Horn

16:45the project traffic consultants have

16:47addressed. um we have their responses to

16:50um aside from that there's nothing you

16:53know there's nothing else that I can you

16:55know think of off the top of my head

16:56unless there's a specific that the board

16:58would like uh to go through.

17:00>> Do you have a print that you can put up

17:01there so the audience and everyone else

17:03can see where your entrances and exits

17:06are going to be and what the traffic

17:08flow pattern will be.

17:11Yes sir. Here's

17:35>> Thank you.

17:43So here we have the layout sheet. Um I

17:47can flip back actually to the existing

17:49conditions uh and just walk through u

17:52the C1 series since that's where I made

17:54you know a few changes. Um if if the

17:56board will recall C1.2 was the erosion

17:59control and demolition plans. Um we

18:01added a specific note pertaining to the

18:04underground storage tanks um as Mr.

18:06Brona had pointed out. And then we also

18:09added the sheet uh 1.3 with the

18:12construction sequence.

18:19Say um through the chair if the board

18:21has any, you know, specific questions

18:22about the uh site proposal or

18:24improvements or storm water and we'd we

18:26would uh be happy to talk about that.

18:31Just a minute, please.

18:49I just have one quick question, Mr.

18:51Chairman, if I could ask. Uh, when are

18:52you going back before the zoning board?

18:56>> The chair. I believe the zoning board

18:57meeting is on the 17th. Uh, so it should

18:59be next Thursday.

19:00>> Okay. Thank you.

19:17through the chair. I just want to

19:18comment for the record um the plans in

19:20your packet are the um same plans from

19:23the earlier approval, they provided an

19:25updated set in response to Graves

19:26comment today. Um so we don't have those

19:29in front of us. They are up on the

19:30screen. They're a little difficult to

19:32see. um from this angle, but see what

19:36you have in front of you is not the

19:37latest version. I just want to make

19:39clear for everyone

19:43this

19:48um and I will just add for the record

19:50too, we received the peer review from

19:52Graves Engineering. We also received a

19:53peer review from Chapel Engineering last

19:56Thursday. Um so it was pretty quick um

19:59turnaround for review. So, the applicant

20:01has not provided a response to those

20:03comments um given the holiday weekend

20:05and the late uh receipt of that letter.

20:08So, um you can read their comments.

20:10They're included in your packet. Um but

20:11the applicant hasn't had time to fully

20:13digest it from what I understand.

20:20>> What was that roster? The applicant had

20:22a hard time.

20:25Okay.

20:29I've got a question for the chair. Um,

20:33I've reviewed I watched last meeting. I

20:35wasn't present for the the last meeting,

20:37but I did watch the video, reviewed the

20:39plans. Um, you know, obviously we

20:42noticed a very busy intersection, poorly

20:45managed. We can say what we want to say.

20:46We know what it is. I did have one

20:49question. I don't see it on here. I've

20:50been searching for it. the distance from

20:54Route 20 Washington Street to the

20:57entrance on Elm Street.

21:01How far is that?

21:03>> Through the chair. Sorry. Could you just

21:05please clarify um the entrance on Elm

21:07Street?

21:08>> The entrance on Elm Street. How far set

21:10back from Route 20 is that?

21:12>> Okay. Uh we actually we do have a scaled

21:14plan um with us. If we could just please

21:16have a moment to uh Yeah, of course. To

21:17give you that dimension. Thank you.

21:23We have I want to address a comment that

21:25um you made uh regarding changing the

21:28drive-thru location. We looked hard at

21:30it and to move it out of where it is in

21:33the parking lot. We just couldn't find a

21:35way to do it. Uh a lot of that's related

21:38obviously it's a very irregularly shaped

21:40lot. I think it looks like ahead of an

21:42Easter Island statue, something like

21:43that. And it's got that wetland in the

21:45back.

21:46>> Correct.

21:46>> Can't use the back of that lot to wrap

21:48it around. So unfortunately, uh, we did

21:51look at it. We appreciated your

21:52concerns, and I think they're good ones.

21:55Um, but we think we can mitigate that

21:57with, um, speed limit signs and things

22:00things of that nature.

22:04So, people [clears throat]

22:06that are going to to go to the

22:07drive-thru, they'll have to come in off

22:09Elm Street,

22:11which could they could be heading

22:14eastbound on 20 and go in off Elm, or

22:17they could be uh heading uh

22:22the other coming westbound off on 20 and

22:26pull up Elm and go in. and they're going

22:28to go in and then start to take that

22:32curve here if they first get in off the

22:35entrance and then start to trip around

22:37for the uh travel lane into the

22:40drive-thru.

22:45>> Yes. Uh through the chair. Yes, that is

22:47there. There is uh the one entrance on

22:49Route 20 as well as u on Elm Street. Um

22:52and then al also if I could just um to

22:55provide the clarification about the um

22:57Elm Street distance from Route 20, we've

22:59measured it to be approximately 80 feet.

23:02>> 80 feet.

23:03>> Correct.

23:08>> Just just to mention to the traffic

23:10pattern on Route 20, it is um you know,

23:12right turn in and right turn out. It's

23:14not um as you can see, I'm I'm actually

23:17going to zoom in on the arrows um since

23:19it might be a little hard to see.

23:22Um, so there are, you know, proposed

23:24arrows as well as, you know, stop bars

23:26and signage conveying to traffic the

23:29appropriate direction of travel

23:32>> and 20 westbound. That's some right in

23:34and right out. That's it.

23:37>> Correct.

23:40>> 20.

23:41>> Yeah.

23:41>> Eastbound.

23:42>> Correct. Yes.

23:42>> Eastbound.

23:44>> The concern I have is the traffic for 20

23:46westbound

23:47is the only entrance is Elm Street.

23:50>> That is correct. Yeah.

23:51>> And cars will be coming down heading

23:54west.

23:56And there's probably going to be some

23:58people that think one of those right ins

24:01or right outs is an entrance into Dunkin

24:04Donuts

24:06and you could have a problem there. The

24:09intersection already had 37 accidents in

24:13the last five years.

24:16If I may through the chair, I would just

24:18like to add to that um the applicant is

24:21proposing to narrow the curb cuts from

24:23the existing condition and provide

24:24additional striping and signage. So um

24:27through the um traffic consultants

24:29Kimley Horn, we believe that that would

24:30be a substantial improvement over the

24:32traffic safety and efficiency.

24:37>> So [clears throat]

24:38um

24:40give me one second. Which way is east?

24:42Which way is west? Uh this way going up

24:45is

24:46>> east.

24:47>> East. Okay. So coming west down Route

24:4920, right? The reality of is when you're

24:51coming down

24:53Route 20 for that arrow going into the

24:56driveway, is there signage on that sign

24:59telling people they can't turn there?

25:02>> Yes.

25:03>> On the opposite side that's not shown on

25:04this on the plans anywhere. Correct.

25:09>> You mean something Ricky? It says not an

25:11entrance or something. Yeah.

25:15>> At those points

25:17>> through the chair. Um that actually that

25:19was brought up in the traffic um review

25:21memo as far as I'm aware. And so um that

25:23was one of their comments to incorporate

25:25that and we could surely um add that to

25:27the plan, make that revision, and uh

25:29show that signage.

25:30>> So then let's say you do have the

25:32signage. Then it forces everyone to have

25:34to turn on Elm Street at which point

25:37that's a blinking light. It's just red

25:39and uh red and uh yellow the whole time.

25:42Um the reality of it is it's going to

25:44back up traffic and everyone trying to

25:48maybe get across Elm Street or end up

25:50turning west on Elm Street is also going

25:52to be blocked by the people waiting on

25:54Route 20 um trying to get into Elm

25:58Street into the parking lot. Has that

26:00been looked at? Is there a solution for

26:01this intersection with DOT or anything

26:05>> through the chair? I mean I I would just

26:06say that you know we did have traffic

26:08consultants review the the patterns and

26:10they are aware of what you know DOT is

26:12is going to be looking for and that will

26:14be part of the process is you know DOT

26:16review. So everything within the state

26:18highway layout will will be reviewed by

26:20Mass DOT. Um in terms of you know the

26:24specifics of the actual numbers of

26:26vehicles and and and all of that um that

26:28could be found inside of the traffic

26:30report prepared by Kimley Horn. Um if I

26:33recall at the last meeting we did have

26:35Lisa Juan um traffic engineer PE um give

26:38a nice presentation on those numbers.

26:40Yep. Um I don't have the like specifics

26:42for each maneuver off the top of my head

26:44but um you know

26:45>> would we happen to know if there is a

26:47specific traffic study for a Dunkin

26:49Donuts on a corner with that type of

26:52street light

26:54[snorts]

26:54>> because that's a completely different

26:55type of study. It's one thing to have a

26:57regular, you know, traffic light, but

26:59that specific blinking yellow and red.

27:02Is there any studies on that

27:05>> because that changes everything

27:06technically?

27:09>> We've got we've got a variety of Duncan

27:13in the area and other we have in other

27:16um and what we found is I mean it's

27:21Duncan in Massachusetts. People know

27:22what to do. Um like we have a site the

27:26most chaotic site I think we have is in

27:27Kelly Square in Worcester. Uh it's

27:29across the street from Polar Park uh the

27:31ballpark.

27:32>> Yep.

27:33>> Um and that's got lots of crossing

27:35traffic. It's got that peanut um and no

27:38signalization

27:40and that tends to seem to flow well.

27:43were able to drive wrap that drive-thru

27:45behind the building like we're doing

27:47here, but then people exit out through

27:49the parking lot and they can only take a

27:52right to get out. Um, similar to this.

27:56So, that's the only thing I can think of

27:57that's close to that that we have that

27:59we own. Um,

28:02and again being only able to take a

28:04right. I think if you're traveling west

28:06on 20 to go in to Elm Street to get out

28:11and now all of a sudden you're facing

28:13Route 20 can only take a right. You

28:15would have to drive around the building

28:16again to get back on Elm Street, which I

28:19don't think people will do. Like we're a

28:20convenience business mostly um in the

28:23morning and people on their way to work,

28:25that's our core customer. That's how we

28:27make our money. Um, I just don't think

28:29people will do that. I haven't had that

28:31experience. If we don't make it easy to

28:34use on how you're traveling, you won't

28:38use us. You'll go to the next one that's

28:39easy for you to use. Um, and again,

28:42that's why we have so many of them uh

28:44that aren't that far from each other for

28:46that specific reason to capture all the

28:49different traffic patterns. We're not

28:50planning on capturing traffic heading

28:52west. Uh we actually have a Duncan on up

28:55the road on that side of the street

28:58right now. So uh we're evaluating what

29:01we're going to do with that store. Um

29:03you know, we have a lease. We have to

29:05talk to the landlord. He might redevelop

29:07the property. Uh we need more space and

29:09we're not getting people traveling

29:12eastbound. Even though there's a light

29:14where you can turn in there unless

29:16they're going to do a gas run or going

29:19to that convenience store, we tend to

29:21not get them as customers. Uh, so we're

29:23losing about 50% of the volume, which is

29:25why we want to do this and have a

29:27drive-thru. That store does not have a

29:28drive-thru.

29:29>> Talking about 717 South Pitch Street.

29:32>> No, we're talking about 310 Washington

29:33Street,

29:34>> the Shell.

29:35>> The Shell Station. The Shell.

29:38>> Um, [clears throat]

29:40the Peanut, did you have a conversation

29:42at Kelly Square? And were you involved

29:44with the Peanut Roundabout at any point?

29:47>> We were. We met with the city. They took

29:49land from us. Uh we were redeveloping

29:52that site. There was an old gas station,

29:54very old gas station there as you might

29:56remember in a car wash on the other side

29:58next to the Burger King. Uh we took

30:01everything out. They took land. We

30:03actually remediated that site. It it's

30:06our property. So we did it. Uh Getti's

30:08going to do it here. We've done that

30:10with other oil companies in other

30:12states. Um and they do they're very

30:14thorough because they're obviously the

30:16deep pocket. that's who's going to get

30:18blamed if anything happens. Um, but we

30:21did it on this site. Uh, we took tanks

30:23out. There were tanks under the

30:25sidewalk. Um, they took part of that

30:27property, widen the sidewalk, and we had

30:31many conversations with DOT and the city

30:33about the turning right turn in, right

30:36turn out, where you could take a left.

30:39Um, and it's worked out very well.

30:42Actually, our volume went up on that

30:44site even though we have more uses on

30:45it. We added a Jersey Mike, moved the

30:48car wash to the other side. There's a

30:50much larger convenience store, a lot

30:51more pumps, uh, and a DHL shipping

30:55franchise on there now. And it works

30:57better than it ever did before.

31:04The snow storage island, uh, that's not

31:07on the screen anymore. There's a snow

31:08storage island. Is the property line

31:12part of this whole island? I I can't

31:14really determine the property line.

31:19>> Sorry, actually um Rose, do you think

31:21you could log into

31:24>> the left side of the

31:25>> but I'm asking do they

31:28>> Yeah.

31:32>> Sorry, the computer actually uh logged

31:34out up here. I think we Yeah.

31:37>> Okay, there we go. Sorry, took a minute.

31:39>> Yes. So that snow storage island far

31:42left on the sheet.

31:44>> Um yes, this this island is that part of

31:47the property line or is part of that

31:48part of uh state?

31:51>> So uh through the chair um we actually

31:53removed the snow storage on that side. I

31:56just want to make sure uh you're

31:58referring to at this portion here.

31:59Correct. I think on the printouts that

32:01the board has, it would still have the

32:03text that says snow storage. Um, we did

32:06remove that from the state highway

32:07layout

32:09>> because you don't own that.

32:10>> So, actually, um, I I should clarify,

32:12too. So, in this island, you know, the

32:13state highway layout is, um, this line

32:16that I'm that I'm pointing to, um, out

32:19here in this sort of like triangular

32:21section in between uh, this darker curve

32:24shown here. Um, that is off of the

32:26property. So, um, that is why we we

32:29removed it from there.

32:30>> Is that I I can't understand. Is that

32:33your property or the state

32:35>> or someone else?

32:36>> That outer island where the black

32:38>> Yes. So, uh that would be part of the

32:39street layout in that location. So,

32:41>> so it's not your property.

32:43>> Correct.

32:43>> Why would you be putting snow storage

32:45there

32:46>> through the chair? That that was a like

32:48a typo on the last one. We've since

32:50removed it from the plans um as shown on

32:52>> change a bunch of this stuff

32:57>> Ron. It's been corrected. We just don't

32:59have that package in front of us at the

33:00moment. No,

33:02>> this is not the updated one. Okay.

33:06To

33:06>> the chair, if I may, um, you had

33:09mentioned that the turn in and the turn

33:12out, you're going to narrow those a

33:16little bit and make them more difficult

33:17for anybody to go where you don't want

33:19them to go, right? Whether it's pulling

33:21in from westbound

33:24or as exiting to go westbound.

33:27>> Uh, yes, through the chair. That's

33:29correct. So, we have narrowed it to 36

33:31ft across. Um, if you'd like a dimension

33:34on the existing one, I believe we have

33:35it labeled on another sheet, but um, we

33:38can see from the curbing here, um, where

33:40the proposed curbing is. So, yeah, that

33:42we've been, um, proposed an extension,

33:45you know, on each side of that island

33:46just to tighten that up.

33:49>> So, the curve is the part that I was

33:51concerned about, right? So, if we kind

33:53of straighten that out a little bit, if

33:55you will, so that

33:57westbound can't turn into there, only

34:01eastbound.

34:03>> Yeah.

34:03>> Does that sound fair?

34:04>> Yeah.

34:05>> And we're trying to prevent it anyways

34:06with signage and arrows. I think a

34:10physical barrier might be a little bit

34:11better.

34:13>> I was just say through the chair, too. I

34:14think we would just want to um review

34:15the truck turning as well just to make

34:17sure that there was no interference with

34:19that. But if that is the case that the

34:22um traffic engineers turning maneuvers

34:24show that it's not an issue then we

34:25could consider that.

34:26>> Thank you.

34:30>> Hi Mr. Chairman. I'm Patrick Keley. I'm

34:32the civil engineer for the project. Um I

34:35had the discussions with Mass D about

34:37the reconfiguration of the driveways

34:39here. So what we're showing is

34:41significantly reducing the width of

34:42these driveways while at the same time

34:45these driveways have to accommodate the

34:47largest vehicle that has to use them

34:49without swinging into the opposing lane

34:51on the state highway. So we have to stay

34:53within our lane and make that right turn

34:56into the site. It's kind of a you know

34:58challenge to to do all of that at the

35:00same time. So the configuration we're

35:02showing here, the reason why we have

35:04those angled dimensions, those are the

35:07angles of widths that are allowed by

35:09mass DOT. So we have we can have a

35:11maximum of 24 ft at a 45 degree angle

35:14and that's how we arrive at that 30 36T

35:17width.

35:24>> Correct me if I'm wrong. Were you asking

35:27to have it straightened out the curb?

35:30This part?

35:35>> And we cannot do that.

35:38>> Cuz to me, it's uh

35:40>> You've got to be concerned about this

35:43for a truck to pull in.

35:45>> Oh. Oh.

35:45>> Trucks are only going to pull in this

35:46way.

35:47>> Got it.

35:48>> To go back here. So, that's what I would

35:49rather see in more specifically over

35:52here. But you understand what I mean?

35:55>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that's how I

35:57was looking at

35:58>> just really eliminate traffic going the

36:00wrong way in and out of those

36:03>> one 18 wheeler delivery a week,

36:05>> right?

36:05>> So we want them coming off Route 20, not

36:07Elm Street.

36:13[snorts]

36:15[clears throat]

36:17>> Traffic engineers and DOT and the fire

36:20department. That's why they're

36:22>> understood.

36:22>> Can I can I share this sketch? Can I

36:25like walk up there and share it with you

36:26guys or Yeah.

36:53>> is what I'm showing

36:55This is what I

36:59>> was proposing.

37:01>> Just dangling. Yeah.

37:03>> But I don't know that a truck can make

37:05that turn

37:06>> or if it's to proper guidelines for

37:09>> coming in off of Elm Street.

37:10>> No, no. Route 20.

37:12>> Oh, the truck the truck should go in off

37:14of Elm Street. Shouldn't it?

37:16>> No, that's what we eliminated.

37:18>> Oh, okay.

37:18>> We wanted off only route only route 20.

37:21>> Okay.

37:24If you could do that tires could work

37:27like these

37:30by the way

37:31>> to go west.

37:34>> I just don't know if it's possible with

37:36the truck. That's the only thing we have

37:39to be concerned about.

37:40>> How wide is it?

37:44In theory, if you

37:47>> if you do that, it creates more of a

37:50hard drive right only a left can't turn

37:52to.

37:54[clears throat]

37:56>> Mr. Chair, we will take that idea back

37:58to our traffic consultant and review see

38:01how much we can tighten that traffic.

38:03>> Oh, yeah.

38:04>> I understand your concerns about the

38:06left avoiding or dissuading people from

38:08taking the illegal left turn

38:10>> as much as we can. It's already been

38:12established.

38:14um that it's a poor intersection with or

38:17without

38:19this proposed structure.

38:22Adding more to it in a

38:26greater than average accident zone is

38:29not something that any of us want to do.

38:31So any precautions that we can take, we

38:34want to do that. I'm all about

38:36continuing to develop the town but as

38:39safe as we can.

38:43Thank you.

38:51>> And you mentioned earlier that the state

38:53has to approve all of this too.

38:58Um so through the chair the state um

39:00will um give us comments pertaining to

39:03the state highway layout and the work

39:05within so they can review the curb cuts

39:08the materials traffic patterns um the

39:12driveways you know entry in and out of

39:14the site

39:15>> and if they ask you to make other

39:17changes you'll come to us and

39:21alert us of whatever because this is the

39:24plan we're looking at or the updated one

39:26that we haven't seen that.

39:28>> Yes. So, we would issue a revised set

39:30and we would, you know, make sure that

39:31you guys have that and incorporate, you

39:34know, the comments that DOT requires us

39:36to incorporate.

39:39Like the others have said, there's no

39:41light there. And, you know, if there was

39:44one of those rotaries, which I don't

39:46know if they allow because you can't

39:48have too many cuz then you slow the

39:49traffic. But uh and I don't know what

39:52the state's outlook is on that, but

39:55sometimes it's just that

39:58you just can't do it in a certain

40:00location. It just doesn't work cuz we

40:03have to consider what's safest and best

40:05for the town. That's my opinion.

40:09>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would just

40:11add to it, too, since you did um mention

40:13the light. Um so Kimley Horn the project

40:15traffic consultants they did the uh

40:17signal warrant analysis and found that

40:19per the you know as per the methods that

40:22DOT accepts uh the intersection did not

40:24warrant um a signal at this time. So

40:28just to reiterate that was investigated

40:30as part of the traffic report but

40:31ultimately anything within the state

40:33highway layout is going to be subject to

40:34DOT approval.

40:42I have no more comments.

40:45>> Have nothing else.

40:49>> Is there any public comment?

40:54>> Ma'am, would you get up and state your

40:55name?

40:59>> Thank you again, Darin Goodrich,

41:01Windbber Acres. Um, I really think it's

41:04important to have resident comment for

41:07projects like this. I've lived I now

41:09live on the Worcester Auburn line.

41:13Previously I lived on the Wii on the

41:14Oxford Auburn line on Hill Street. And

41:18I've seen over the last 25 years the

41:20growth on Route 20. Um so I'm going to

41:23address the first um one of the members

41:25first comments um when he asked the

41:28distance between Route 20 and the Elm

41:31Street exit entrance and I believe it

41:34said it was 80 ft. Well, if you have one

41:37tractor trailer, one 50ft tractor

41:39trailer, 53 ft tractor trailer, and a

41:42cab, depending on the make and model,

41:45you're 70 to 75 ft long.

41:48Put that tractor trailer on Elm Street

41:52waiting to pull out. They're not going

41:53to pull out like the average car who is

41:55going to risk it and gun it out. And

41:58you've got traffic backed up in queue

42:01because of that one truck. Never mind in

42:04the morning when you have school buses

42:06and cars. I've seen it happen. I think

42:09we all the town, the developer,

42:14residents, and I'll make the same

42:15comments when I speak to 190 because I

42:18am in a butter. We really need to work

42:21with Mass DOT and advocate for a light

42:24there. I do travel Elm Street all the

42:26time as um kitchen chairman of the

42:29sports club. So, I'm very familiar with

42:31that intersection and it's a dangerous

42:34intersection. I know Mass DOT does not

42:36like traffic lights that close. We have

42:38the traffic light at South Street, but

42:41sometimes they just have to give in like

42:43they did in Shbury when they put in the

42:46big plaza there near Spags. You have

42:49traffic lights that are much closer. I I

42:52think that this is a good project. And

42:53I'm glad to see the the um the land

42:56cleaned up, but I think right now we

43:01don't want to be reactive instead of

43:03proactive like in Oxford when they did

43:07all the work in Oxford on Route 20

43:09because there was a death.

43:11So I just ask you to move cautiously

43:15with this intersection with a single

43:18blinking light. Thank you.

43:23to the applicant. Uh you said you were

43:27looking to open this too to help you

43:30gain some of the eastbound traffic.

43:33>> Yes.

43:34>> That goes right by 17 717 Southbridge

43:37Street.

43:38>> I'm sorry.

43:39>> That the tra the eastbound that goes by

43:42South uh 717 Southbridge Street

43:45>> and Washington. Same same road other

43:48side of the road. Uh further

43:50>> because I'm wondering you closed that

43:51other one that's up on the Oxford line.

43:56>> We

43:57>> if that was yours I don't know.

43:59>> Closed one because it was close to 717

44:02when we redid 717.

44:04Uh the plan was always that lease was

44:06running out. It was 895 Southbridge

44:09Street. We closed that one. Um

44:12I don't know if we'll close 310

44:14Washington Street. We have a lease. So

44:15we're going to stay there until the

44:16lease is up. landlord's a friend of

44:18mine, the Nuria Energy uh owner, former

44:21neighbor. Um, and then one other point

44:25and and I understand your comments. I

44:27think if traffic backs up on Elm Street,

44:30it might create a case for a light. So,

44:33you might be able to get a light if if

44:35that gets busy enough like that happened

44:39to us on the Boilston Shrewsbury line.

44:42We developed a few parcels. Um, then

44:45FedEx put in a giant warehouse. Bob

44:48Craft built two other warehouses. And

44:50then there's a spec warehouse that's

44:51still going to get leased. They ended up

44:54adding a light there because there was a

44:56residential area. It doesn't have

44:58businesses like Elm Street has. It's

45:01just residences, but there was it's

45:03basically three neighborhoods, one way

45:05in, one way out. That's it. So, they

45:07ended up having to put a light there.

45:09So, and and we of course are conveying

45:13all the concerns that we heard heard

45:15over the last planning board, the zoning

45:18board meeting about the need for a light

45:20or a roundabout. Uh some sort of traffic

45:23calming measure. Um that's better for

45:26us. We think it's better for Route 20.

45:28Um anything that would slow people down.

45:31Um

45:33we think we're all for it.

45:40We still haven't seen the approval of

45:43the

45:45drive-thru by the zoning board. So, I

45:49think should we want we would want to

45:51see that first.

45:54>> Mr. Chair, I can maybe preempt you there

45:56since we haven't seen the peer review

45:59from the traffic consultant until

46:01Thursday. Our traffic consultant is

46:03still taking time to respond to that.

46:05So, I would like to ask the board to

46:08consider a continuence of tonight's

46:10hearing to your next meeting.

46:11>> I think our next date is September 22nd.

46:15Yes, that will give us time to get the

46:18zoning board of appeals issue

46:19straightened out and get the response to

46:22the traffic peer review to maybe put

46:24your minds at ease about some of the

46:26things your peer reviewer is requesting

46:28along the same lines you're requesting

46:30to improve the safety of the turning

46:32movements

46:34>> and and we'll have time to explore if we

46:36can change the curbing like you proposed

46:39um that I think everybody wanted us to

46:42do if we can uh we'll be able to

46:44determine that before the next hearing.

46:49>> Is there any other public comment

46:53on the proposed Dunkin Donuts at the

46:55intersection of Route 20 and Coolage

47:00School.

47:04Okay. There being none, uh have the

47:07motion to close the public hearing. We

47:09don't

47:10>> keep it open.

47:10>> Yeah. No, we want to keep

47:13Okay.

47:16That motion continue

47:18>> uh motion motion to continue the public

47:21hearing for 481 Washington Street until

47:24September 20

47:27>> second

47:30one second Chris

47:31>> it's just a form for them to sign to

47:33continue

47:35just as the

47:40>> 22nd Okay, there.

48:12Uh

48:14motion to continue the public hearing

48:16for 481 Washington Street to September

48:2022nd. Do

48:21>> we have a second?

48:22>> I I'll second that.

48:24>> All those in favor?

48:25>> I

48:26>> I

48:27>> I

48:28see you on the 22nd.

48:30>> Thank you all.

48:46Okay. Next item on the agenda is a

48:49public hearing for 512 Washington

48:54Street, PB-26-8.

48:58Public [snorts] hearing is for site plan

49:01approval to retroactively

49:04approve for an expansion of the parking

49:08lot in the rear

49:11of the property.

49:16The applicant present

49:29Good evening, Stephen Robinson, Apple

49:31Truck and Trailer.

49:33Um,

49:36do you want to vote it open?

49:39>> Motion open the public hearing.

49:41>> Uh, I'll make that motion.

49:43>> I'll second that motion.

49:44>> In favor?

49:45>> I

49:46>> I

49:48>> Go ahead.

49:51>> Why don't you explain to us what you

49:53did? Okay. Sure. Um, so

50:00throughout the years has had some uh

50:03snow and ice damage. We've been since

50:05clearing that out. Um, and we've been

50:09laying down rock uh to flatten the

50:11surface um in that area just to uh

50:14smooth it, get rid of all the debris in

50:16that area also. um and just looking to

50:20use it as you know storage for um parts

50:24uh for our trucks, trailers, that kind

50:26of stuff. So,

50:28>> well, where your existing white fences

50:32today,

50:33>> if you're coming in and looking off

50:34Route 20, I see that there's a couple of

50:38panels removed where you brought in the

50:40approximately 400 yards of 4 to 6 in

50:44minus stone.

50:47uh and that you you have

50:54a 25 foot landscape buffer on that

50:58property which would begin at the back

51:00of your property line and come towards

51:0320.

51:05Okay. So, first of all, I don't know

51:08what you might think you'll be planting

51:11in that landscape buffalo of solid

51:14stone.

51:16And uh and then you would still have

51:19there's just a lot to be done there. I I

51:21don't know how someone could go in and

51:23do what you did without

51:26checking with somebody or something. I

51:28mean it's uh you you have an existing

51:32neighborhood in the back of that which

51:35deserves uh some amount of respect from

51:39what you do

51:41>> even though you zoned highway business.

51:43>> Sure.

51:44>> Yeah. I think because of the um

51:48so because of the area

51:51right here uh where it's located I think

51:53because of the size of it um you know

51:56there wasn't any thought of there being

51:59need for a particular permit for because

52:01of the size the size of it um

52:06>> well it's

52:08it's it's not just the size if you

52:10you're stating I think I said somewhere

52:13that it's approximately 50x 120 at 6,000

52:17square ft. And I've been down there

52:19several times and looked and it looked

52:21like it dropped down from the original

52:24level of pavement. And you just filled

52:28in with that. And it looks like a lot of

52:30trees and brush that gave the

52:33neighborhood some shield from the

52:37operation and the noise that exists

52:39there.

52:41And the lighting that is on the

52:43buildings is it it you're supposed to

52:47have zero [snorts]

52:49candle power on the prop all property

52:52lines and it it looks like that your

52:55lighting could exceed it and it's right

52:57in the face of those people that live in

52:59that neighborhood.

53:01>> I don't I don't recall I'd have to look

53:03but I don't think we have any lighting

53:04or video cameras in the back of our

53:07property. It's just to the front.

53:13>> You have photos.

53:16>> You have the photo evidence showing

53:18that.

53:19>> Do I have photos?

53:20>> No, we have photo evidence in front of

53:22us showing

53:22>> Oh, of showing lights. Yes.

53:24>> In the back. Okay. So, there's probably

53:26a light then over the back door.

53:29>> I think there's a couple of lights.

53:30>> That's what it looks like. Looks like

53:31there's a very bright light over the

53:33back door and the back door is open.

53:36You guys need to get in and out in the

53:37morning or

53:38>> Yeah. And on the picture to the left,

53:40it's above that overhead white door.

53:42That's where the lights coming from.

53:50>> Through the chair, do you mind if I give

53:51a little a little bit of a brief

53:53overview of this project and how it got

53:55to the planning board?

53:56>> Yeah. Um, so, um, back in the early

54:00summer, um,

54:03staff were notified of work going on at

54:05this property, um, and the building

54:07commissioner deemed it to be an

54:09extension of their use, an expansion of

54:11their use, um, which requires site plan

54:13approval. So, any use that requires site

54:16plan approval, an expansion to that

54:18subsequently requires site plan

54:19approval. We couldn't find any historic

54:22permitting records of this site. Um,

54:24from what the applicant stated, it's

54:26been in operation since the 80s. Um, so

54:28it's unlikely we would have an original

54:30site plan. Um, and what they're doing at

54:32the site is commercial truck maintenance

54:34and service and trailer rental. Um, so

54:37at the time,

54:39um, staff were notified, they were asked

54:42to come before the planning board to

54:43seek retroactive approval for the work

54:45that had already been conducted. So

54:46there's no additional work they're

54:48seeking to do except for um the change

54:51in location of some of the fencing. So,

54:53from what the applicant stated, they're

54:54seeking to put the fencing around that

54:56gravel area. Um, and a little bit about

54:59what the chair was talking about in

55:00regards to the buffer zones. So, when a

55:03property is abuing a zoning district, a

55:08different zoning district, a buffer zone

55:09comes into play. Um, there is the least

55:13restrictive buffer zone when the two

55:15properties are in the same zoning

55:17district, which is C. So, what's

55:18required there is an 8ft buffer zone.

55:21Um, in cases where highway business a

55:24residential, it's 25 feet. So, it kind

55:26of varies and the board has a lot of

55:28flexibility on what you determine to be

55:30adequate landscaping and buffer zones.

55:33Um, so the neighboring property is split

55:36zone. So, partially their shared zoning

55:38um their shared property line is in the

55:40same zoning district. So, I think the

55:42board has an additional level of

55:44flexibility on what they could find

55:46appropriate in this scenario. So, I just

55:49wanted to talk a little bit on that. Um

55:51the plan the applicants provided is a

55:53survey. It doesn't show um the work

55:54that's been done. So it predates um the

55:57additional work in the back. And then

55:59just one other thing is that the

56:00applicant did apply for a minor land

56:02disturbance permit and they received

56:04approval for that last week. So I'm not

56:06aware of any other permits that would be

56:08required um other than planning board

56:09approval at this time. So I'm happy to

56:11answer any questions. Thank you.

56:13Uh,

56:17so from the

56:19existing white fence to the back of your

56:23property line, do you know what that

56:25distance is?

56:26>> Sorry, say that again. From which which

56:28line?

56:28>> From your existing white fence that you

56:31see when like you pull into the site.

56:34>> Yeah, the one I think that's it to the

56:38rear of your property line.

56:43Okay,

56:45>> cuz it looks like there's a varying uh

56:48varying with all that Rose has come up

56:51with uh type of buffer, but being that

56:55it's in that neighborhood, I would want

56:57to see the biggest buffer we can have.

57:00Okay, that's only my opinion, not that

57:03of the whole board. And uh

57:08and

57:09you say that you you had no one you're

57:12going to take you you were going to put

57:15up a new white fence on the property

57:18line.

57:18>> The fence and the fence has taken some

57:21damage over the years. So that the fence

57:23is going to be um brought back to the

57:27edge of the stone here and then brought

57:30back over and back up to the Route 20.

57:34I think we I think we put a a sketch in

57:36there.

57:37>> It's because

57:42and what we do in some cases is we

57:45require the fence. But in the advent

57:48that the fence when it used to be

57:49stockade wooden fence or the plastic

57:52even disintegrates or crumbles, there's

57:56a like a hedge row of abavite or

57:58something else there. So now the

58:00neighbors are not left with nothing to

58:03shield them from the business.

58:05>> Yeah. We've we've always had the fence

58:07and I mean we we want a fence anyway

58:09too. I mean,

58:10>> but it it's a question of what do we

58:13require for landscaping or what do we

58:15do? Because I think a 6-ft fence

58:19at the end

58:21I don't we're going to see if the

58:24neighbors have anything to say, but uh I

58:27I don't think that's high enough that

58:30would shield a lot of it from the

58:32neighbors and and it might help cut the

58:35sound if it was higher of some sort. I

58:38think that's

58:39>> then and you say on any part of that if

58:42you're intending to park I don't know

58:45what you have in your current drainage

58:48plan if you have oil and water

58:50separators in the in the for the

58:52drainage in the lots cuz you got all

58:54those trucks and all the oil or whatever

58:57might leak off of them and the rain

58:59water and everything. But if you're

59:02going to park on it in any form or

59:06fashion,

59:07you'd need to have some kind of drainage

59:10or oil and water separators for that new

59:13section, especially and it you'll have a

59:16you'd have a job now doing it with all

59:19that stone.

59:20>> Correct. Um we're not this isn't uh an

59:23expansion for, you know, trucks or

59:25trailers. This is for, you know, parts

59:27inventory. So that's we just need the

59:30space to for pallets basically.

59:35>> Ricky, anything else?

59:38>> We can come back to

59:39>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm

59:40>> I had a question. You say you're going

59:42to use this area to store parts? Are you

59:45going to store the parts in a trailer?

59:48Um or you going to build another

59:49building or what is the process for

59:52that?

59:52>> Yeah, there's no building. I mean, we

59:54have right now we have parts on pallets.

59:56So it would be on pallets or it would be

59:57inside a storage container, but

1:00:00everything's everything's palletized. So

1:00:02>> So you'd be wanting to put a storage

1:00:04container on the stone.

1:00:06>> I mean, it's it's a possibility, you

1:00:09know, that we'd have a storage container

1:00:11that we could move over there if we had

1:00:12depending on the parts that were coming

1:00:14in.

1:00:14>> That's probably about 10 ft high, nine

1:00:16or 10 ft high.

1:00:18>> They're uh they're 8 ft.

1:00:21So even with a little an 8ft fence still

1:00:23be looking at the top of a storage

1:00:26container. Uh

1:00:30I think you need to com be ex more exact

1:00:33and specific on what you want to do and

1:00:36then it might help

1:00:38my thoughts govern what we're going to

1:00:41require you to do.

1:00:44you know, we're not trying to penalize

1:00:47you, but you you did it and it warrants

1:00:49that something's going to be corrected

1:00:51here.

1:00:53>> So, what what is what is it that you're

1:00:56looking for? A taller fence,

1:00:59>> most likely. Uh my question is, what was

1:01:02there before?

1:01:04>> Was that 6ft fence?

1:01:06>> No. What was in the the location where

1:01:09you guys added the gravel? Unless the

1:01:10gravel's been there for

1:01:12>> mostly uh shrubbery, dead trees, trees.

1:01:16>> Is that the before

1:01:18>> through the chair? It's a 2023 um street

1:01:21view.

1:01:22>> Can't even see it.

1:01:24>> Yeah, there was some there was some

1:01:26Looks like there was a couple of goodiz

1:01:28trees in there.

1:01:30>> Um

1:01:33how many trees were removed? At least

1:01:36alive trees. Any idea?

1:01:38>> And it's it's hard to say. We've been

1:01:39removing trees for for some time now. I

1:01:43mean, really, we were removing them

1:01:44because of dead branches

1:01:47and then they just kind of got to the

1:01:48point where they just all needed to be

1:01:50removed with, you know, uh, on this

1:01:53thing in front of us, I have a 100 foot

1:01:55wetland buffer. Is that only for the

1:01:58right side of the lot?

1:02:00Is that a wetland area?

1:02:05>> And was anything removed there? We had

1:02:09I think that there was a tree that was

1:02:11removed there. Um but again that was

1:02:14going to fall on this gentleman's house

1:02:20>> in the wetland. Does it terminate at

1:02:24some point because I can't really tell

1:02:25determine how long this buffer line

1:02:28goes?

1:02:29>> I'm sorry. Say that again. There's a

1:02:31there's a wetland buffer line on this

1:02:33lot image and it just goes here, but it

1:02:37goes to a triangle and it continues or

1:02:39it goes up. And I'm not 100% sure if

1:02:42that's still wetlands.

1:02:44>> Um, we had the um uh conservation uh

1:02:48committee out there to uh to check all

1:02:50that the the zoning for the for the

1:02:52wetlands. Um, and we were we were out of

1:02:56that.

1:02:56>> When was this?

1:02:58Um,

1:03:00>> I'm I'm part of conservation.

1:03:02>> Oh, okay.

1:03:02>> So, that's why I asked.

1:03:03>> I I don't It was in uh June or July.

1:03:08>> How was it?

1:03:08>> And I forget the I forgot the woman's

1:03:10name who was on site, but she she walked

1:03:12the site.

1:03:15>> Uh was her name. Nat Bickford. Uh

1:03:18>> so,

1:03:21[clears throat]

1:03:27>> yes. Uh, sir, are you the owner of the

1:03:29business?

1:03:30>> I'm the manager.

1:03:31>> You're the manager?

1:03:31>> Yeah.

1:03:33>> Okay. I found this on the web for you're

1:03:35the owner.

1:03:42>> Um,

1:03:51I have a lot of things in my head.

1:03:54My my first concern is the wetland. I

1:03:59would obviously have to talk to um

1:04:02hopefully I believe it would be NAP.

1:04:04>> Okay.

1:04:05>> Um I know

1:04:06>> about that.

1:04:07>> Um

1:04:07>> I know the issue with the wetland we

1:04:10were we were all set. We were square

1:04:12with

1:04:17that's what we were told.

1:04:20>> Okay.

1:04:21Um,

1:04:26I mean, in terms of what you're

1:04:27proposing versus what it was in 2023,

1:04:31uh, it's technically it's it seems to

1:04:34have been a problem. In my opinion, I

1:04:35think a large a tall fence would solve

1:04:39some of it, but then it's the look of

1:04:41the fence is also the next the next

1:04:44problem. Um,

1:04:46I mean, it's a it's a residential it's a

1:04:48residential fence. I mean, it's a

1:04:51It's a nice fence. I mean, we can do

1:04:53something different. I mean,

1:04:59>> I mean, I think too the thought was that

1:05:01I thought 6 feet was I thought that that

1:05:04was where you had to be with a fence.

1:05:06Um, if you were getting something

1:05:07bigger, I thought you had to be

1:05:09permitted for that. I don't I don't know

1:05:10if I'm wrong with that, but if that if

1:05:12that's if we can go higher, then it's

1:05:16fine with us, too.

1:05:18Uh,

1:05:20I'm okay.

1:05:20>> I'd like to hear from the applicants, I

1:05:23mean from the audience.

1:05:27>> Is there anyone in the audience that

1:05:29would like to speak on this? Yes. Would

1:05:32you come up to the

1:05:35through the jar? Just state for the

1:05:36record up to a 10t high fence would be

1:05:39allowed in the in a required yard. Um,

1:05:43so like up to the property line.

1:05:44Anything above 10 feet would be subject

1:05:46to that setback. Um, which would be 20

1:05:49feet in the rear.

1:05:51>> So 10 10 feet is the max.

1:05:53>> Okay. [clears throat]

1:05:57>> Go ahead, sir.

1:05:58>> My name is John Rockwood. I'm live at 5

1:06:00Maybell Avenue. I am a um principal

1:06:04environmental scientist and a senior

1:06:07professional wetland scientist.

1:06:10And um the wetlands have not been

1:06:12there's no flags out there. So no one's

1:06:14delineated anything, no one's evaluated

1:06:16anything, no one's determined what it is

1:06:19and what its boundary is. So you can't

1:06:21determine a buffer zone based with no

1:06:24boundary. Obviously, some of the wetland

1:06:26is very easily delineated. It's a

1:06:29essentially a 1:1 fill slope where

1:06:32wetlands were probably altered in the

1:06:33past. Then it comes around to a swale

1:06:36which actually goes all the way to the

1:06:38end of Maybell Avenue. And if that swale

1:06:42is part of the wetland and currently

1:06:44contains a predominance of wetland plant

1:06:45species and evidence of hydraology,

1:06:49um the buffer zone would extend from

1:06:51here. So that area would be within the

1:06:55buffer zone. I don't believe a notice of

1:06:57intent or request for determination of

1:06:59applicability were filed. The opinion of

1:07:02a conservation agent really doesn't set

1:07:05it. It's the commission that makes the

1:07:07determination regarding the presence and

1:07:10boundaries of wetlands. Consultants

1:07:12provide opinions.

1:07:14So there really needs to be some type of

1:07:17filing with the conservation commission

1:07:19in order to determine what's there and

1:07:22what its effects are. And the thing

1:07:24about the wetlands protection act is if

1:07:27you're doing work in the buffer zone in

1:07:281983 they added that term buffer zone to

1:07:32determine which projects required

1:07:34preconstruction review to minimize

1:07:37environmental damages.

1:07:40Um obviously we're doing an after the

1:07:43fact at this point. Some wetlands along

1:07:46that swale may have been altered by rip

1:07:48wrap going down the slope. um we just

1:07:52don't know. I can only look from places

1:07:54I'm legally allowed to stand under the

1:07:57plain view doctrine. I can't trespass.

1:08:00So that's what I did. And um I think the

1:08:04wetlands more extensive than shown.

1:08:06There's a large area of red maples with

1:08:08sweet pepper bush and that entire swale

1:08:10is vegetated with spotted touch me knot

1:08:13and swamp beggar ticks which are

1:08:15wetland. There's also other species in

1:08:17there, but I can only see from the end

1:08:19of the street and from Route 20 and from

1:08:22one of the neighbors

1:08:25um properties. I've been doing this

1:08:27about 36 years at this point. I've made

1:08:31lots of filings. I've hung, you know,

1:08:34probably several hundred,000 flags

1:08:36across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

1:08:38at this point. So, um and I've actually

1:08:41peer-reviewed for the Auburn

1:08:42Conservation Commission in the past. So

1:08:46that's that's my concern. The fact that

1:08:48that large pine tree and was removed

1:08:51from the buffer zone in my opinion

1:08:54without any permits

1:08:56and other plants in there were removed

1:08:59without permits and 400 cubic yards of

1:09:02stone was potentially dumped in the

1:09:06buffer zone or partially in the buffer

1:09:08zone, partially in a wetland possibly

1:09:10without any permits is uh a little bit

1:09:13mind-boggling.

1:09:16I'm on some properties in Newton right

1:09:18now and we're taking material out of

1:09:19wetlands and out of buffer zones that

1:09:21people put there without permits. That

1:09:24that happens quite a bit [snorts] and it

1:09:26can get rather expensive.

1:09:31Does anybody have any questions of me

1:09:34exactly? What is your job? I didn't

1:09:36quite hear.

1:09:37>> I am a principal environmental scientist

1:09:39at Ecotech in Worcester and I'm a senior

1:09:42professional wetland scientist which is

1:09:44a certification.

1:09:47>> Thank you.

1:09:48>> Thank you. I have no comments. I I

1:09:50understood everything

1:09:52>> very clearly.

1:09:54>> Yeah.

1:09:55>> The commission needs to be involved.

1:09:57Yes.

1:09:57>> Not the agent.

1:10:00>> With all you know due respect to agents

1:10:02and whatever they have no real say. It's

1:10:05the commissioners that actually make the

1:10:06decisions.

1:10:08>> Uh, does the applicant have anything to

1:10:11counter any of those buffering that he's

1:10:14referring to?

1:10:25>> Where they put material and where they

1:10:27didn't put material. Um, and I think you

1:10:30can see where it was. And I'm I'm sorry

1:10:32I don't know the woman's name who came

1:10:33out. Um and she did take soil samples.

1:10:37Um and she did say that um the property

1:10:41didn't have uh vegetation that was um

1:10:45whatever you're referring to. Um so she

1:10:49did do a soil sample and she did tell us

1:10:51that the um there she measured the water

1:10:53level also. So I can I'll have to find

1:10:56out more information on who she was and

1:10:59but she's from the town. Um and and

1:11:03again just the material that that was

1:11:05used we stayed out of that and she was

1:11:07on site and saw that we stayed out of

1:11:09it. So

1:11:12>> through the chair just to clarify is

1:11:13this uh maybe uh Emma from DPW.

1:11:17>> Yeah. Um maybe it was Emma. Yeah.

1:11:20>> Oh, okay.

1:11:21>> I just want to confirm. I didn't see any

1:11:22record of a conservation filing. There

1:11:24may have been concert discussions.

1:11:26>> Okay. Maybe it was Emma then that would

1:11:27but she did uh I guess she test tested

1:11:30the water level if that makes sense.

1:11:32They would if they would do that.

1:11:34>> Um um

1:11:36>> and she also was was checking vegetation

1:11:39and she told us that the plant life that

1:11:41was there that was was not involved in

1:11:44being a wetland.

1:11:46>> Okay. Um, for me, I um, as a person of

1:11:49the conservation, I'm going to have to

1:11:51say this meeting is going to have to get

1:11:52pushed to me in regards of I got a lot

1:11:55of homework to do to figure out what's

1:11:57happening.

1:11:57>> Yeah.

1:11:58>> Regards of this.

1:11:59>> So, I can't even determine based off of

1:12:02what you've already done and give you a

1:12:0510-ft fence if it if we were to vote on

1:12:07that. For me, it's kind of I feel like

1:12:10there could have been a violation here

1:12:12and I have to do some homework on that.

1:12:14Sure.

1:12:21Thank you.

1:12:26>> Any other neighbors like to speak?

1:12:34>> Hi, my name is Jay Lucier. Um, that tan

1:12:38house right there is mine.

1:12:41Um,

1:12:44Apple Truck has essentially built a six

1:12:47foot high retaining wall right along the

1:12:49property line behind that fence in my

1:12:52row of arborites.

1:12:54Um,

1:12:55they've taken into account, they have

1:12:58not taken into account for any drainage.

1:13:00Like you said, the buffer zone hasn't

1:13:02been

1:13:04um thought of. I actually had a

1:13:07conversation with I think it was another

1:13:09Steve

1:13:11um an apple trailer. Is that right?

1:13:14>> Okay. Well, I had another conversation

1:13:15with Steve and he said they had zero

1:13:17plans to put in any type of vegetation.

1:13:20Um

1:13:27like you said, a 6ft high fence isn't

1:13:30going to do anything to block

1:13:3313 and 1/2t high commercial trucks and

1:13:36the sound that's created from them.

1:13:39Um, from time to time we see people on

1:13:42top of the trucks working. Um, so the

1:13:44fences do zero in that scenario for us

1:13:48whether it's sound or sight. And uh

1:13:56I I kind of at a loss for words at this

1:13:58point that all this was done without any

1:14:00permits

1:14:02um and without

1:14:05without anything. Thank you for sending

1:14:08the pictures and everything else.

1:14:10>> This is my life. Uh this is where I want

1:14:12to retire and I'm going to have to live

1:14:14with whatever people decide.

1:14:16>> Well, you keep your place really

1:14:17beautiful.

1:14:20>> I appreciate uh being here tonight. So,

1:14:28>> so we've got some more homework to do

1:14:31and Ricky's going to look into some

1:14:33things and Rose will have to notify

1:14:36whoever the board

1:14:37>> through the chair. Yeah, we'll

1:14:38absolutely look into if there's a

1:14:40conservation filing required and confirm

1:14:43that for you all. So apologies if

1:14:45there's any confusion or on our end if

1:14:48there are required approvals from

1:14:50concom.

1:14:54>> Anything else?

1:14:55>> Nope. That's it.

1:14:56>> Chris.

1:14:59>> Oh yes. I'm sorry.

1:15:02>> You go back to that picture.

1:15:06>> Yeah.

1:15:06>> That

1:15:09one.

1:15:10>> One more.

1:15:12Oh. Anyway, my name is William Fanning.

1:15:14I live in 11 Diane.

1:15:17This blue house is mine. And there was a

1:15:20whole row of trees there that is no

1:15:21longer there. And so the spotlight from

1:15:24the um apple truck shines in on the

1:15:27house all night long. And my other

1:15:29concern is with the white fence that

1:15:31they have there. If they're going to

1:15:33back that up closer to the house, I'm

1:15:35not sure what the plan is. And that

1:15:37that's what that's why I'm here is um

1:15:39tell you my concerns. again. There was a

1:15:42whole row of trees there that buffered

1:15:44the sound and the light and everything

1:15:46which is no longer there.

1:15:48>> So, thank you very much.

1:15:50>> Thank you.

1:15:51>> Thank you.

1:15:52>> I [clears throat] um I think one of the

1:15:54concerns I have in regards of

1:15:57let's say this wasn't a conservation

1:15:58issue, the trees removed. Let's say you

1:16:01had a right to do that. It's the fact

1:16:03that the lots elevated and it's now

1:16:06being pushed outward. So, I could be

1:16:09wrong. I would have to look this up

1:16:11unless someone in this room knows the

1:16:12answer to, but I believe that 6ft fence

1:16:17is is

1:16:19has a different set of rules because

1:16:22it's also elevated on that retaining

1:16:24wall scenario.

1:16:27>> Says there needs to be a gap rail in

1:16:28place

1:16:30of elevation change.

1:16:31>> Yeah. So, it kind of it kind of changes

1:16:33the

1:16:35that whole just a sixoot fence isn't

1:16:37going to survive. It's kind of just way

1:16:39larger than it needs to be because of

1:16:41that whole how that all works. So that's

1:16:43another

1:16:45thing that I got to look into as well.

1:16:50>> Not only that, if I was I was told by

1:16:52your building commission called

1:16:56fence on my property.

1:16:57>> Do the chair. I'm so sorry. Do you mind

1:16:59coming up to speak?

1:17:08My name is Eric Richards. I live in

1:17:10precinct 4. I'm not in the butter. I

1:17:12just happen to be here for another

1:17:14thing. Um, think I can add a little

1:17:16context. The building commissioner, if

1:17:18you'd like to call him that.

1:17:19>> We can skip those kind of comments.

1:17:21>> Well, lucky for me, there's a first

1:17:23amendment. So, I could say what I'd like

1:17:25from this podium. Thank you.

1:17:29He stated to me when I wanted to put a

1:17:32fence on my property, anything over 6

1:17:33feet required a permit and anything over

1:17:3610 ft required a special permit. And if

1:17:39it was elevated, there was a separate

1:17:41set of additional criteria to go through

1:17:44according to the Auburn zoning bylaws.

1:17:47I hope that helps. Thank you.

1:17:53Anyone

1:18:00else like to speak on this matter?

1:18:07Rich.

1:18:11>> Yeah. Tomorrow.

1:18:12>> Chris,

1:18:13>> no.

1:18:14>> I'm all set.

1:18:17Okay. I think we're going to have to

1:18:20continue the public hearing.

1:18:22[clears throat]

1:18:23But I don't know if we'd have everything

1:18:25ready for the 22nd. Do we want to go to

1:18:28that? Want me to I'll ask him if he

1:18:30wants to go to that, but I don't think

1:18:33everything could be done by then.

1:18:35>> Through the chair, we can certainly

1:18:36confirm on the conservation side of

1:18:38things. If there are specific asks the

1:18:41board has of the applicant to evaluate

1:18:43if they're um amendable to a

1:18:45continuence, the board has plenty of

1:18:47time. This is the first um first

1:18:49hearing. the application's been open so

1:18:51you have time to continue it without

1:18:53their consent. Um but just if there is

1:18:55anything the board is looking for for

1:18:57them to investigate um before the next

1:18:59meeting

1:19:01if we could just outline it so it's

1:19:02clear.

1:19:03>> Do you want to just continue to 22nd and

1:19:05see what they what comes up? Why don't

1:19:08we do that?

1:19:13>> We have a motion to continue the public

1:19:15hearing on this to the 22nd of

1:19:17September. I'll make that motion.

1:19:20>> I'll second the motion.

1:19:23>> I

1:19:24>> I

1:19:25>> I a vote.

1:19:27>> Continue this public hearing to

1:19:29September 22nd,

1:19:312026.

1:19:36[snorts]

1:19:47That's troubling.

1:19:49>> Okay. Next public hearing

1:19:55>> is

1:19:57190 Washington Street, PB-26-9

1:20:02public hearing. Site plan major

1:20:04modification to modify and approve site

1:20:08plan to allow the construction of six

1:20:12buildings.

1:20:14Total of 75,200

1:20:17square ft plus or minus 150 parking

1:20:21spaces to be operated as warehouse space

1:20:24with accessory offices for up to 23

1:20:28individual tenant spaces and to conduct

1:20:31other associated improvements.

1:20:35The applicant present?

1:20:36>> Yes, sir. For the record, Travis Brown,

1:20:39Turning Point Engineering. Also here on

1:20:41behalf of East Partners is Chris Horn.

1:20:43Um, as some of you may remember, we came

1:20:46to you in August looking for a minor

1:20:49modification. Um, the board deemed that

1:20:51this the changes uh as proposed

1:20:54triggered a major modification. Um, we

1:20:57have since provided some additional

1:21:00information. Um, just to recap kind of

1:21:03what we talked about at that first

1:21:04meeting, uh, this is lot one, so 190

1:21:08Washington Street. Um the previous site

1:21:11plan approval was for 102 uh,000 square

1:21:14foot building um warehouse, high bay, a

1:21:19lot of dock height doors. Um we have

1:21:22since

1:21:24uh chopped that building up, reduced the

1:21:26total square footage of building from

1:21:28about 102,000 square ft down to about

1:21:3275,000 square ft. We have reduced the

1:21:35impervious area by half an acre. So

1:21:38there's h half an acre more of

1:21:39landscaping.

1:21:41The access points to Route 20 um is off

1:21:45Commerce Drive which is constructed now

1:21:47which serves Ross Express and Mirror in

1:21:49the back of the site. Um no changes to

1:21:54access into the specific site from

1:21:57Commerce. Still in the same location

1:21:59here. Um the emergency access which

1:22:03comes around the back also loops uh up

1:22:06into the site as required by the fire

1:22:08department on the original definitive

1:22:11site plan approval remains. Um so that

1:22:14provides a loop around the entire uh

1:22:16commercial subdivision.

1:22:19Um, so what we're proposing here, again,

1:22:2275,000 foot buildings broken up into six

1:22:26buildings provides flexibility

1:22:29within tenants. Uh, a single tenant

1:22:31could take an entire building. They

1:22:34could take portions of a building. So,

1:22:36you'd have multiple tenants per

1:22:38building.

1:22:40As we discussed last time, too early to

1:22:42tell. There's no specified tenants. This

1:22:45is uh a use for, you know, trades

1:22:48people, local businesses, things of that

1:22:50nature. Similar to a project that uh

1:22:53Eastland had done in per uh Framingham.

1:22:56Um same general building. There are

1:22:58overhead doors uh for these units.

1:23:02There's a small level of office space

1:23:04assoc associated with these buildings.

1:23:07Um

1:23:10so since the last meeting uh one of the

1:23:13things that came up was traffic. We

1:23:15provided a traffic memo that the traffic

1:23:17consultant GPI did. Um the numbers

1:23:19actually show as I kind of indicated in

1:23:21the first meeting actually went down um

1:23:24as a whole project meaning lot one

1:23:28constructed in the back and also what's

1:23:31presumed on lot 50. So during the

1:23:34weekday, it's a net of - 96 trips into

1:23:39this site based on the square footage of

1:23:41the use. Um so that was provided to the

1:23:44board. Um we discussed six DPW comments.

1:23:50So the plans were revised, comment

1:23:52responses were provided to DPW.

1:23:55Um we've also heard some comments from

1:23:58Rose. Um not sure if you want to share

1:24:00those at some point, but happy to

1:24:02discuss all of those comments as well.

1:24:05And then a truck turning analysis was

1:24:09provided as well. Uh there was a comment

1:24:11on that. Um there will be a plan

1:24:13forthcoming showing the turning

1:24:15movements. Um but that will be vetted

1:24:17with the fire department. Shouldn't

1:24:19really affect tonight. Um just want to

1:24:23maybe demonstrate a couple of renderings

1:24:26of what we anticipate. um this project

1:24:29looking like.

1:24:32Um so there's a rendering here. So Route

1:24:3620 would be here, Commerce Drive in this

1:24:39location. Here's the entrance to the

1:24:41site. Previously, uh we had one large

1:24:44building which I'll show you in a few

1:24:46minutes. This depicts the buildings

1:24:48here. Uh maximum height of these

1:24:50buildings would be 32 feet, which was uh

1:24:5441 ft on a previous approval. So, the

1:24:56height of these is actually going to go

1:24:58down. Um, less visible on Route 20.

1:25:02Here's another perspective kind of

1:25:04overhead view here of what that would

1:25:07look like.

1:25:10And then here, so just for context,

1:25:14here's the rendering that was presented

1:25:16at the original approval. Um, much

1:25:18larger building, runs about 616 ft along

1:25:22Route 20. uh pretty high in comparison

1:25:25to what we've provided here.

1:25:28A portion of this parking lot has been

1:25:31removed. Um the road actually comes up

1:25:34now into that area. So that's part of

1:25:36the reduction

1:25:38uh in imperous area. That parking area

1:25:41was in this location that will be grass

1:25:43that will be landscaped. Um now

1:25:48um previously we had discussed the

1:25:52potential uh the board members brought

1:25:54up the potential to put an island down

1:25:56here. As I mentioned, it's a reduction

1:25:58of impervious area from the original

1:26:00approved plan. The reason we do not want

1:26:03to do that. A couple reasons. One is

1:26:04snow removal. Makes it more difficult

1:26:06for snow removal. Leaving it the way it

1:26:08is adds snow storage areas in the event

1:26:11that those spaces wouldn't be occupied.

1:26:14But the most important reason is we're

1:26:17currently showing parking down there.

1:26:19These drive aisle widths are pretty

1:26:22wide. This gives us the opportunity to

1:26:24potentially do backto back parking

1:26:27without

1:26:28>> What's the width between the buildings?

1:26:34>> Find a sheet here.

1:26:36>> 84 ft.

1:26:41So drive aisles currently are over 36

1:26:45feet with an 18 1/2 ft. You

1:26:47>> only need 24,

1:26:49>> right? In a use like this, you want a

1:26:52little bit more. So you could still do

1:26:53double barrel parking and still have 26

1:26:56ft drive aisles,

1:26:57>> 36 and 52.

1:27:02Um, also what they find with this user,

1:27:05typically some of these businesses,

1:27:07whether it be an electrician or a

1:27:09landscaping company, they'll have trucks

1:27:12and trailers. So if you add length to

1:27:14the middle of this allows larger

1:27:16vehicles to park without impeding access

1:27:18for fire department and just general

1:27:21maneuverability through the site.

1:27:25One question I have is I see you I go by

1:27:28there frequently and I see you're always

1:27:31moving dirt

1:27:33>> and uh

1:27:36after you get it all graded to what you

1:27:38want

1:27:40now before you put foundations do you

1:27:44compact or

1:27:45>> Yep. So it's been compacted

1:27:47>> laws that govern that.

1:27:49>> Yep. So it's been compacted. We

1:27:51originally started some of you may

1:27:53remember you know a handful of years ago

1:27:55where dirt was brought from the back of

1:27:56the site to the front that was compacted

1:27:59that was as it was brought up in lifts

1:28:01compaction testing was ongoing by Yankee

1:28:03engineering. So we have all that

1:28:05information

1:28:07same thing is actually happening now you

1:28:09mentioned removal. So is earth being

1:28:12removed from this site being brought to

1:28:1450 based on the pad ready site that this

1:28:17board approved

1:28:19>> and everything still comes in on commas.

1:28:22>> That's correct.

1:28:26Any audience questions?

1:28:31Mrs. Goodrich.

1:28:37[clears throat]

1:28:37>> Good evening again. Um, for the record,

1:28:40Winberrook Acres, 120 Washington Street,

1:28:42we did receive a butter notification for

1:28:45this project. And as president of the

1:28:47co-op, I'm we do have some residents

1:28:49here, but I'm speaking on behalf of the

1:28:51residents who could not be here tonight.

1:28:54So, um, we were here previously for the

1:28:58plan um that was before this board that

1:29:01was approved conditionally on having

1:29:03some work done on Route 20. there's

1:29:06supposed to be a turning lane and some

1:29:08other work done um

1:29:11before that project could start. Now, I

1:29:14understand this is a brand new project,

1:29:16but we continue to have real concerns

1:29:20over traffic and safety. Number one

1:29:23being safety for this area of Route 20.

1:29:27Um the our upper driveway

1:29:31on Windbrook Acres is ve just a butts

1:29:36now especially with the new land

1:29:37transfer um 50. I know we're not here um

1:29:40for 50 Washington Street tonight. We're

1:29:42here for 190 but it's been mentioned

1:29:45several times already. So the work being

1:29:48done on 190 is absolutely connected to

1:29:5350 because there's constant work the

1:29:56trucks back and forth moving rock moving

1:29:58dirt building stone walls etc. So the

1:30:02two projects, although there's only one

1:30:04filing, they're absolutely connected.

1:30:07Um, so um, again, we have concerns. I I

1:30:12don't know what Mass DOT is thinking

1:30:14with these projects. They really need to

1:30:16just do a comprehensive

1:30:18um, look at all of this because, as you

1:30:20know, just just pass this on the other

1:30:23side. There's a proposed filing for a

1:30:26couple hotels and a lot of retail space,

1:30:28which doesn't have any effect on them.

1:30:31But it's the big picture. The big

1:30:33picture. We're being squeezed in. We

1:30:36can't even get out of our driveway in

1:30:37the morning to go to work. Traffic is so

1:30:40bad. So, um, again, new members who

1:30:44probably weren't aware of the conditions

1:30:45that you put on previously, but there

1:30:47were conditions that there would be a

1:30:49turning lane because there's so much

1:30:51track tractor to trailer traffic. Um,

1:30:55that would be the west the westbound

1:30:58lane. there would be a turning lane for

1:31:01tractor trailers pulling in because it

1:31:03it is very dangerous. Um, and then just

1:31:06while I'm here, because the two projects

1:31:08are connected, um, I just want to check

1:31:11on the hours of work because many

1:31:13residents in our park have contacted me

1:31:16because especially with the stonework

1:31:18and the stonewall building on 50. Um, we

1:31:21just want to confirm that we're aware of

1:31:24the hours of hours of work that they're

1:31:27allowed to do so that if it's outside of

1:31:29those hours, we can call. And um, it was

1:31:33just stated, you shocked me. Um, it was

1:31:38stated it took into account the

1:31:42presumed traffic on lot 50, but there's

1:31:45no proposal. So, I don't know how we can

1:31:48presume the traffic on lot 50

1:31:52if there's no proposal.

1:31:54>> It's pad ready.

1:31:56>> If I can. Yes. So, lot 50 is pad ready.

1:31:59There is no proposal for any structure

1:32:01to be there. And I believe that's the

1:32:03lot that's going to have the turning

1:32:05lane.

1:32:06>> So,

1:32:06>> no. Okay. I'm sorry.

1:32:10>> But 50 Washington Street's not going to

1:32:12have the turning lane.

1:32:13>> So, both I'd rather not talk about 50.

1:32:16We didn't file anything for 50,

1:32:17>> right?

1:32:18>> I'd rather just talk about 190. So,

1:32:20there will be a turnin lane into

1:32:23Commerce Drive as part of the DOT

1:32:25approval, which was a lengthy process to

1:32:27get road uh Route 20 improvements. We

1:32:29actually just got the permit to do the

1:32:31work in the last week and a half. Um so,

1:32:34you'll see improvements out on Route 20

1:32:36going forward. Um there will be a

1:32:38turn-in lane into Commerce. There'll

1:32:40also be an acceleration lane out of

1:32:42Commerce heading west.

1:32:44>> Okay. And from my understanding, 50

1:32:47Washington would also have a you call it

1:32:50an acceleration. I'm going to call it a

1:32:51deceleration. I don't know what the term

1:32:53is, but a deceleration lane as well

1:32:55going into Commerce Drive.

1:32:59>> And respectfully, I know he just said he

1:33:01didn't want to talk about 50, but it's

1:33:03been brought up several times by them

1:33:06and they are connected and currently

1:33:08being worked on trucks back and forth.

1:33:11So I I with all due respect the the the

1:33:14lots are tied together.

1:33:16>> Thank you.

1:33:17>> So just to clarify the traffic came from

1:33:20a projection. So a project of this

1:33:22magnitude triggers MEEPA through the

1:33:25state. Through MEEPA you need to give

1:33:28your best guess about what each property

1:33:30will be at that time. We pick the

1:33:33highest traffic right because that's the

1:33:36worst case scenario. So from there we're

1:33:38looking at actual traffic. what has been

1:33:40built in the back at Ross at Mirror,

1:33:43what's being proposed now, and then what

1:33:45was proposed at the time on 50. So

1:33:48that's where the projected traffic came

1:33:49from.

1:33:51>> Thank you.

1:33:52>> You say you're putting deceleration

1:33:55lanes at Thomas.

1:33:59>> Yeah. So as you're traveling this way,

1:34:02before you get into Commerce, it'll be a

1:34:03right turn. So those trucks will pull

1:34:05off the out of the way traffic that will

1:34:08continue with them pulling. Same thing

1:34:10coming out of commerce. There'll be an

1:34:11acceleration lane that will allow those

1:34:14vehicles to get up to speed before

1:34:15merging into route 20 traffic.

1:34:18>> Out of curiosity, why isn't it not shown

1:34:20on your plans? Is that a different

1:34:23>> Yeah, it's all work within Route 20. So

1:34:25that's all reviewed by Mass DOT. Really?

1:34:28Nothing to do with local boards. That's

1:34:30the reason.

1:34:31Does that address some of your concerns,

1:34:33Mrs. Dri?

1:34:35>> Yes.

1:34:36>> Okay.

1:34:37>> And I'm happy. I know.

1:34:40>> You're all right.

1:34:40>> Oh, yeah. Get yelled out for not talking

1:34:42into the mic. Yes, it does address um

1:34:45the concerns and it sounds like the

1:34:48lanes that they're talking about were

1:34:49first discussed at the um

1:34:53original plan. So, yes. And overall,

1:34:57we think this project is a much better

1:34:59project, but because it's a much better

1:35:01project, we still have to voice our

1:35:02concerns about traffic and safety. Thank

1:35:05you.

1:35:11>> So, again, just on the buildings, as you

1:35:14do them, you'll compact whatever you

1:35:16have to. Again, if it's all fresh,

1:35:18that's the uh Yep. I think it's a lot

1:35:22better situation than what was there.

1:35:25And uh

1:35:27it'll afford more more opportunity for

1:35:30more residents to look at or utilize

1:35:33some of it or people than one big place

1:35:37with more trailer trucks maybe.

1:35:40>> Uh out of curiosity, why so tall? To me,

1:35:43it's tall. So,

1:35:44>> just because we we want to do 24T clear

1:35:47height inside so people can have

1:35:49shelving and stuff.

1:35:50>> Okay. And then we just figured with

1:35:52engineering it is they are deep so you

1:35:55could have 4 foot joist and then by the

1:35:58time you do this the insulation and the

1:36:00decking I mean there's a chance it's 30

1:36:03or 29. We would keep it as low as we can

1:36:06but 32 would be worst case probably

1:36:09closer to 29 when we're done.

1:36:11>> Understood.

1:36:13Um, do you have

1:36:16uh actually if someone has a question?

1:36:18Let me double check before I ask a

1:36:20question that I can find.

1:36:25Oh, found them. Never mind.

1:36:43I have them.

1:36:54>> I don't have any more questions, please.

1:36:56>> No, I have no questions.

1:36:58>> Just one question, Mr. Chairman. Uh,

1:37:01what's the time frame on when these uh

1:37:04additional lanes will be built on Route

1:37:0520? So, the plan is to get started this

1:37:08fall, leave it in a temporary condition,

1:37:12and then resume next year. And if all

1:37:15goes well, DOT wants to see it done by

1:37:17the end of next year.

1:37:19>> The buildings, too.

1:37:20>> They don't care about the buildings.

1:37:22They want the road work in Route 20. Y,

1:37:25>> but I anticipate the buildings would be

1:37:26done at that point as well.

1:37:28>> Yeah.

1:37:34>> [clears throat]

1:37:54>> better use of lot I would say.

1:37:57>> Yeah, we agree. It's provides more

1:37:59flexibility for

1:38:03>> like the chairman said, we're excited

1:38:04because we feel like there's a lot of

1:38:06local businesses that would make their

1:38:09homes here.

1:38:17>> So, can I have a motion to approve the

1:38:20modification as an approved the new site

1:38:22plan?

1:38:23>> I will make that motion to approve the

1:38:25modification.

1:38:25>> Second.

1:38:26>> Second. All those in favor?

1:38:29>> I

1:38:30>> I

1:38:31>> I

1:38:32>> Thank you very much for your time.

1:38:33>> Thank you, board. We appreciate your

1:38:34time.

1:38:35>> The chair. Just before we move on, I

1:38:37just want to note looking at the old

1:38:39decision, the construction hours are 7

1:38:42a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday.

1:38:44>> Would you be opposed to something that

1:38:46was a little later?

1:38:48>> Yes.

1:38:48>> Like 8.

1:38:50You wouldn't

1:38:51>> Yeah. It just prolongs construction. I

1:38:53mean, what people fail to realize is if

1:38:55you start that much later, you just

1:38:58prolong the time of construction.

1:39:00>> And this is this is going to be for this

1:39:02project up at where you are now. If it

1:39:05when it comes down to closer to the

1:39:09windbrook,

1:39:10we might want to just see you'll have to

1:39:13incorporate that in 8 to 5 because

1:39:15you're in such close proximity to those

1:39:18people.

1:39:20>> That's fair, Ronnie. I mean, chairman.

1:39:25>> Okay. Good luck.

1:39:27>> I apologize. I didn't want to um

1:39:30redirect us here. I just wanted to say

1:39:31for the um a butter's concerns 7 to 5 on

1:39:34Monday through Friday and 8 to 12 on

1:39:35Saturday. So, if you have any concerns

1:39:37outside those hours, you can feel free

1:39:39to contact.

1:39:39>> But that's just for this one again. Um

1:39:41you I think you heard me.

1:39:45>> Yes.

1:39:48>> Wood acres. Does that concern was the um

1:39:52construction going on 50 rock banging?

1:39:55>> Ma'am, I'm so sorry. Do you mind coming

1:39:57up to the podium?

1:39:58>> She she

1:40:01It's too high.

1:40:02>> Feel free to stay. Feel free to stay.

1:40:03You can stay.

1:40:04>> I think she's just asking about 50.

1:40:06>> Yeah, the noise level of the rock

1:40:08pounding, whatever. It's been going on

1:40:10static like seven.

1:40:12>> I saw him building the walls there,

1:40:14>> right? But I think that one of the

1:40:16issues is unfortunately this isn't 50

1:40:18Washington.

1:40:20>> Well, they were just talking about the

1:40:21noise level and we're not getting the

1:40:23noise from 190. We're getting the noise

1:40:25from 50

1:40:27>> when when they Well, can you look to

1:40:32adjust some of that?

1:40:34>> We'll we'll look to confirm the work

1:40:35hours. I don't know know offhand what

1:40:37those were approved at, but we'll work

1:40:39within the approved work hours

1:40:41certainly. Because in when you come

1:40:43specifically for that project, we'll

1:40:45probably be requesting that or what

1:40:49we'll be stating it.

1:40:50>> Project's already going.

1:40:52>> Yeah, the project's already going, Ron.

1:40:54So, the rock pounding,

1:40:56>> they're building walls, breaking stone,

1:40:58whatnot.

1:41:00>> It's part of the pan preparation. like

1:41:03uh

1:41:09you can listen

1:41:13do what you can.

1:41:18>> Thank you.

1:41:19>> Thanks. Thank you.

1:41:40the chair, if I could just ask um the

1:41:42board to take a vote to close the

1:41:43hearing. I know we voted on it, but just

1:41:45to close the public hearing.

1:41:48>> We have a motion to close that public

1:41:49hearing.

1:41:50>> I make that motion.

1:41:51>> I second the motion.

1:41:53>> All those in favor? I

1:41:54>> I

1:41:55>> I

1:42:00>> Okay. Number four on the agenda,

1:42:04zoning bylaw amendment, data center

1:42:07moratorum,

1:42:09ZA-26-3

1:42:13public hearing for the purpose of

1:42:15enacting a one-year moratorum on the

1:42:18permitting, construction, expansion,

1:42:22conversion, establishment, or operation

1:42:25of any data center.

1:42:30And do we want to combine? And number

1:42:35five on the

1:42:37uh agenda is zoning bylaw amendment data

1:42:42center ban za-26-4

1:42:46public hearing for the purpose of

1:42:48refining existing regulations around

1:42:51data centers and prohibiting permitting

1:42:54establishment conversion construction or

1:42:57operation of data centers in all zoning

1:42:59districts. And we thought that we would

1:43:02we can talk about these together and

1:43:05then see well

1:43:10>> anyone any would you gentlemen have

1:43:13anything to say about this?

1:43:14>> I do but I'd like to hear what you guys

1:43:17have discussed if that's okay comment.

1:43:19>> Yeah it's okay. Ricky any questions?

1:43:23>> Um

1:43:27I don't have a question. I don't have

1:43:28any questions. is just my

1:43:32my opinion on the one year is

1:43:34technically not long enough.

1:43:37I'm assuming this is like a

1:43:38determination to actually Can we someone

1:43:42explain

1:43:43>> to the chair? I'm happy to give a brief

1:43:45overview. So, um staff in the planning

1:43:48division have prepared two proposed

1:43:50zoning amendments. It's an eitheror

1:43:52situation. So, we're asking that the

1:43:54board seek to approve either a moratorum

1:43:56or a full outright ban on data centers.

1:43:59Um, lots of other communities in the

1:44:00Commonwealth have enacted either bans or

1:44:03moratoriums since the beginning of the

1:44:05year. Um, and lots of other communities

1:44:07are having the same conversation about

1:44:10the concerns around data centers. So,

1:44:12uh, our thought is or just to flash back

1:44:15to our existing regulations. So, in

1:44:172021, data centers were added. It's not

1:44:20referred to as data centers. It's

1:44:22electronic data storage, but essentially

1:44:24a data center was added as a permitted

1:44:26use. Um, and this is allowed by right in

1:44:29some zoning districts. It requires site

1:44:31plan approval, but it's still a byright

1:44:33process. So, there are um in the

1:44:36business and in industrial zones, those

1:44:38are allowed by right. So, the city and

1:44:41the regulatory boards don't have um

1:44:44discretionary authority over the

1:44:46location and the sighting of these

1:44:47facilities. Um, so because we have

1:44:51existing regulations, um, we're trying

1:44:55to be proactive. We haven't seen any,

1:44:57uh, proposals to build data centers in

1:45:00the town. Um, but we want to make sure

1:45:02we're staying on top of um, these new

1:45:06concerns. So, as part of that, we're

1:45:08proposing a ban. Um, and as part of

1:45:10that, we would update the language

1:45:12around electronic data storage. There's

1:45:14another use um that includes data

1:45:17centers data processing. So we propose

1:45:20striking that language to consolidate it

1:45:22so it would only be in one use category

1:45:25which would be prohibited in all zoning

1:45:27districts. Um so that's the ban. We've

1:45:29also proposed a pretty long um

1:45:32definition so you could define a lot of

1:45:34things. Um really we're looking at data

1:45:37centers. We're not trying to capture any

1:45:38other uses um but trying to capture all

1:45:41different types of functions under a

1:45:43data center. And then the second option

1:45:45is a one-year moratorum through October

1:45:4727th 27. Um so that'd be a year from the

1:45:50upcoming town meeting. We would prohibit

1:45:53any permitting, construction, expansion,

1:45:55conversion, establishment or operation

1:45:57of data centers um while we undertake a

1:46:00planning process. So some other

1:46:01communities are regulating it based on

1:46:03megawws. Um, so instead of it's fairly

1:46:09related to the size of the facility, but

1:46:10if you know we wanted to consider

1:46:12allowing smaller facilities in town. Um,

1:46:15at this time you know I don't feel uh

1:46:17educated enough on the topic and I think

1:46:19a lot of other towns want to take the

1:46:21time to investigate it thoroughly um and

1:46:24propose some more thoughtful

1:46:25regulations. If we were to move forward

1:46:27with that option, you know, we we may

1:46:29still come out with we don't want these

1:46:31in our community. So, um it's certainly

1:46:33an option if we did go that route that

1:46:35we wouldn't end up with, uh meaningful

1:46:37regulations and that at the end of the

1:46:39day, you may just want to consider a

1:46:41ban. Uh but it's up to the board. This

1:46:43would be a recommendation to the board

1:46:45of selectmen. So, you're not voting on

1:46:46it, you're recommending. Um but we would

1:46:49just ask that you either recommend one

1:46:51or the other.

1:46:56Ricky. Um,

1:47:10I'm not for data centers, but I'm also

1:47:12not against them. I do understand the

1:47:15harm that they bring to communities. Um,

1:47:17I'm more looking at this with the hopes

1:47:20of maybe having like

1:47:24like a

1:47:26time frame ban and then revisit it again

1:47:30at a certain time frame when you know

1:47:32they get better cuz I don't maybe they

1:47:34could get better and bring good to the

1:47:35communities but as of my understandings

1:47:38they they don't but a lot of towns are

1:47:41working on it making sure that they

1:47:42don't come to towns um which is going to

1:47:45force them to change their ways And

1:47:47maybe potentially they could get better

1:47:49and might be good for a community.

1:47:51Realistically,

1:47:53maybe not. But if they do, I don't want

1:47:55us to not have that opportunity to bring

1:47:57something good to town if they do get

1:47:59better till

1:48:01>> I think we can always revisit it if that

1:48:03happened.

1:48:06>> The chair. Absolutely. We could uh

1:48:08propose a ban today and should later on,

1:48:11you know, the town face a positive

1:48:13economic proposal for a data center, we

1:48:15could always revisit changing the

1:48:16regulations. Should a property owner

1:48:19would also be able to petition? So,

1:48:20someone may say, you know, they own

1:48:22property, they could petition. I believe

1:48:24it requires 10 other signatures of town

1:48:27residents. Um actually just the property

1:48:29owner can um petition to amend the

1:48:32zoning bylaws to allow it

1:48:35in the future if you wanted to change

1:48:37from a ban subject to town meeting

1:48:39approval. Of course

1:48:42>> Chris

1:48:44>> feel pretty strongly about the at least

1:48:46um the temporary moratorium on it. I

1:48:49think um

1:48:52you know I know that a lot of towns need

1:48:54to become a lot more educated on um the

1:48:58challenges that they pose to an

1:48:59individual town but I'm also aware that

1:49:02that the town of Auburn is um has an

1:49:05independent fiscal study that's

1:49:07happening right which could impact some

1:49:09of the decisions we make. I don't think

1:49:11we have the right amount of land in this

1:49:13town to support it. Um only because um

1:49:18you know we just have too many

1:49:20residential areas that I don't know that

1:49:23we'd have honestly I don't know if we'd

1:49:24have an area big enough that would be

1:49:27desirable. Um, but I think Rose brought

1:49:29up a very valid point where if we put a

1:49:33moratorum in place today that lasts a

1:49:36year and as we understand a little bit

1:49:38more, we could probably create

1:49:41restrictions on size and what goes in

1:49:45them um to not be a um harmful quote

1:49:50unquote data center that we see today.

1:49:53Um that's my initial thought but um you

1:49:56know I think both both options serve us

1:49:58that purpose to be honest right so a

1:50:01temporary moratorum or putting uh a new

1:50:04bylaw suggesting a new zoning bylaw uh

1:50:06zoning bylaws can be changed just like

1:50:08we're suggesting to put

1:50:10>> or the outright ban

1:50:14>> Mr. Feldman.

1:50:16>> Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um just a

1:50:19quick comment about these data centers.

1:50:22Is there actually even a place in, as

1:50:24Chris was saying, is there even a place

1:50:25in Auburn where one of these could be

1:50:29put out uh remotely?

1:50:32>> Um, in my opinion, the mall,

1:50:35>> the mall area,

1:50:37>> that's that's the largest lot that

1:50:42>> But

1:50:44I'm not 100% clear on what the harm is

1:50:47from a data center. Everybody I talk to,

1:50:50all of the constituents that live on my

1:50:52street, they're against it. But uh so I

1:50:56would go along with a a moratorum.

1:50:58>> Primarily it's noise [snorts] is to

1:51:01create jobs, but not a lot not a lot of

1:51:03jobs. Um as a matter of fact, our

1:51:07chairperson is not with us any longer

1:51:10because

1:51:10>> he's building data.

1:51:11>> He's building data centers in Ohio.

1:51:15>> That's the irony.

1:51:16>> Mhm. use up a lot of wa they could use a

1:51:19lot lot of water and air pollution with

1:51:21diesel systems.

1:51:22>> Yep.

1:51:23>> So,

1:51:24>> yeah, it's it's noise and it's attacks

1:51:26on the resources in the town. But

1:51:28>> yeah,

1:51:32>> all right. [clears throat] I feel I

1:51:34guess I'm in the middle somewhere that I

1:51:37uh I'd probably prefer to see the

1:51:40outright ban. The moratorum allows us to

1:51:43come back, but we can come back anyways.

1:51:47Right.

1:51:47>> And uh

1:51:49>> as long as back

1:51:50>> as long as we can come back.

1:51:52>> Yeah, we can. Well, we can come back. We

1:51:54can

1:51:55>> offer a change to these or anyone can

1:51:57ask for it. Uh so why don't we let these

1:52:02gentlemen speak now?

1:52:06>> Yes, sir.

1:52:12Uh before you speak, I agree with your

1:52:15first amendment comment.

1:52:17Um but if we can

1:52:23channel any comments that could

1:52:25obviously, you know, be demeaning or

1:52:28whatnot, let's thrive for that. That's

1:52:30all I'm saying.

1:52:32>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Al Raffidy,

1:52:35Paul Street. Uh to the chair, could if I

1:52:39could ask Rose a question?

1:52:41>> Yes.

1:52:41>> Uh the moratorum, is that something that

1:52:45we're entitled to do under state law?

1:52:49>> To the chair? I believe so.

1:52:51>> You believe so? Okay. And uh my question

1:52:55is you want to put a moratorum in place,

1:52:59but there's no indication yet that

1:53:02anyone is planning on coming into town.

1:53:05So, I'm just wondering about the timing

1:53:08if if and and once again maybe Rose can

1:53:11answer this question. Is it too late to

1:53:14put a moratorum in place once we're

1:53:18approached with a plan to put a uh data

1:53:21center in?

1:53:22>> We don't have any plans yet, do we? No.

1:53:25>> Correct. There's no plans. I would argue

1:53:27very strongly that once a proposal is in

1:53:30front of us that it would be too late to

1:53:31propose a moratorum at that time given

1:53:34um the long process it takes to get a

1:53:38zoning amendment into law. The planning

1:53:40board has to hold a hearing and it must

1:53:42go to board of selectmen town meeting

1:53:44and then there's usually a window of

1:53:46time after that before it's uh law. So,

1:53:49I would say if we received a proposal

1:53:52for a data center, we would likely not

1:53:55have enough time to get it on the agenda

1:53:57for town meeting and approved. Um, so if

1:54:00the board would like to develop

1:54:02regulations, you know, I would strongly

1:54:03suggest that we do that preemptively

1:54:05before we have a proposal where we're

1:54:07reacting.

1:54:09>> Your concern is that we use up the

1:54:10moratorum and then the guy comes.

1:54:12>> Exactly, Mr. Chairman. Why use it now?

1:54:15Why throw the ace down now when we don't

1:54:18have

1:54:18>> Well, that could go in. Yeah, we could

1:54:20put it in at any time.

1:54:22>> So, the data centers are happening very

1:54:24close by here already and they're being

1:54:27fought by the town and the town is not

1:54:29going to win

1:54:31and this is proactive um putting the

1:54:35mortorium in place and you make a very

1:54:37valid point. Don't drop the ace now. Um,

1:54:40but being proactive rather than reactive

1:54:43is going to give us an opportunity to

1:54:45control our narrative as a town. Mind

1:54:47you, we're the planning board. We're

1:54:49only suggesting this to the selectman.

1:54:53>> Absolutely. I understand that. And I

1:54:55believe in Sorry, Mr.

1:54:57>> Um, Mr. Richards has some comments about

1:55:01the particular bylaws though and I'll

1:55:03let him talk about that that perhaps

1:55:06there may be some issues concerning the

1:55:08bylaws that are being presented. But

1:55:09thank you.

1:55:20>> Good evening. Eric Richards, Auburn

1:55:22resident. I'm here to comment on the

1:55:24proposed bylaw. I have a couple

1:55:26questions. I sent the board an email

1:55:27before the meeting. Was it received? Do

1:55:30you have copies,

1:55:32>> the chair? I don't believe we received

1:55:34an email. It was sent today.

1:55:35>> It was sent today. It referred to my It

1:55:38contained more detail around my public

1:55:40comments and questions. So, I'd

1:55:42encourage you to check your email box.

1:55:44Next question. Who owns the authorship

1:55:47of the bylaw?

1:55:50>> Through the chair, it would be the um

1:55:52planning board. It would be the planning

1:55:54division of inspectional services and

1:55:56development. Did anybody else

1:55:58contribute?

1:55:59>> Nope.

1:56:01>> It's interesting because I don't know if

1:56:03any of you caught the economic

1:56:05development committee, but as I

1:56:07understand it, economic development is a

1:56:09primary goal of the town in this moment

1:56:12in growing business, small business,

1:56:15medium business, large business,

1:56:16otherwise.

1:56:18And during that meeting, Mr. Mr.

1:56:20Delquilla was informed by attack

1:56:22entrepreneur that the proposed language

1:56:25for this bylaw was extremely

1:56:28concerning.

1:56:30It appears those concerns were fell on

1:56:32deaf ears. Now, no copy was released to

1:56:35the public before the packet went live

1:56:38or your meeting packet went live on the

1:56:41website. I had an opportunity to take a

1:56:42look at it and I think if you look at it

1:56:44critically you'll find that in 2026 as

1:56:47normative normal homes increase their

1:56:50tech stack and their hosting and their

1:56:53routing and their serving capability

1:56:56which will only increase with time and

1:56:58the need for more compute at home. This

1:57:02law negates that. If we have doctor's

1:57:05offices, any number of small businesses,

1:57:08uh Starbucks, if we have a restaurant,

1:57:11they all have racks, servers,

1:57:13generators, UPS's, and other things in

1:57:15them. This bylaw would not allow them to

1:57:18scale and grow. How are we

1:57:22appreciating our goal of economic

1:57:24development if we are literally putting

1:57:27cement shoes on and going swimming? This

1:57:30doesn't seem to do it by any definition

1:57:33with zero consideration. And that is

1:57:35even taking out the fact that wholesale

1:57:38parts of this proposed bylaw were cut,

1:57:40copy, and paste from Mansfield,

1:57:42Westfield, and the 10-year-old marijuana

1:57:45moratorum language poorly. They were

1:57:48Frankensteined in a way that almost

1:57:50somebody didn't understand what the

1:57:52words meant when they were put together

1:57:53that way as to be meaningless.

1:57:56I would highly recommend that anybody

1:57:59listening to this and certainly the

1:58:01board look hard and thoughtfully at the

1:58:05language, the construction and the

1:58:08overly block. I mean the language in

1:58:10there is as wide as the Mississippi and

1:58:12it is going to cause nothing but

1:58:13problems. If you saw the zoning board of

1:58:15appeals, there was a bark spot. I'm not

1:58:18going to render judgment on that. This

1:58:20is the planning board. But they were

1:58:22trying to shoehorn

1:58:24a dog business that was like a shortstay

1:58:27Airbnb into an Airbnb zoning bylaw

1:58:31because again people before you and

1:58:34other boards collaborated and came up

1:58:36with garbage

1:58:39and everyone who sits and testifies at

1:58:41any one of these committees says, "Oh,

1:58:43it was done before us. Our hands are

1:58:45tied." Well, this is your opportunity to

1:58:47not have future people's hands tied,

1:58:50future board members, and I would ask

1:58:52you to approach this thoughtfully

1:58:54because it doesn't appear that has

1:58:55happened today.

1:58:58Thank you.

1:58:59>> Thank you. Well, this as you said is

1:59:03just a recommendation to the board of

1:59:06selectmen. Who who are the is it the

1:59:11zoning board

1:59:12or [snorts] who would write the exact

1:59:15bylaw or the way it was supposed to be

1:59:18written?

1:59:19>> The chair. The bylaw was written by

1:59:21staff. Um

1:59:23this was in an effort to get something

1:59:25on the agenda for the fall town meeting.

1:59:27We do have a zoning bylaw review

1:59:29committee. Um it is something they have

1:59:32they have not reviewed the draft to my

1:59:33understanding. um their meeting was

1:59:35pushed out a little bit in September,

1:59:37but they have reiterated uh the interest

1:59:40for us to evaluate a moratorum or bylaws

1:59:43or some type of regulations on data

1:59:45centers. Um so the proposal came from

1:59:48staff. Um and you're more than welcome

1:59:50if you would like to make a

1:59:51recommendation with edits to the board

1:59:53of selectmen, you're welcome to do that

1:59:55as well. Um but it's from staff and

1:59:58ultimately the language is reviewed by

2:00:00our town council before it's added to

2:00:02the warrant.

2:00:07I would say just meaningfully there's a

2:00:09demonstrabably important difference

2:00:12between a small setup with a 30KW UPS

2:00:16and a backup generator and a 200

2:00:19megawatt data set. Those two things are

2:00:22not compatible and there is absolutely

2:00:24nuance there. And in the communities

2:00:26that you've cut, copied and pasted from,

2:00:29which is normally from government, I get

2:00:31it. But in doing so, you ignored the

2:00:34fact that those communities created

2:00:36those scale boxes on purpose because

2:00:39they knew it would affect current

2:00:41homeowners, current small businesses who

2:00:43want to scale, medium-sized businesses,

2:00:46everyone.

2:00:47And I think it's worth some thought,

2:00:49careful thought.

2:00:57I'm just curious.

2:01:01Are you are you opposed or are you would

2:01:05you be in favor of the moratorum or an

2:01:08outright stop

2:01:12or what?

2:01:16I think as many people have stated there

2:01:18are absolutely valid concerns with large

2:01:20data centers. There should be

2:01:22consideration to a moratorum with

2:01:25thoughtful application as to timing for

2:01:28sure. Nobody wants a 200 megawatt

2:01:30project to come in here. We need the

2:01:33money. Let's be frank. We absolutely

2:01:35need a 500 million or $50 million dollar

2:01:38scale business here to pay taxes. We do.

2:01:43Whether it's a data center or not, you

2:01:45all can have that conversation. But I'm

2:01:47against a large data center. I think

2:01:50that any entrepreneur or person that

2:01:53deals with tech, who has CAD, who deals

2:01:56with machining, who deals with robotics,

2:01:59shot I mean nominally the Auburn mall is

2:02:02a data center under these definitions at

2:02:05today 10 years ago was a data center

2:02:08under these definitions. So I think that

2:02:11there has to be some

2:02:13nuance in consideration to the longtail

2:02:17consequences. This is not going to shut

2:02:18down an Aubberan business tomorrow. No,

2:02:22it will shut it down or cause them to

2:02:24leave and leave future boards and future

2:02:27decision makers and stakeholders

2:02:29wondering why we don't have a business

2:02:31base here, but we claim to be business

2:02:34friendly. This is going to introduce

2:02:36unintended permitting consequences down

2:02:39the road. This means that our building

2:02:41commissioner can arbitrarily and

2:02:43capriciously apply very broad rules to

2:02:46anyone he chooses to do so and then

2:02:48input burdensome permitting

2:02:50requirements.

2:02:52I don't think anybody's for those things

2:02:54unless they provide a demonstrable

2:02:56benefit. So large scale band yes there

2:03:01could even be conversation about a

2:03:02midscale data center ban fine but you

2:03:06have to be considerate and thoughtful

2:03:09about the language the application and

2:03:11the construction so as not to affect an

2:03:13engineer at home who has to up their

2:03:17compute stack to compete in their

2:03:18business a smallcale 3D print farm fill

2:03:22in a blank I can give you a dozen

2:03:24examples off the top of my head that's

2:03:26what I'm

2:03:27I agree that there's there is

2:03:29demonstrable problems that can be

2:03:31solved. The ban will help.

2:03:33Thank you.

2:03:34>> You mean banning them?

2:03:36>> I'm sorry.

2:03:36>> You mean banning them?

2:03:39>> Banning them outright, not the

2:03:41moratorum.

2:03:43>> That's up to you. You know, there's

2:03:45there is it's not black and white,

2:03:48right? There's a bifurcation in the

2:03:50street and it doesn't necessarily reach

2:03:52one destination. So with the facts

2:03:55before you, I don't think you could

2:03:56honestly make a reasoned decision about

2:04:00what the friend what the future will

2:04:02bring. I mean that requires psychic

2:04:04friends network. Nobody here is part of

2:04:05that. I don't think

2:04:06>> through the chair if I may respond.

2:04:08>> Go ahead.

2:04:08>> Um I think a lot of what you say is got

2:04:11a lot of validity to it and you have um

2:04:15used the word be thoughtful over and

2:04:18over again. Um

2:04:21it's your first amendment right to use

2:04:22that word. I I can tell you that I'm

2:04:25very thoughtful about this and if you

2:04:28listened very closely,

2:04:30my suggestion to the board and a very

2:04:34open conversation was a moratorum so

2:04:37that we can understand a little bit more

2:04:39and maybe create a rule that limits

2:04:43size. We didn't say shut everything off.

2:04:45So I said that a little while ago. So I

2:04:48would ask in return

2:04:50um that you're you know I guess uh no

2:04:56I'll leave it there. I'll leave it

2:04:57there.

2:04:58>> I heard you. I agree with your point. I

2:05:00agree with uh Mr. Eris. I'm sorry if I

2:05:03butchered your name. It's not

2:05:04intentional. I agree with your points.

2:05:06Many of the points, you know, were ones

2:05:10I intended to make here. So I am not in

2:05:13opposition to what you said. I'm

2:05:15appreciative about the nuance in the

2:05:17things that you brought

2:05:20and I understand this isn't a decision

2:05:21made tonight. This what this is is an

2:05:24attempt to head off a train wreck before

2:05:27it happens.

2:05:28>> That's all.

2:05:29>> And I think there's some crafting that

2:05:31could be done to preferably prevent that

2:05:34in 90 days if somebody actually puts

2:05:36some effort in.

2:05:41Thank you.

2:05:41>> Thank you. Any

2:05:45files?

2:05:47>> So

2:05:50what

2:05:52would we like to do?

2:05:54>> I would I think the moratorium is is a

2:05:57proper path. Um

2:06:00[clears throat]

2:06:00but I also very uh strongly believe that

2:06:03a um a change in the bylaw gives us the

2:06:06same flexibility

2:06:08um

2:06:08>> to just ban them

2:06:10>> if we do. But I I I I I walk with a

2:06:14little bit of caution on size,

2:06:17right, of what's considered.

2:06:18>> I think of it both ways. Whether we we

2:06:20just did that and I think of if we did

2:06:22it, anybody that would be coming might

2:06:25see that we're already apprehensive

2:06:27about it. And but I [clears throat]

2:06:29don't know cuz I just don't know enough

2:06:32about it.

2:06:32>> And I think it's not just a data center,

2:06:36right? Um, we heard from the audience

2:06:38there's some extremely valid points,

2:06:40right? What is considered a data center,

2:06:43right? If we just put a hard ban on it

2:06:46with very small restrictions, point

2:06:48being is that um, you know, Reliant

2:06:52Medical

2:06:53is now a data center,

2:06:56right? With the number of servers they

2:06:57have, with the number of um, you know,

2:06:59the amount of technology they're

2:07:01managing in that building at the end of

2:07:02the mall, it could be a problem.

2:07:03>> I don't know if it was Mr. Rafidity as

2:07:05someone said about some engineering

2:07:07person exactly

2:07:08>> they had a little server in their thing

2:07:10and a little business and

2:07:12>> you know what would that be you know so

2:07:15uh

2:07:17>> I think that's the only risk that I feel

2:07:19is that we could run ourselves into with

2:07:22suggesting uh a change in the bylaws

2:07:24versus a moratorum. [clears throat] I

2:07:27think the moratorum maybe gives us a

2:07:28little bit more flexibility

2:07:31time someone to see they're

2:07:33[clears throat] going to have to do

2:07:33something and quick. Yeah.

2:07:35>> And and

2:07:38present some whole new bylaw or

2:07:41something that that's adequate to

2:07:44everybody and equitable to everybody.

2:07:47>> Exactly.

2:07:47>> And a one-year moratorum would help us

2:07:50to uh have some more time

2:07:51>> get us to that point

2:07:53>> of the right bylaw.

2:07:56Ricky, you all right? [clears throat]

2:07:59>> Uh, I'm just trying to understand what

2:08:02happens after the one year.

2:08:07>> It has to be revisited.

2:08:08>> They're going to be working on this

2:08:11>> studying it and trying to write

2:08:12something.

2:08:13>> The idea is

2:08:14>> it's giving us amount of time to put

2:08:16together a constructful bylaw [snorts]

2:08:18>> into bylaw proper. Yes. As a

2:08:20>> as a town.

2:08:21>> As a town. Yeah. Every every department

2:08:23has to put their greatest effort into

2:08:25it.

2:08:26>> Uh

2:08:27>> and will have to be approved by town

2:08:28meeting.

2:08:29>> Yep.

2:08:34>> My motion is for two.

2:08:36>> Two years.

2:08:36>> It's not on the That's not on the

2:08:38options.

2:08:39>> Yeah. I don't think it is.

2:08:41>> Two years is not an option.

2:08:42>> The chair, you could vote to recommend

2:08:45either with edits. So you could make a

2:08:47recommended edit if you wish to do two

2:08:48years or to see any other changes.

2:08:52So

2:08:53>> I personally don't think one's long

2:08:55enough, but again I don't know what

2:08:57consequence happens with the ban after

2:08:59Chris just explained it. Reliance also

2:09:01serves so you know it's like I don't how

2:09:04difficult does it get.

2:09:06I think two's

2:09:10very sufficient but I also don't know

2:09:12the consequence of that's too long. I I

2:09:15just don't that's my idea.

2:09:17>> I know what you're thinking.

2:09:19>> One allows us to

2:09:20[clears throat and cough]

2:09:21proposed to the select board a one-year

2:09:24moratorum which creates more um

2:09:28urgency more action

2:09:29>> right two years nothing will be touched

2:09:31for a year and plus

2:09:33>> right

2:09:35>> I don't know

2:09:36>> and and then we have harder restrictions

2:09:38for two years that we're not you know I

2:09:40think I'd like to create more action

2:09:42because we can always extend it right we

2:09:43can always well just not necessarily but

2:09:46>> well I think we could they could do it

2:09:49again it depends

2:09:50attorney general.

2:09:51>> Okay.

2:09:52>> Anything else?

2:09:57>> Then we'll we'll uh just we'll

2:10:04at the at the risk of beating a dead

2:10:05horse. Um so

2:10:09it appears to me that you have two

2:10:11things before you tonight. One is a

2:10:13moratorum and one is an actual bylaw.

2:10:17And so I would question since Mr. Riches

2:10:21is pointing out that he has some issues

2:10:24and at least one board member has agreed

2:10:26that that he may be right that perhaps

2:10:28you should go with the moratorum and

2:10:32work on the bylaw. Give yourself some

2:10:34time to work on the bylaw. If you give

2:10:36yourself a moratorum, you do have some

2:10:37time. Um, also

2:10:41given the

2:10:44national uproar over data centers that's

2:10:47happening across the country,

2:10:50you have to ask yourself, you're you're

2:10:53talking about this issue tonight and

2:10:54it's not the final say, but you've got

2:10:57two people from the town of Auburn that

2:10:59have showed up to comment. So, whose

2:11:03fault is that? Was it publicized? and

2:11:06and maybe there's nothing you can do

2:11:08about that, but once this gets rolling

2:11:12in the town, people find out about it.

2:11:15Some people may be upset if you didn't

2:11:17spend a little more time being more um

2:11:21um thoughtful. I know some people don't

2:11:24like that word. or give it give more a

2:11:26little consideration of how you're going

2:11:27to write this bylaw because once it gets

2:11:29out there and the town finds out that

2:11:30that this has been moving forward and

2:11:32they weren't really fully informed,

2:11:34there may be some push back on that. So,

2:11:36I would just I would make a

2:11:37recommendation yes on the moratorum, but

2:11:40not tonight on the bylaw.

2:11:43>> Sorry, that's me.

2:11:46>> We're not voting on any bylaw.

2:11:47>> We're only suggesting it to the select

2:11:49board

2:11:50>> uh which will then will have to go

2:11:51between before the town. So all of

2:11:54that's already going to happen. We're

2:11:55not making any We're only making a

2:11:56suggestion tonight.

2:11:57>> Well, absolutely. But but like I always

2:11:59tell people, I'm a Tom meeting member

2:12:02and I'm told here's a here's a bylaw

2:12:04you're going to vote on. You can vote

2:12:06yes or no. And so if you can vote no on

2:12:09something, go right ahead.

2:12:14>> Mr. Chairman, uh Mr. Rafferty, I think

2:12:16when you when this goes to town meeting,

2:12:18you're going to see substantial

2:12:20conversation about it. I think there'll

2:12:22be a lot of people get up and speak on

2:12:24this.

2:12:25>> Okay,

2:12:27with you Chris.

2:12:30>> One-year moratorum.

2:12:31>> Yeah, I like that.

2:12:32>> Do I have a motion to uh suggest to the

2:12:36board of select men that we create a

2:12:39one-year moratorum on this bylaw that's

2:12:43been presented?

2:12:44>> I will make that motion.

2:12:45>> Do we have a second?

2:12:46>> Second.

2:12:48>> All those in favor? I

2:12:49>> I

2:12:50>> I

2:12:51>> I there's a vote.

2:12:55>> Okay. What else we have?

2:12:56>> The chair, if I could just ask you to

2:12:57take a motion on number five regarding

2:12:59the ban if you'd intend to recommend for

2:13:03or against it as well, just to take it

2:13:04as a separate.

2:13:05>> On item number five on the agenda,

2:13:08I would like a motion that says we do

2:13:12not intend to recommend.

2:13:15>> I will make that motion, Mr. Chairman.

2:13:17>> Second. I second that motion.

2:13:20>> All those in favor?

2:13:21>> I

2:13:22>> I

2:13:23>> I

2:13:26Okay. Number seven, approval of minutes

2:13:30for 81126.

2:13:33>> Do the chair if we could hold those to

2:13:35the following meeting if they're not

2:13:37ready.

2:13:38>> Okay. They're not ready. Rose says,

2:13:41"Okay. communications central to western

2:13:44Massachusetts energy improvement

2:13:47refurbishment of existing E5 F6 lines.

2:13:52I don't know what that is. FE

2:13:56comment period open till 109.

2:14:01>> It's just a notification to the board.

2:14:03The Central to Western Mass Energy

2:14:05Improvement um plan project, excuse me,

2:14:09from the New England Power Company

2:14:11National Grid has filed their final

2:14:12environmental impact report with NEPA.

2:14:15So, it's open for comments until October

2:14:179th. Um so, if anyone has comments on

2:14:19the project um or would like to view the

2:14:21materials, you can do so online. No

2:14:23action is needed.

2:14:29What do you want to do for

2:14:32>> any questions from anybody?

2:14:34>> Nope. Okay.

2:14:35>> Okay.

2:14:37>> Nine discussion. None. Adjournment of

2:14:40regular meeting. Next meeting September

2:14:4322nd, 2026.

2:14:47Have a motion to adjurnn.

2:14:49>> I will make that motion.

2:14:51>> I'll second it.

2:14:52>> All those in favor? I

2:14:54>> I

2:14:54>> I I I