2026-10-01 - Planning Board

00:00to order. Uh, first order of business

00:02this evening is review and approve the

00:04minutes from the September 3rd, 2026

00:07meeting. Has everyone had the

00:09opportunity to review the minutes?

00:13>> Yes.

00:14>> Yes.

00:15>> Any questions, comments, concerns?

00:17>> No.

00:17>> Make a motion to approve.

00:19>> Is there a second?

00:20>> I second that. All those in favor?

00:23>> I opposed. Eyes have it. Next is review

00:27and sign bills. Uh, we do not have any

00:30bills this evening.

00:32Next up, uh, board member comments.

00:35Penny, anything?

00:36>> I do not have any. Do you know?

00:37>> No comments.

00:38>> Steve,

00:38>> no comments, Madame Chair.

00:40>> Tim,

00:41>> no comments.

00:42>> And I don't think we have Matt yet,

00:44right? So,

00:44>> no.

00:46>> Okay. Uh, staff report.

00:49>> Um, so our, uh, master plan kickoff

00:52committee, um, that meeting went very

00:54well. Um, we also, um, I want to

00:57announce that we have our website is now

01:00live. Um, with our first question for

01:02that master plan update. U, we'll be

01:04doing monthly questions. Um, that'll be

01:07new. Um, they'll be archived, so if you

01:09miss one, you can always go back and

01:11comment on it later. Um, but there'll be

01:13as we kind of go through the process,

01:14there'll be new questions, uh, new

01:16opportunities to engage. Um, it's just

01:18one of the ways that we'll be engaging

01:20with the community. So, um, if you

01:21haven't had a chance yet, I just

01:23encourage you to go to the the website.

01:25Um, you can link to it through the town

01:27website and I I believe there was some

01:29social media that was sent out as well.

01:32Um, but you'll be able to link to that

01:35um that question and has all the

01:37materials, the previous plans, all of

01:39those items. So, a lot of material there

01:42um to help people get up to speed on

01:44where we're at. Um, and it'll be where

01:46we'll kind of have all of our documents

01:48and uh engagement live. So, um again,

01:51please if you haven't had a chance, take

01:52a look at that website.

01:55>> Great.

01:56Uh next up, um is our meetings and

02:00hearings for this evening. First item on

02:02the agenda tonight is the proposed

02:03mixeduse development site plan approval

02:05and special permit for Specttacular LLC

02:09at 335 Maple A. Um we have received a a

02:13request to continue this. Um, so I think

02:16this would be continued to next month's

02:20meeting, November 5th at 7 PM. Um, is

02:24there a motion to continue this hearing

02:27to the November 5th meeting?

02:28>> I move that we continue the hearing on

02:31the 335 Maple Avenue site plan approval

02:33of special permit until Thursday,

02:35November 5th at 7 p.m.

02:38>> Is there a second?

02:39>> Second.

02:40>> All those in favor? I opposed. Eyes have

02:43it. So, we will continue that hearing.

02:46>> We're not talking about it this evening.

02:48Yep.

02:48>> You should you should probably call the

02:50planning office the day of

02:53>> You might want to call the planning

02:54office the day before

02:57>> or day the agenda yesterday and it

03:00didn't say anything about it said it was

03:02they were going to discuss it.

03:03>> Yeah, I know. But call

03:05>> agenda.

03:05>> I get it. But call the day of.

03:08>> Sorry about that.

03:10>> Thank you.

03:12Next item, proposed car dealership site

03:15plan approval for WJC Enterprises, Inc.

03:18This is a continued public hearing for

03:20957 Boston Turnpike and 269 Walnut

03:23Street.

03:24>> Good evening.

03:25>> Good evening.

03:29>> Patrick Mccardi, Mccardi Engineering for

03:31the record and Todd with Patrick Subaru.

03:34Thank you for um having us back again

03:36this evening to continue the discussion.

03:39I'm happy to report that since we were

03:41here last, the conservation commission

03:43uh did vote to issue an order conditions

03:44for the project. So, we're uh good from

03:47conservation front. We had gone

03:50originally to zoning board of appeals

03:52for the special permit for the auto

03:54repair portion. Um they had said that

03:56they were fine with it. They were just

03:59waiting for the planning board to act

04:01before they formally act. So, we've just

04:03have been continuing along with zoning

04:05board while we worked our way through

04:06the planning board process.

04:08We um we have started the MEPA process.

04:12We're plan is to file an expanded ENF uh

04:15the early part of November.

04:18We would expect comments back from that

04:19on mid December according to the MEEPA

04:22calendar at which time we would roll

04:24that right into an EIR

04:26um with the hopes of wrapping up the

04:29MEPA process uh in midFebruary.

04:33Currently, um the purchase and sales

04:36agreement allows for extensions through

04:39mid January and then a 90-day uh time

04:41frame to close. So, we're we're running

04:44the track. Sorry, I'm fighting a

04:45horrible cold.

04:47>> We're we're running the uh the

04:48appropriate track here as far as the

04:50permitting process and moving forward to

04:53actually getting to shovels in the

04:54ground. Uh since we were here last,

04:58Bowman has done their uh review of the

05:00continued their review of the traffic

05:02and Graves has continued their review uh

05:05on the site planning aspects. We did

05:06receive a letter back from Graves dated

05:09the 21st of September that they're good

05:11with everything on a site planning um

05:15side of things. As far as traffic, we

05:18we've had some initial discussions with

05:20Mass DOT as we're getting ready to do

05:22the traffic impact analysis in the as

05:24part of the MEEPA process.

05:26Uh they looked at our proposed driveway

05:29out onto Route 9 and they did ask that

05:32we modify the as you come in off of

05:34Route 9 onto the site, we had a

05:36right-hand turn into that parking lot

05:38that kind of goes uh easterly down

05:41parallel to Route 9. They asked that we

05:43move the entrance to that back, which we

05:45did.

05:46uh that gave us additional setback

05:48between the the right of way of route 9

05:51and our first internal site driveway. Um

05:54so we took that input from mass do from

05:56mass dot. We modified the site plan.

05:59Layout wise it looks exactly the same.

06:01The only thing we had to do to

06:02accommodate that was we raised the

06:04elevation of that parking lot by

06:05approximately 3 ft which Graves did look

06:08at. So, at this point, we're really down

06:11to um the traffic items, which Bowman

06:16issued a letter on the 24th.

06:19Several of the their comments

06:22um note that we have to go through the

06:24MEEPA process and we'll be updating the

06:26traffic impact study as part of the MEPA

06:28process. And then there was a couple um

06:31other comments that they had. What our

06:34hope was is is we, you know, we have a

06:37little bit of a chicken and the egg

06:38situation where we know we have to

06:40update the traffic study. We have to

06:42submit formally to mass dot. Mass do

06:45doesn't grant an access permit until you

06:47have a MEPA certificate. And so I think

06:50that we're far enough along and

06:51personally my opinion anyways is that

06:53we're far enough along in the traffic

06:54review that there's no major busts in

06:57our traffic analysis that have been

06:59identified by Bowman and there's nothing

07:02that's going to substantially change the

07:04layout of the site as we're looking at

07:05it from a planning board perspective.

07:07So, we were hoping that the board would

07:09entertain an approval of the project

07:12with a condition that says as we go

07:14through the MEEPA process and we update

07:16the traffic study through the MEPA

07:18process and through the mass DOT access

07:20permitting process that we would provide

07:23a copy of the updated traffic documents

07:26to the town and to Bowman so that they

07:28could complete their review based on a

07:30final document because we unfortunately

07:32we can't get to a final traffic document

07:34until we get through MEPA and MADOT and

07:37So to kind of avoid the back and forth

07:39and back and forth, we're hoping that

07:41the board would entertain such a

07:42condition that would allow us to

07:44essentially close the planning board

07:46process with a condition being we

07:48provide that traffic information to you

07:50as it's developed and finalized Bowman

07:53can complete their peer review and if

07:55for some reason we're not anticipating

07:57it, but if for some reason it results in

07:59a necessary change to the site plan,

08:02then we could come back at that time and

08:03request an amendment to an approved site

08:05plan. But I think based on our

08:07discussions with Bowman, with our

08:09traffic consultant, and with MADOT, I

08:11don't see any physical changes happening

08:12to the site plan. I think it's more of

08:14an analysis process at this point. Uh I

08:18believe, granted, I wasn't here at the

08:20last meeting and I apologize, we've been

08:21playing a little bit of musical cast of

08:23characters um just with availability,

08:25but I believe that those were the items

08:27that we were down to. And if there's

08:29anything else, oh, I'm sorry. Chris and

08:31I did discuss the Bewalt trail. uh

08:34having designed and and built projects

08:36in Westboro. I'm very familiar with

08:37that. Uh we've had several discussions

08:40with them. Chris asked how we could

08:42possibly um consider that on our site

08:46getting access from Walnut to Nursery

08:48Drive. We do own a a triangle of land

08:52that's not being developed. The

08:54topography is pretty challenging. It

08:56drops about 25 feet from Walnut. it

08:59levels off through a wetland and climbs

09:00back up about 10 feet or so uh to get to

09:04nursery drive. So, I'm not sure if that

09:06would be the most ideal spot to put a

09:08trail. I don't know that conservation

09:09commission would like that, having to go

09:11down and cross the wetlands. Um and so

09:14Chris asked me to put some thought into

09:15that and I understand that the the

09:17bewalt in Shrewsbury is very preliminary

09:19and they're just really doing the study

09:20and so um I think there's willingness on

09:24our side to participate in that

09:25discussion. and I just don't know how

09:26concrete we can be um seeing that it's

09:29so it's it infancy stages here in town.

09:33Um so, you know, happy to continue that

09:36discussion and you know that I think you

09:38all know the Patricks have been here for

09:39a number of years. They're good to the

09:40community. They're good neighbors. So,

09:42they certainly don't want to say no, but

09:44I don't think we would know what we

09:45would be saying yes to yet, if that

09:47makes sense.

09:51So, with that, I'd happy to answer any

09:53questions or if there's anything that

09:55needs to be expanded upon or if there's

09:57any comment, I'm happy to uh to address.

10:00>> Okay, great. Before we um open it up for

10:03like board comments, um Chris, do you

10:06want to maybe explain for for those who

10:08are not knowing what the vernacular is

10:11of BWall and maybe talk about that a

10:13little bit more? Yeah. So, um, in town

10:16it's a traditional they call the Boston

10:17Worcester Airline Trail. So, it's a a

10:20connection that goes, um, significantly

10:22through Westboro, goes all the way into

10:24Worcester through the town of

10:26Shrewsbury. Um, it's a mixture of town

10:29land, um, as well as, um, some, you

10:32know, public right ofways. Um, so it's

10:36an extensive old trolley system um, and

10:39right ofways connected to those. Um the

10:41town has um through various periods of

10:44time evaluated or done feasibility

10:46studies of that trail system and um the

10:50you know possibility of turning that

10:51into a mixeduse trail or a walking path

10:54um and how that could be kind of using

10:56those right ofways that are existing to

10:58provide um those kinds of off-road

11:01connections and pedestrian bicycle

11:03connections throughout the community. Um

11:06it it's you know because it's all

11:09through town and goes through various

11:10neighborhoods. It's mixed responses and

11:12the town has at times picked it up,

11:14looked at it and and um you know not

11:17really made too much progress. Um

11:20recently with this um parcel in

11:22particular

11:24um Westboro is currently conducting um

11:28through grant funding a feasibility

11:30study of the portions in their property

11:32that connect to Shrewsbury. Um the town

11:34owned land which is directly north of

11:37this site um is part of that system. Um

11:40the town uh granted access uh for

11:43Westboro to include that in their

11:45feasibility study. Um so that's where

11:48that kind of connects to this um project

11:51where we have um that existing

11:54feasibility study that Westboro is

11:56conducting. Um, we see this as an

11:58opportunity to use this project as well

12:00to further evaluate um and provide some

12:03effort just to that small section that's

12:05on town owned property. It's the

12:07essentially the open space for that uh

12:10open space um set aside for the uh

12:13residential neighborhood to the north of

12:15this property. Um so it kind of loops

12:18around that residential neighborhood. So

12:20>> Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you

12:22for that clarification. Chris, any

12:25maintenance required on our part for

12:26those walkways?

12:28>> So, um, so again, it's very early stages

12:31in this case. Um, you know, it's up to

12:34the board to determine what a um a

12:37community benefit that could be

12:38considered in relation to this project

12:40and what's appropriate. Um, at full

12:43implementation, I would anticipate that

12:44that would be townowned. Um, and so it

12:47would fall to town maintenance for that,

12:49but we're we're very far from being at

12:52that stage. M madam chair if I may in

12:54the ones I've been involved in in

12:56Westboro um Cold Harbor Brewing on Oda

12:59Street being the first one. So they did

13:01the town did request easements for that

13:04and through all the Amazon uh

13:06development that's happened where the

13:08old Astroenica was

13:09>> they I think they are building like the

13:11first phase of that and then currently

13:14on Route 9 uh just east of 108 we're

13:17building a financial services building

13:20and they have an easement there on that

13:21property but that's their phase two and

13:23it's just in the conceptual planning.

13:25So, it's been about I don't know six

13:28years of discussion that I've been

13:29involved in in Westboro and they're just

13:31really getting started on the first

13:32piece of it.

13:33>> And so, I I think it's probably going to

13:35take a similar time frame for it to

13:38migrate its way west here. And so,

13:39that's why we're certainly not saying

13:41no. And we, you know, we want to be good

13:43neighbors. We just don't know what we're

13:44saying yes to yet. And so, we're happy

13:46to continue that discussion. And however

13:49you see fit to incorporate that in the

13:52decision, I I don't think we would

13:54oppose that. But I think it it's going

13:56to warrant some further discussion on

13:58our side and the town side and the

14:00master planning side of things to get to

14:02that point.

14:03>> Mhm.

14:04>> How was how are the hikers going to get

14:06north of the Route 9 route 20

14:08interchange? It's kind of a daunting

14:13>> Yeah. So the um there CERPC did a

14:16feasibility study of the entire

14:19connection through Shrewsbury. There's a

14:21there's a number of um routes that

14:24they've proposed. Um some that you know

14:27there's the route that follows the

14:28traditional route itself. There's some

14:30that are probably more beneficial that

14:32use existing roadways and they go off

14:34the traditional route but still serve a

14:37same function. Um so we would have to

14:41overall look at that network. But um

14:43again, part of the piece that relates to

14:45this project, the feasibility study

14:47would look at using that existing for

14:50any of those.

14:50>> I'm old enough to remember where Route 9

14:53wasn't closed. You used to be able to

14:55pass through Walnut Street.

14:57>> Oh, really?

14:58>> Really? That would be treacherous.

15:03>> Glad that you're still here, Steve.

15:08>> Okay, Penny, do you have any questions,

15:10comments? I do have a question just

15:13about what's been discussed in the past

15:14related to the parking. Did that get

15:16resolved with the parking and the number

15:19of spots associated with parking? Did

15:21that get discussed at all?

15:24>> Parking for like customer parking?

15:26>> Yes.

15:27>> Uh I believe yes, we did. We did.

15:29>> Did you end up resolving that in terms

15:30of it was like customer and employee

15:32parking? There was an extensive amount

15:33of uh employee parking

15:36>> and uh the ability to potentially land

15:38bank that. Um, but if it's already been

15:40discussed, I don't want to rehash it.

15:42>> It was further called out. I think there

15:44are some modifications that were made to

15:45the site plan that um made specific of

15:48where the employee parking was versus um

15:51where the uh customer parking is, if I'm

15:54>> It was more the number of spots that I

15:56had the question about with relation to

15:58they only had 25 employees, but they

16:00were having 75 spots and could they flex

16:02the spots

16:03>> um amongst multiple types of parkings.

16:06So, I didn't know if that ever got

16:07resolved. I was looking through all the

16:09documents, so I just wanted to just

16:10clarify that.

16:12>> Okay.

16:14>> Do you know Do you have anything?

16:15>> Nope, I'm good.

16:18>> Steve,

16:18>> uh, just Patrick just question about the

16:23Northeast inventory lot. We talked about

16:26like fire prevention

16:28initially, not we're not running water

16:30there in the event that there was some

16:33sort of emergency. Oh,

16:36>> and I talked about a sister

16:40that ever got resolved

16:41>> the northeast. So down in the lower

16:42area. Yes.

16:43>> Yes.

16:45Right on the

16:50>> Yeah, sure. Charge it all afternoon and

16:52it doesn't turn on when you need it.

16:56>> Um,

16:58no. So, we um

17:02we we're not proposing anything down

17:04there. Obviously, it would be quite a

17:06feat to get down that driveway under the

17:08brook and then into that area with an

17:11actual conventional water line. Um

17:17EVs on the Subaru side of things. I know

17:20at Volkswagen we had to build the

17:21quarantined area to, you know, so if

17:23there was a problem with a battery, we

17:25would

17:25>> So you would never move the batteries

17:27that far. They would have to be

17:30quarantined out of the building but

17:32close to it.

17:33>> Yeah. So if the at the new Volkswagen

17:35dealership, Steve, that we did on Route

17:3720, we in the back we have a designated

17:40spot. So if there's an EV with a problem

17:42with the battery, it has to get parked

17:43in that spot. And there's I think it's a

17:4530 or 35 foot buffer

17:47>> around the car. So if it does for some

17:49reason catch on fire, it doesn't spread

17:51to the adjoining cars.

17:52>> You're probably not going to throw water

17:53on those anyhow.

17:54>> No. And and that you know that's a that

17:57is an issue. An EV car takes 10 times as

18:01much water to put out as a conventional

18:03car because the battery just keeps

18:04going. Um Auburn Fire was telling me I

18:07think they put 30,000 gallons on a car

18:09on the mass pike to try to put it out.

18:11>> So uh it would be conventional cars down

18:14in that lower lot. Um

18:18>> in the event of of conventional cargo.

18:21>> Yeah, I think I had mentioned and I

18:23think your colleague had agreed that if

18:25water couldn't get down there would be

18:28provided.

18:28>> Okay.

18:31>> I don't Yeah, I wouldn't object to a

18:33condition that that requires that

18:34>> big expense.

18:35>> No

18:3815 20,000 gallons.

18:41>> Yeah.

18:41>> Okay.

18:44>> Can you anything? No, that was that was

18:46a good summary. Um, so I'd be in favor

18:49if you know provided the public hearing

18:51closes tonight to move to a decision for

18:53the next meeting uh with a condition of

18:55approval subject to MEPA approval and

18:57then the of course a satisfactory peer

18:59review of the revised TIA.

19:02>> Excellent. Thank you.

19:04>> Um I have um two questions for you

19:07related to one related to the um lower

19:10parking lot. At one point we did um

19:12discuss the potential of trying to do um

19:15some additional uh landscaping buffering

19:17of the um knowing that you have some um

19:22it butts up against some of the

19:23residential back there.

19:24>> Yes.

19:25>> Um is that something that

19:27you guys had looked at at all?

19:28>> Yeah. So I don't I don't believe on the

19:30residential side we're not expanding the

19:32limit of clearing from what it exists

19:35right now. Um

19:38boy, I wish this would turn on. make my

19:40life easier.

19:43Chris, would you happen to be able to

19:44share that to the screen?

19:48Ah,

19:49>> and the I while you're um trying to do

19:52that, the only other question that I had

19:54had um you had mentioned about MEPA um

19:58is your closing of the property

20:00contingent on Meepa on a

20:01>> No, it's it's uh we actually it's we

20:05have um

20:07the initial permitting period and then

20:09two extensions. The Patrick's have um

20:13executed one extension. The second one

20:15takes us to January 15th, but there is a

20:19provision that they can elect to close

20:22um without all the permits in place.

20:25Obviously, our our preference would be

20:27to have uh the the quote unquote

20:30discretional permits in hand

20:32>> um which really conservation and zoning

20:35uh would be the discretional, right?

20:37Because this is site plan approval. So

20:39technically this is

20:41>> uh the joke is the board of permitted

20:43uses that I've heard over the years. So

20:45at least those two uh in place. So that

20:48that's where we're marching towards. Um

20:51but the intent is to to move forward

20:53with this site. I know we had the

20:55history with the other site that

20:57unfortunately went through this whole

20:58effort and never came to fruition. This

21:00one needs to come to fruition. They're

21:02they're busting at the seams

21:04>> um at the current location.

21:06>> Okay.

22:03So they they they didn't obviously were

22:05extensively landscaped. I'm just looking

22:07at the landscape plan. were extensively

22:09landscaped, excuse me, along the Route 9

22:12and Walnut Street frontage and internal

22:14to all those parking lots on the the

22:16upper tier, I'll call it. Um

22:20the lower tier, we do have some internal

22:22landscape islands. Um

22:26but if it would please the board, there

22:28is the ability to add some additional

22:30plantings along that northernly property

22:33line between the edge of pavement and

22:36the the proposed tree line.

22:39It is it is a um slope.

22:42>> It is about a a 3 to one slope, but we

22:45could put certainly put some trees on

22:47that.

22:50I mean, I personally I understand that

22:52you're not doing, you know, there is a

22:55limit of of cutting back there. So,

22:57there are still some trees back there,

22:59but I think just any additional

23:01buffering that can be added would be

23:04>> appreciated. I think we we wouldn't we

23:06wouldn't object to that. Okay.

23:09All right. This is a uh public hearing.

23:12Any member of the public wishing to

23:13speak on this matter this evening?

23:20All right. Seeing um no one, um what is

23:24the board's wish? Um is there an

23:27interest in closing this hearing this

23:28evening?

23:30>> Yes.

23:33>> All right. Can I get a motion to close

23:36the public hearing?

23:38>> I move that we close the public hearing.

23:42>> Is there a second?

23:43>> Second.

23:44>> All those in favor?

23:45>> I opposed.

23:47>> Eyes have it. We will render a decision

23:50and have it for you next

23:53>> next meeting.

23:53>> Okay. And that's uh November

23:55>> November 5th.

23:56>> November 5th.

24:01>> Excellent. Thank you all very Thank you.

24:03Have a great night.

24:08>> Next item this evening is dimminimous

24:11change request. This is a new public

24:12meeting for 703715 Hartford Pike.

24:17>> Um thank you. So this is um the proposed

24:20uh dumpster divers location. Um uh the

24:23applicant has uh previously received

24:26approval um for the contractor's yard

24:28use uh at this site. Um as they've moved

24:32into the building permit process and

24:33they're looking at potential tenants for

24:35the space. Um it has changed some of the

24:37allocation of uh the tenant spaces based

24:40on based on those uses. So um fairly

24:43minor adjustments to parking related to

24:45that. Um this dimminimous change

24:47essentially will allow them to consider

24:49those tenants as they move through that

24:51building permit phase um with the

24:54building department in terms of interior

24:56fit out um where you know the original

24:59design is more more conceptual in

25:01nature. So,

25:02>> um, largely procedural, but, um, as it

25:05relates to the, you know, expanding the

25:08ability to have different tenants

25:10between office space and warehouse of a

25:12contractor's yard, it allows that

25:14additional tenant to be considered. So,

25:19>> okay. Thanks.

25:20>> That was pretty much it.

25:21>> Oh,

25:23>> I didn't know if you had any questions

25:24for me while I was here.

25:26>> Okay. Um, does does any member of the

25:29board have any questions or comments on

25:30this dimminimous change?

25:33>> Penny, do you know?

25:35>> I guess my only question is you got the

25:38dumpster operation out front.

25:42>> Not necessarily. No, it's all the

25:44dumpsters, everything going to be in the

25:45far back.

25:46>> Okay. But you have you have that

25:48operation.

25:50>> I It looks like you would do for the

25:52time being at least the dumpster

25:54operations out front. Yeah. Well, right

25:57now we're operating the recycling

25:59center.

25:59>> I get it. And that's a state permit. I

26:01understand.

26:02>> Yeah.

26:03>> But now you got a contractor's yard,

26:06>> too.

26:07>> And I'm not sure that you have two uses

26:10on that site. Correct. You got the

26:12recycling yard and we have a building

26:14we've approved.

26:16>> Yeah.

26:18>> Can you have

26:20are those accessory uses? I I'm not

26:23sure. has the building inspector looked

26:25at that.

26:26>> So that's largely where this dimminimous

26:28change request is is coming from. So

26:30again, as as the tenant fit out for

26:32those um specific

26:35uh for that structure um as as we're

26:38looking at potential fit out for that um

26:41it does, you know, she's looking at the

26:42parking allocation and it does change

26:44that. Um she does consider this all

26:46under the contractor's yard use overall.

26:49Um but similar to a commercial plaza, if

26:51a new you know store comes in, different

26:55retail location comes in, they do have

26:57to meet those parking requirements. Uh

26:59to the extent that it changes the site

27:02requirements, um some of them do trigger

27:04dimminimous change requests. I I get it,

27:07but and I I understand and I think it's

27:09a good use, but I I kind of know what

27:12goes on on Route 20. And if you had

27:17someone in that space who was proposing

27:20to do some sort of distribution, I don't

27:23think that would be allowable

27:26as it's permitted under a contractor's

27:28yard. I don't think you can have

27:30multiple uses on the same site.

27:32Just be cognizant of that

27:35>> when when you're leasing these spaces. I

27:36think if you have plumbers,

27:37electricians, whatever, I think that's

27:40all fine. I think it's a great use,

27:42>> but I'm just telling you before you go

27:44too far down the road, talk to to

27:46machine because you don't want to get

27:48hung up,

27:49>> right?

27:50>> Um because I don't think it's an

27:51accessory use.

27:54>> Okay.

27:55>> I think she would tell you the same

27:56thing.

27:57>> Yeah.

28:01Otherwise, I'm good with Jim.

28:03>> Do you have anything?

28:04>> No issues with the dimminimous change

28:07request. No.

28:08>> I'm also all set. Um, so this is so we

28:14can vote to approve this as a

28:15dimminimous change.

28:17>> I make a I move that we make a finding

28:19that this is a dimminimous change.

28:21>> Is there a second?

28:22>> Second.

28:22>> All those in favor? I I opposed. Eyes

28:25have it.

28:26>> Thank you.

28:26>> Thank you.

28:30Under new business this evening, we have

28:33one item for to discuss um special town

28:36meeting proposed zoning bylaw

28:38amendments.

28:39>> Thank you. I have a a brief presentation

28:41I'd like to um run through with the

28:44board.

28:48One minute to

28:51hold that up.

29:25Thank you. So, um just kind of run

29:28through um the proposed amendments that

29:30we have um as well as some of the key

29:33dates. So, um I do recognize this is a

29:36discussion item. Um we uh did have this

29:40referred to us from the select board. Uh

29:43we were not because of the timeline

29:45we're not able to advertise to have this

29:47as a public hearing. That will happen on

29:49November 5th. Um but I still wanted to

29:52take this time to run through uh the

29:54proposed amendments with the board as a

29:56discussion item. Uh and again kind of

29:58preface the November 5th hearing. Um we

30:01will take comments from the public and

30:03from the board in that you know in that

30:05meantime. I'm happy to have those

30:07conversations and provide those

30:08materials um to anyone who's interested

30:11as we lead up to a December uh town

30:14meeting.

30:15Um but uh just going to review the

30:18proposed amendments briefly um take uh a

30:21look at each one and then go through

30:23those key dates and have the discussion.

30:25Um so the two uh amendments that are

30:28proposed um are uh two new sections in

30:31the bylaw uh to address commercial drone

30:34delivery uh and the other section to

30:37address uh data centers.

30:40Um when we look at commercial drone

30:42delivery, we're going to start with that

30:43one. So the current zoning um when we

30:47look at uh you know the Amazon uh

30:49facility in Westboro uh that will be

30:52starting uh their drone delivery um we

30:55were asked to look at um how we could

30:57regulate um some of that drone delivery

30:59and some of the concerns related to uh

31:02potential drone delivery in Shrewsbury.

31:04Um our current where we always go to is

31:07where is our current zoning? How would

31:08we regulate that under the current

31:10circumstances? Um, table one accessory

31:13uses does include helport. Um, it's a

31:16special permit in the office research

31:17zone only. Um, we find that to be

31:20somewhat inadequate for drone delivery

31:22uh, regulation. Um, there's no

31:25definition and no specific criteria. So,

31:28um, if one came in today, um, that's

31:30probably how I would try to regulate it.

31:32Um but again it leaves the board a

31:34little bit uh undere equipped in terms

31:36of this newer uh modern use um in terms

31:40of of actually regulating it. So um the

31:42proposed zoning um you know I believe I

31:45provided the board with a draft uh of

31:47that um as was submitted uh to the

31:50select board. Um I've kind of summarized

31:53it here on this slide but primarily what

31:55it does it adds a number of definitions

31:57including aircraft helport helipad uh

32:00unmanned aircraft system unmanned

32:02aircraft which is a drone uh an aviation

32:05facility. Uh it adds uh additional

32:09decision criteria. Um so still stays

32:11with the special permit um as it's

32:14currently uh regulated as a helport. Um

32:16but it adds that uh discretionary

32:18criteria. It adds dimensional and

32:20sighting standards for the actual

32:22landing pad and facilities uh that would

32:24support uh any drone delivery uh

32:27business uh whether it's an accessory

32:29use or uh principal use. Um so um

32:33obviously concerns related to that that

32:35we anticipate would be uh related to

32:37buffering and screening uh the actual

32:39structures and equipment where that's

32:41located themselves. uh the touchdown pad

32:45uh lighting um there is an exemption for

32:48anything that is regulated for the

32:49flight and takeoff of as it's regulated

32:52by the FAA

32:54uh noise in terms of ground equipment,

32:56groundbased operations and outdoor

32:58storage. Uh also adds uh additional

33:01application requirements. So um in

33:04addition to the regular uh site plan

33:06approval and special permit uh criteria

33:09and applications materials that would be

33:11provided um we're asking for a baseline

33:14noise study off the bat um

33:16identification of sensitive receptors

33:19which is a newly defined term within 500

33:21ft um hours of operation approximate

33:24number of type of aircraft charging

33:27stations fuel equipment and details

33:29related to that as well as an emergency

33:31response plan and FAA authorizations.

33:34So, any permits related to the federal

33:36authorization for drone delivery.

33:40I want to be clear with what we're

33:42regulating here uh and concerns that the

33:44public may have related to drone

33:46delivery. Uh we share some of those

33:48concerns. Um but the board cannot

33:50consider uh and this is spelled out in

33:52the regulation things such as flight

33:54paths, flight altitudes, flight speeds.

33:58Um, one of the languages here that we've

34:00done is a bit of a gray area as other

34:02matters related uh or within the

34:04exclusive jurisdiction of federal

34:06authorities except where such

34:08information is voluntarily provided or

34:10necessary solely to evaluate a lawful

34:14land use impact uh the proposed of the

34:17proposed ground facility. So again this

34:19is a land use uh regulatory board. we

34:22cannot regulate the operation of

34:25aircraft uh which is the sole

34:27jurisdiction of the FAA. Um however to

34:30the extent that we can uh ask those

34:32questions that is voluntarily provided

34:34we can still elicit some of that

34:36information um but we try to put the

34:38strict bumpers so the board is not

34:40running a foul of any um uh of uh where

34:44some other communities have tried to

34:45regulate or provide local permits for

34:47drones um recreational or otherwise and

34:50have uh fallen uh prey to you know um

34:54legal disputes related to that. So um

34:57those are some items that you know

34:59people may be considered and or

35:01concerned about. Um the board cannot

35:03consider them in their decision. Um

35:04those would be uh the jurisdiction of

35:06the FAA. Um we also provide exemptions

35:09for any obviously law enforcement uh

35:12facilities and anything related to or

35:14supportive of law enforcement or

35:15emergency services um as those are

35:18necessary infrastructure pieces.

35:21Um, going a little bit further, some

35:23things that are are pretty there a

35:25little bit of repetition here, but uh,

35:27really strictly federal protections of

35:29what zoning itself cannot regulate.

35:32Again, this is somewhat spelled out in

35:33the regulations as flight plast or

35:36flight corridors, minimum or maximum

35:38flight altitudes, aircraft speed limits,

35:41restrictions on beyond visual line of

35:43sight operations, restrictions on number

35:45or frequency of aircraft flights or

35:47navigable airspace, local aircraft

35:50registration requirements, local flight

35:52permits, uh or restrictions on aircraft

35:55operations solely because an aircraft

35:57passes over a particular property,

35:59neighborhood, or geographic area. So

36:01again, really what this is going to is

36:03regulating the landing pads themselves,

36:06the land use component related to drone

36:09delivery um and not the actual drone

36:11delivery process itself or the aircraft

36:14uh themselves. Um this zoning as we've

36:18written it is is largely looking to

36:21anticipate uh where this drone delivery

36:24may go. Um when we talk about um you

36:28know possible uses where we have

36:30warehouses or uh shopping centers um

36:34they may in the future look to have a

36:36landing pad for drone delivery

36:38incorporated into that. This gives us

36:40the control to regulate that to uh

36:43control the dimensions the sighting the

36:45location of all of those land use

36:48related to the drone delivery. Um, and

36:51it retains although we had only just

36:53helport as a use that was undefined, it

36:56strengthens those existing regulations.

36:58So that um, not that I anticipate it,

37:01but should uh, a helport be proposed in

37:04town u, we've had a modernized look at

37:07those regulations as well.

37:12Moving on to data centers. So that's our

37:13second uh, zoning. So again um take a

37:17look at our existing zoning and where we

37:19are with that. Um so table one uh

37:21research and industrial uses included

37:24electronic data storage centers. It was

37:26added uh as recently as 2012. Um we do

37:29actually have an existing data center uh

37:32in the community um existing um it is

37:36not uh to the scale of what you see on

37:38the news um and not you know certainly

37:40not the hypers scale or any of those

37:42kind of larger facilities um but to the

37:45extent that it is a data processing

37:47facility under our current zoning does

37:49exist. So um that was a caveat. It's a

37:52obviously a a beneficial economic driver

37:55in the community. we want to protect it

37:57uh preserve it uh is as is an existing

37:59right uh to continue uh that existing

38:02business u but again looking at um the

38:05specifics of that electronic data

38:07storage centers there's no definition of

38:09what specifically that is um to that

38:12level uh and there's no additional

38:15specific criteria for the board to

38:17consider other than the base criteria of

38:20um site plan approval and special permit

38:23um in crafting this uh zone zoning. We

38:26did use Mansfield uh as a template. So,

38:29Mansfield recently proposed uh

38:31regulations related to data centers. Um

38:34it has also been reviewed by the AG's

38:36office which gives us additional uh

38:38certainty that it would meet legal

38:40muster in terms of review by the AG

38:43which is that step after town meeting

38:45vote. Um so um although it's not one for

38:48one uh exa exact as Mansfield it does

38:50use a lot of the uh components of that

38:53zoning um where their zoning looked at

38:56three tiers uh of data center we've

38:58added uh an additional tier tier zero um

39:01and that is to again protect uh the

39:04lower uh user lower end users of uh data

39:08centers. So data uh electronic data

39:11storage facility uh becomes a defined

39:14use. Um it's uh all-encompassing of all

39:17the tiers. Um we also added a definition

39:21for incidental computing equipment. Um

39:23so that's specifically um if you have

39:26your garage servers or uh a very small

39:29incidental computing equipment related

39:31to your uh business, you're not a data

39:34center just because you have some

39:36incidental computer equipment. Um so

39:38again providing some of those uh

39:40protections for those existing uses or

39:42the uses that are not of the you know

39:45concern for the community. So uh tier

39:48zero is looking at tiers along to uh the

39:53maximum energy demand of the facility um

39:56which is a good you know these larger

39:59ones of of concern are drawing a

40:01significant amount of power um which is

40:03contributing to a lot of the impacts

40:05that those communities are seeing. So

40:06tier 0 is 500 kilowatts uh or less than

40:10uh 500 kilowatts. Tier one goes from 500

40:13to 2 megawws. Uh tier uh sorry tier two

40:18goes from 2 megawatts to 10 megawws. And

40:22then tier three is a high impact data

40:24center which is 10 megawws or greater.

40:26And that's a a very large facility uh in

40:29relation to what we would be seeing.

40:32Um so in addition to defining data

40:36center uh more accurately um to modern

40:39standards, it adds additional

40:40application requirements uh related to

40:43capacity and utility uh uh capacity and

40:46utility impact report uh which would

40:48look at the electrical infrastructure

40:50and demand, the water demand and cooling

40:52infrastructure, the utility capacity

40:55verification uh to ensure that we can

40:58actually support um what's being uh

41:00requested without adverse impacts on the

41:02overall town's uh resources. Uh allows

41:06for maximum approved electrical demand.

41:08So the town uh the board itself can say

41:10that is the maximum amount that this

41:12facility can draw. Um and you receive

41:16and then similar with water demand,

41:18maximum approved water demand that the

41:20facility can draw from. So although we

41:22have it in those tiers, you can set uh a

41:24more fine-tuned tier related to uh when

41:27we evaluate these facilities uh in the

41:30the reports and studies that are

41:32provided. Um also require a phasing

41:35schedule. So there's you know if to the

41:37extent that any of it is phased um we

41:39are looking at the maximum build out at

41:42full phase schedule when we evaluate

41:44these. um but allows us to say you know

41:46how is that project going to roll out uh

41:48over the course of you know several

41:51years if it's a phased project.

41:55Uh and then again it adds additional

41:57decision criteria related to uh and

42:00where uh previously data center was

42:02allowed by right and uh those zoning

42:04districts uh requires uh special permit

42:08approval now so discretionary approval

42:10for the board. Um so special permitu

42:13will be for tier one and tier two. Um

42:15tier three follows uh Mansfield's uh

42:19regulations which actually prohibits uh

42:21anything of that scale. So those highest

42:23scale data centers, this is a

42:25prohibition on those. Um it does allow

42:28the board to consider noise. Um one of

42:31the changes that we've done here uh is

42:33we're using a different noise weighted

42:35scale. So it's DBC versus DBA decibb.

42:40Um, I'm not going to get into the noise

42:42engineering of that, but primarily what

42:44that does is that takes the inaudible

42:46lower end scale uh and incorporates

42:49evaluating that. So that's the low

42:51mechanical hum um that um is found to

42:54potentially relate to health impacts and

42:57concerns related to that. In addition

43:00allows the board to evaluate the backup

43:02power and air quality site design uh and

43:05allows postapproval monitoring and

43:07reporting including an annual operation

43:09report uh as well as uh you can uh add

43:13enhanced reporting within the first 5

43:14years of the facility's operation. Uh

43:17and then any expansion or modification,

43:19we put very strict language on that that

43:21to the extent that uh it changes from

43:23the original approval in terms of uh how

43:26much energy or resources it needs or uh

43:29the actual uh site design of the

43:33facility, they would have to return to

43:34this board uh to allow those uh

43:37modifications.

43:40Um so we're very early stages of this.

43:42Um so this is the first uh meeting uh so

43:45October 1st. um planning board public

43:47meeting. Um I've included uh a list of

43:51uh all of the steps that this process

43:53will go through to get to town meeting

43:55uh on December 7th. Um the board will

44:00have its next uh action item November

44:025th which will be a public hearing. Uh

44:04and we would provide I would ask the

44:06board to provide their recommendation to

44:08town meeting at that time as well.

44:12That is my presentation.

44:15Okay,

44:16>> Madam Chair.

44:17>> Yeah.

44:18>> Uh Chris, uh especially on tier three

44:20data centers, uh Celco is okay with

44:22this.

44:23>> So the the tier three under this

44:25provision would be prohibited. Um I I

44:28have not consulted with Celco on the

44:30specific bylaw change. Um however, I do

44:33know that again with some of those

44:34higher tiers, it would require extensive

44:37uh infrastructure adjustments. Um

44:40certainly to to facilitate, you know, 10

44:43megawatts of power would be a

44:46significant infrastructure project that

44:47Celco would uh I'm not even sure that

44:49they would complete. Um but that would

44:52be a conversation that Celco would have

44:54with the applicant.

44:55>> Thank you,

44:56>> Madam Chair. Can I ask a question?

44:57>> Sure.

44:58>> Um so was there a reason why you uh

45:01modeled it after Mansfield? It's a

45:03slightly different type of town.

45:07>> Yeah. So, so Mansfield is the the most

45:09recent to pass uh data center zoning. Um

45:12so that was primarily where we look were

45:14looking at it. Um uh we were tracking it

45:17as as it was brought to our attention

45:19that this is something that um the town

45:21would like to pursue. Uh in addition,

45:23having that um uh having their zoning

45:27have been approved by the attorney

45:29general's office gave us some additional

45:30assurance that, you know, they were on

45:32the right track. So again, we used that

45:34as the basis. It's not exact um but we

45:37felt that a lot of that language was

45:39modernized taking into account a lot of

45:41um current concerns. So we felt that it

45:44was uh relevant to trying to regulate it

45:47here as well.

45:49>> Thank you.

45:51>> Um go ahead

45:53>> Mansfield. That's not a municipal

45:54electric though, right?

45:55>> No, I don't believe so.

45:57>> We're in the business of selling power.

45:59So if we had a big data center come in

46:0210 megawws and I think the only place

46:06you could probably put it based on my

46:08understanding of the interconnection

46:10issues is somewhere around 20 maybe the

46:12landfill or

46:15>> um but we had someone come in

46:19and they were willing to pay for all the

46:21upgrades and I think Julie would attest

46:25to this there is no greater break on

46:28development velment than national grid.

46:31So I don't know that we need anybody

46:33more than national grid to tell us what

46:35we can and cannot do. But if they were

46:37willing to pay for the upgrades and we

46:40could have a 50 megawatt data center,

46:44which in my mind over there is not going

46:46to affect anybody. And now these things

46:49recycle the water. Why why we want to

46:53prohibit that? It's free money. Make

46:56money on the real estate taxes. make

46:58money on selling the power.

47:07>> Um, I have a question on the drones. I

47:09because I I understand that it doesn't

47:12that this type of zone um bylaw will not

47:16be able to regulate uh flight paths, but

47:19I'm sure just trying to anticipate some

47:22of the other questions that would come

47:24up in the from the public is does the

47:26FAA spell out with some of these um

47:30specific um flight paths what what a

47:33drone can and cannot fly over. I would

47:36assume like you can't fly a drone over

47:40a, you know, a a military facility or

47:44you can't fly a dry a drone over a

47:47school. Like, is that something that's

47:49already spelled out? Because again, I

47:51guarantee that's going to be a question

47:52that probably comes up.

47:54>> Yeah. So, I won't pretend that I'm

47:57well-versed in all the FAA regulations,

47:59but I I do know that there are obviously

48:01regulations to play. I I I you know when

48:05they started doing the licenses uh for

48:07commercial drones I I was interested um

48:09and I know there is licensing related to

48:11that. Um you cannot fly them over uh

48:14significant populations if there's like

48:16an event. Um again that's all FAA. I

48:19don't know the logistics of even how to

48:21notify drone operators that some of

48:24those events are happening but

48:27>> conceivably there are

48:29>> things in place. Uh, again, we can't

48:32regulate that. And, um, you know, again,

48:35I I I share some of the concerns that

48:37I've seen from the public in terms of

48:38the drone delivery. Um, I'll let the

48:41public make their own opinions over the

48:43FAA regulations, but to the extent that

48:45we can regulate them, I think this

48:47represents an attempt to to do so. So,

48:51>> yeah, like I said, I I'm I'm not

48:55expecting that you would know the FAA

48:56regulations, but it's it's certainly

48:59going to be

49:01>> in terms of some of the questions. Um, I

49:03I would also point the public uh I know

49:05that uh the Westboroough Select Board um

49:09their meetings are available and uh the

49:11community advocate has had a number

49:13number of articles out on uh the

49:15process. West Bro's uh been having

49:17discussions, you know, various boards.

49:19Uh their local boards have been having

49:21having discussions with um

49:23representatives from Amazon um related

49:26to a lot of these concerns that the

49:28community is having here. Um so I just

49:30direct uh residents again to those

49:33resources and again you can form your

49:35own opinions around that. Um but that

49:37that is a resource for for people to

49:39become more educated as well.

49:41>> Okay, great. Do you have anything?

49:44>> I do not. Okay. Um I I'm not I don't

49:47think that we're going to entertain, you

49:49know, any public comment or questions on

49:51this tonight. Um just because this is um

49:54just kind of an in of presentation

49:56portion knowing that there will be an

49:58opportunity um for some um for formal

50:03public comment at our November 5th

50:05meeting. Um, I would say to those um

50:09that are tuning in at home this evening,

50:11if you um do have um other, you know, if

50:16you have questions, comments, whatnot,

50:18um that you'd like to present um to the

50:21town related to these bylaws and you

50:23can't make the November 5th meeting, um

50:25please feel free to um send them

50:27directly to um the town hall um to the

50:32what is it? The planning um email.

50:35um the planning email. So um I'd

50:38encourage everyone to do their review

50:40and and send their comments along.

50:46Anything else on that item?

50:50All right. Next is um to discuss and

50:53vote on the decision for 882 Boston

50:56Turnpike special permit.

51:01Um, so just a refresher for the board,

51:04this is um the off-site parking related

51:07to the car dealership um and uh and

51:10maintenance facility at 82 Hartford

51:13Turnpike or sorry Boston Turnpike. Um

51:17the site has operated this way, you

51:20know, for extensive amount of time. Um,

51:22however, the ownership is changing and

51:24it requires this central procedural uh

51:27effort to reestablish those rights to

51:29the off-site uh parking.

51:35>> Any questions, comments on the

51:38decision?

51:40>> Make a motion that we grant the uh

51:42applicants uh special permit for 882

51:45Boston turnpike.

51:48>> Okay, I second that.

51:50>> Okay. Um, Penny, have you vote?

51:52>> Uh, I approve. I I agree with that.

51:55>> Yes.

51:56>> Yes.

51:57>> Yes.

51:58>> And I'm a yes.

52:01Unanimous. Okay.

52:07Next is the decision and vote on um

52:11discuss and vote on the decisions for

52:13525 Hartford Turnpike site plan approval

52:17and special permit. Is Matt able to join

52:20us?

52:20>> So Matt will not be able to join us this

52:22evening. Um he is dealing with um

52:27a personal issue um and will not be able

52:30to attend.

52:31>> Okay.

52:32>> Um I have to look at the timeline um and

52:34just make sure that we can do this at

52:36the next meeting. If not, we may need to

52:37have a special meeting

52:39uh in order to vote

52:40>> because we can't vote with three people.

52:42>> Correct.

52:5990 days from 90 days from now.

53:19said it's 90 days from the close of the

53:21hearing.

53:21>> Yeah,

53:22>> we just closed it last month.

53:29>> I mean, we have it

54:00Yeah, technically we have till December,

54:02but

54:07>> okay,

54:08>> pick this up at the November meeting.

54:09So,

54:09>> all right. So, we won't be able to on

54:11this matter this evening due to

54:14>> quum. So, um, we'll plan to take this up

54:17at at the November 5th meeting.

54:21>> Okay.

54:22>> All right.

54:24Next item is ANRS. I don't think we have

54:27any any ANRS um this evening.

54:32>> Um, and then just it's um we just make

54:36note of some correspondence that has

54:38been received

54:39um on a couple of different items.

54:43So, just for the record,

54:46>> any other items for from the board this

54:49evening,

54:52>> I move that we conclude this evening's

54:54public hearings.

54:56>> Is there a second?

54:58>> Second.

54:58>> All those in favor? I

55:00>> opposed. Eyes have it. Thank you very

55:02much.