Somerset Planning Board - May 26, 2026

Yes.

Can everybody hear me? Hey, like opening the meeting, Somerset Pliny boy dated Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 6pm, Somerset Old Town Hall, 1480 County Street, Somerset Mass. I call the attendance of the board members. Lloyd Mendes here. Nicole McDonald here. Bill Raposa here. Tim Turner here. Gabby Simons here. This meeting is recorded and if anyone has any cell phones, we can turn them off. We'll put them

on by face. We want them there. Okay, consideration of approval not required.

A and R plans submitted pursuant of MGL Chapter 41, Section 813.

For property located in the Cessna, D block, block 4750, submitted by Joseph and Diana Benavry. So I just tell you 21 days review period has been locked without formal action by the planning board. The board may consider endorsement of the plan as submitted but determine not to endorse the plan if it finds that the division of land is not qualified and not approved under subdivision control. Mr.

Chairman I'm going to refuse myself so I'm going to leave the room. So noted.

Thank you sir. So originally this was a development from prior to the Planning and Zoning Board's origination. I believe right around 1896 when this subdivision was formed originally. These are nine lots originally that were conjoined by the town into two lots over time and I'm just looking to join them into one lot at this time to build one house.

Hey, does the board have any questions for Mr. Gandara? Does the board have any questions for Mr. Gandara? Oh, I'm sorry.

I didn't hear you. Sorry. Yeah, I'm... How are we doing this audio-wise? Can everyone in the room hear? Okay. Yeah, the acoustics are awful, so... So Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify, is the applicant giving us time to actually deliberate on this petition? No, you guys took over 21 days to get this application done. There's your answer. So, alright, so I'm going to

back up then. So Mr. Chair, This is a request for an approval not required. That is under our subdivision control bylaws. So Mr. Bednarik, you would agree with me that you're requesting an approval not required, meaning a subdivision. I was instructed by the planning board planner to fill out an application and send it in to conjoin these two lots. That was my understanding. So just to be clear, you

were not instructed by the planning board to do it this way. The town planner gave you this advice? I was given the forms by Town Hall to do this project and this is the form I was given to join these lots. When you say Town Hall, who specifically gave you the forms? Or advised you to file it?

It was given to me by, I'm not sure how the structure goes at Town Hall, but I asked the building department about the process and the planner gave me this form to fill out in return. Now when you filled out the approval not required, my understanding is that there's two lots that you're seeking to join together? Originally these are nine lots. There's four lots in one property and there's five lots in

the other property. Again, these were 20 by 90 lots originally that had been conjoined by the town. So they predate the subdivision control by-law, they predate the zoning by-law in the town of Somerset, correct? Correct. And you talk about nine lots, you don't own nine lots. Me and my wife own nine lots. Currently they're in my wife's name, all nine of them. So when you filed it, did you have a plan?

Did you file all the copies of the plan that are required? Yes, I filed all the copies of the plans with the planning board. Those were given to you guys and I believe they were at the last meeting. So they were not. So my understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that there was one plan given to the town planner The plan is supposed to have a copy for each member of the planning board.

And your application was, the application itself is dated February 9th, but there was no plan with it, or if there was, I don't know what plan was submitted because there were no copies. Then there was a revised plan that was apparently given to the town planner on February 19th, but had no copies that I'm aware of. Mr.

Chair, did you get a copy of that plan? Did not. Did not? I believe all the copies were delivered to Town Hall. How they were distributed is not what I do. That's what Town Hall does. How many copies of the plan were given?

Because the issue is when I asked for the plan, I was told there was one plan and the town planner showed me the plan she has, but there's no copies from the members of the board. So how many copies did you submit? I believe there were five copies delivered. Of the full plan? Correct. Alright. So... The plan that I saw has two lots that are referenced on it, correct? Correct. And am

I correct that one lot is in your name, one lot is in your wife's name? That is incorrect. Both lots are in my wife's name. Okay, well your application says it's filed by Joseph Benarik and Diana Benarik. We are a married couple and I filed it under mine and my wife's name. Okay, but at the Registry of Deeds and at the Tax Assessor Office, is one law under your name and one

under your wife's? At the Registry of Deeds, they are both in my wife's name.

Alright, I disagree with that because I checked the deed. I believe that's an incorrect statement. So if they're only under your wife's name, then why is your name on the application to consolidate? Because we are a married couple and I filled that, we filled that out as a married couple. Mr. Chair, where is this going? I'll ask the same question. Alright, so I'll jump to the big question. So for a subdivision,

you're asking to divide the lots. You're not asking for a division of lots. You're asking to join lots together, correct? I'm asking to join lots together, and that was the direction I was given by Town Hall. And the requirement for any subdivision in Somerset is that there's frontage on a public way or a way as defined by our subdivision control bylaw. What way... public road or private road do these lots have

direct frontage on? Gay Avenue was formed prior to the zoning and Planning Board. It is a private way and it is frontage. You don't own the private way. I do control the private way in front of the home. That is MGL. Mr. Chair, where are we going with this? So Mr. Chair, I'll answer that question. We obviously, we don't have to approve this anyway. We just got to make a decision whether

we're going to endorse it or not endorse it. We don't need all the particulates because he didn't combine the lots together. Okay, so whether he puts the lots together or not, he didn't go to zoning to combine the lots, so it's an oversized lot to begin with. so at such time um it would be a i would say with the lack of information or not he i we asked him to withdraw

it and come back with the particulars on it he didn't do that he didn't go to zoning but i don't have a case with zoning so i don't see how the board can endorse the plan so i just i agree with you mr chair and just let's say for the public so an application was filed by mr bednar on february 9th roles rules require that it be a complete application so

for a subdivision it has to be under one ownership i think it's under two different names it has to have frontage and it has to have the sufficient lot square footage and these two lots combined are only 17 000 square feet approximately they do not have frontage on a public private or way as defined by our subdivision control bylaw and therefore you can't say that a road a paper street on a

1886 plan is considered frontage. It's not frontage. And then this board, it originally came up for a hearing during the blizzard and our meeting was continued. we took it up at the March 10th meeting Mr. Bednar was not here the board had questions and as a courtesy the board continued it to give the petitioner a chance to come in and provide us with information and then it just

dropped off the agenda I don't know who dropped it off the agenda but now here we are being told that 21 days has passed this is not an ANR it does not comply with our rules I am completely against this and I really I took a drive out there. There's already a gravel strip laid down. I don't know who laid that down. I don't think Mr. Bednarg or his wife owned that.

They don't have any legal right to pave or take control over a paper street.

None of this is compliant with the law. I said it at the March 10th meeting. This is just wrong on every level in my opinion. And that's what the board has to decide. Either endorse it or not endorse it. Gary. Are you going to open it up for the residents? I'm sure the board has a decision but I will. Any residents want to have a comment on this? Sure. 64 Trolley Car Drive? First

house to the left when you guys designated it as an end of public way. It was planned to be a completed street. with two houses on it and a ham head so the fire truck could come in and out of it. So, long story short, when I bought my house, I came here three times. Somebody looks familiar, maybe you got a cousin or something,

Tim's been here, but I'm just saying, I've been here before about trying to get the project finished when it was only ten years or five years old, the extension to trolley car. So, all I ask I got two drains that are sticking up this far. The town doesn't plow me so I plow from my house to the end of public way to get out. My neighbor does whatever he wants. This guy's

gonna do whatever he has to do because I'm not plowing any more than I have to and it's from my driveway to the finished way. It would be so much easier if those two drains were just gone. I don't even care if it's gravel and patch what's there. That's all I can and widen the road up. If this guy's willing to say he'll wind up the road, throw some patch in the

thing, so be it. But if he's extending his way now, then that's up to you guys to determine what's the legal way to get from there to there. But my assumption is finish this before you let anything else go on. If she's dropped the ball on it, there was no bond, I don't know he's going to be digging up my road or not. It's not a great road. Trust me, it's not.

But if If he goes and digs it up, it's got to be put back.

I know it's crappy, but put it back crappy then. I don't know. It just doesn't make sense to me to extend something that you guys had the jurisdiction to determine. We're going to put two more houses on the end of a trolley car, and I believe it was Old Colony. And then that changed to trolley car. So he's now back onto Old Colony if the extension to trolley car really isn't there.

He's driving on Old Colony. And if you look at the aerial map from the town, The cemetery is an ate up old colony. They put graves on it. So he's got no other way in and out other than the next street over which is Hood Street. So, hey, you guys do what you gotta do but I just hope somebody takes me into consideration that I've been living there 16, maybe 18 years

and the street hasn't been fixed and I seen I don't want to exaggerate, but six to eight log trucks go out of there. And a pothole this big became this big. I see a scarcity come off in front of my house. Turn it, the gravel gets ripped, the guy takes off, he moves his rocks around the cemetery.

Nobody fixed that. I picked them up. You know, I got tired of fixing the road, so I didn't anymore. So I left it the way it is so you guys could go down here and see because I don't mind sweeping the road, I don't mind pulling that stuff out and putting gravel in the holes once in a while. That's what I usually used to do, but now I know something else is

going on. I'm not going to do the maintenance on the road because there's no benefit to me. He's going to ride over it a million times, cement trucks and this and that and the other thing. As far as the road is concerned, you guys do your research, but I'm not bad mouthing you at all, no please don't take it that way but the stumps were ground and the gravel was put down

The fire hydrant used to have asphalt up to it both ways is now overtaken by trees and brush I don't think a fire truck could pull up and do the back up that he's supposed to and head out to put me or my neighbor out of I'm sorry taking enough of your time So Mr. Chairman, who did that work? Who broke the stones? Who's laying that gravel down and where's the water

for these lots coming from? Can we ask the petitioner? It's not going to make any difference on us. I have a question. Nobody notified anybody in the neighborhood what was going on. We just seen big trucks coming in. We've seen tons of trees taken down. A lot of the animals that were in that forest, a lot of the deer were coming out into our properties. Some of

them sickly. And I was just kind of upset with the way everything was handled because I called the town hall and I had asked about the property and I said, he said, "What do you mean somebody's doing something over there?" They were unaware.

They said, "Nobody pull permits." So I was kind of upset with that. and like after that everything was getting done over there and supposedly nobody was notifying any of the residents of what was going on because from my understanding he didn't have permits and he was knocking all them trees down. So it all started at that point and I was kind of upset with all the damage on the roadway, the trucks

coming in making a lot of noise and like the animals and there's two areas where there's a like a a water retaining area. So I had called about conservation because nobody I knew of came out there to check that out. Because we were worried about the flow of the water because we had problems when we first built over there because there's the back of our property there's water that comes from a

pond over there and it kind of goes when it floods it floods in the back line and it comes out on Yankee Peddler and nobody's ever fixed that so I was kind of concerned with the water reservoir that was around there like a lot of them properties where his property is there it's like a like a reservoir that's filled with water. So I was kind of concerned with that water when he

starts to build that it was going to come out, but nobody looked into that.

So I was like kind of concerned with this whole thing. I know, but I just want to make that point across because somebody had to come out there and check all that out. I don't I'm okay with him building there, it's just everything that's happening over there, nobody's looking into like, you know, they're ruining, it used to, when I first bought that, that was a dead end street. That's the reason I

bought it. And now it's opened up into, we didn't know if it was going to be trolley car for his lots or if it was going to be old colony for his lots. We didn't want traffic from the cemetery into our quiet neighborhoods.

And with these big trucks coming in and out. So nothing was ever done, nobody ever talked to any of the residents and that's what I just want to point out. information that i think i heard tonight was that there's possibly other lots back there that are buildable or whatever right and so we should well from what i understand somebody else other than the town owns the lots correct so other than the towns somebody

else so So I'm just asking that the provisions to get down to those lots should be the same as to the first two if we're only building the first two I would think it shouldn't be a private lane because we're assuming that those other lots, the nine, are going to be something else so I'm just suggesting that the road be completed to get at least, if he wants to go Gray Avenue,

go Gray Avenue. It's not the cost to me. I don't own the nine lots.

I'm just saying is, let's, it was never intended to be a private way. Never, ever, ever. That was the town who designated as a, and of public way. There's plans, and they're in the town hall, and I actually have one that showed exactly what they were going to do and how they were going to do it. And those drains, at one point, the board had determined that they could go away. And

they had put a swale and some rock in between, I'm not sure, whatever streets on the side of me. But I'm just saying in general, as we've been this long without those. It just makes it impossible for the town to plow. And I know the town... they're nice, they do try to plow when they can, you know what I mean? But I don't blame the guy,

because he can't afford to hit that thing and lose his job. He shouldn't be there. Like I said, the designation was that it was supposed to be completed. And if he's got possibly more lots to build, I think i'm just a neighbor but i i think that the road should be accommodating nine lots with the water in the sewer not a septic system in a well that's i don't know do we

accept that in town or do we not you know what i mean there's already a well sitting on the property so mr chair just this is a point of order the nine watts are nine 20 by 90 watts right which make up the two watts that i'm trying to join to join in this application it's all together so this will this will this will this will limit this property to instead of

being because these are non-conforming lots this will limit the property to one home instead of two yeah and so you don't own anything else around there and your wife doesn't as well it's just those two lots yes sir so why do you say seven lots how do you get to the seven there was only two lots there what mr ben naren is referring to is it was a plan recorded back

at the turn of the century plan a the summer side park every lot that picked it upon that plan is planned for two pages 18 and 19 so it's one of the early books each of those lots is 1920 square feet so what he did was he purchased four lots from one individual all being 1920 square feet and he purchased another Okay, I appreciate you clarifying that. So what I see on the map and what's there

is Four and four however it is broken up. I'm just saying is where he's that's all he owns and his what's there now like like I don't know how to explain it, but yeah, I agree. Okay Correct with the 90 slots, but that's what makes up the area that is cleared right now Cut him a break on that. I mean Jesus he put two lots together, but my concern

is how he gets down there. Thank you Mr. Chair Can I just clarify something?

I just want to clarify on the Somerset tax assessor, these are listed as two lots. So although at some point at the turn of the century they may have been others, the town of Somerset has them as two lots. They are both listed as undevelopable. And I believe Mr. Ben-Narg and his wife paid a dollar for each lot. But that's not relevant. No, it's relevant because then when you come in on

a subdivision, for somebody to pay two dollars, Mr. Chair, and then turn around and say that somehow the diesel lots, it's a buildable lot on a paper street with no frontage, no road, it's just not right. We don't, we don't, I don't care what they pay, the lots don't, for money wise, doesn't come into play. But they're undevelopable. What comes into play is the square footage and the lots and accessibility, okay?

That's what comes into play. We don't need to know the history of how much they paid for it, if they got it for nothing, it doesn't matter. What I'm saying is this should have been rejected. So if an A&R comes in on two undevelopable lawns, it should have just been rejected. It wasn't an appropriate application. The board's going to make a decision, Tony, okay, with Dorset and I'm Dorset. It's already past

the 21 days and we still can't build on it until we get relief of being under 20,000 square feet. Which is going to go to the zoning. Which is going to go to zoning. Okay. I don't think he started on that. He can't build on them now. He can't build them on the side of the block. He has beyond the size. He's cut no frontage, Mr. Chair. He has no access. The

purpose of the subdivision control bylaw is to make sure that there's appropriate access to each and every lot for purposes of police fire and emergency response. You cannot just put some gravel on a paper street and call it a day. We understand that.

And that's why the board's going to make a decision whether to endorse it or not endorse it. It's already gone to 21 days. I have something to say. I'll ask you this. So, Patrick McDonald, 30 Admouth Way. I'm not here... Mr. Bednar gets this for $2. Great for him. But what I'm here to complain about is the rules. Nicole's been on the board now. This is her second term five years. From

what I've been looking at, this board has never tripped up on anything for it to become an automatic like this is. Okay, so one of the problems that I have is that Mr. Ben-Narik decided not to attend a meeting. And this board gave a courtesy to continue the meeting. I don't think... If you don't come to a meeting and you object and say, "Listen, I object to that continuance because I'm going

to exercise my 21 days, act on it now." You don't get to just not come to a meeting and then invoke that rule. Where is the rule that says that you guys continue the meeting and he didn't show up and he didn't object to say, "Hey, I'm going to invoke the 21-day rule," that it becomes automatic to him? That is ridiculous. This town has not done it. I haven't seen one failed

application like this, but it's going to go to a guy who is currently running for board of selectmen, and it's going to go to this town planner. This town planner is who? Who is she to this planning board? She's not an elected member.

Do you have a question? My question is how can this board even make this decision? This application shouldn't even be here because he didn't follow the rules, he didn't come to present his position, he didn't come to object or say what his position was when this board continued it. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt for the whole law to say it's in his favor. And that's what the court's going

to do in a few minutes. It should be denied because he did not follow the proper procedure and you don't just get to sit you don't get to sit with the hands in your pocket and then invoke an absolute rule like that there's a 21 days that's ridiculous Mr. Chair just to clarify a couple of things In the past you guys have had engineers and developers come here and speak for the

resident. So when I couldn't attend this meeting because I was at another meeting for town business, I had my engineer come down to attend the meeting for me. So I was represented by my engineer. So it wasn't like I just didn't show up to a meeting. That's not what happened here. So that is untrue. Thank you.

So Mr. Chair, I don't think it was an engineer. It was the gentleman that designed the septic system and he did not have the answers to our questions. All he knew... He didn't have the answers. It was an engineer that he said no matter what he was qualified for. He was the guy that designed the septic system.

As far as the board, he did have representation. There was somebody else speaking. Ed Souza, 130 Picasso Street, Somerset, Mass. My issue isn't really with the petitioner. My issue is, seems to be with the planner because it doesn't seem like everybody is getting the documents that they should be getting. This is the second application in consecutive meetings that you guys aren't getting the documentation and the

petitioner isn't being told the right info. So, he should have gotten rejected and then if he wanted to come here and say, "Hey, I want to do this," right? But she seems to have given him an application that this was okay. But it says it's not developable. You can't develop it on the deed. So, that's your decision, not hers. So, I don't know, and I'll ask the question, have any of

you given up your power to have her make these decisions? Have you voted on that? No. So this application is, it's just, it's not an application that is valid.

And it shouldn't even go to zoning at that point. That should just be thrown out and restart. And you, being a selectman, should know better. Because everybody's watching and everybody's going to just hammer you. You should stop from the beginning and make the town the way it should be. No, no. It's not a personal thing. It's not a personal thing. It's an observation. I just need to respond to that.

If the engineer was here representing Mr. Bednarik and the board said we're going to continue it to have him come in, then he didn't object and say we're going to go for the 21 rule. He actually acquiesced that Mr. Bednarik was going to come before the board. So his representative acquiesced to this board that he's going to follow the rules. He can't then just sit behind and say I'm not going to

follow the rules. Follow the rules. That's what we've got to do in this town.

Follow the rules. This is a non-acceptance of acceptance, right? According to the statute, if the board fails to act upon a plan submitted under this section, the plan or its action within 21 days after its submission, it shall be deemed You have determined that approval under the subdivision controller is not required and it shall forthwith make

such endorsement on said plan and on its failure to do so, forthwith the city or town clerk shall issue a certificate to the same effect. By my count, the 21 days had already elapsed by the time you had your lunch and meal because the plan was submitted on February the 9th. So whatever was going to happen on the 10th really was of no effect because 21 days had elapsed and the board

had failed to act upon this ANR submission. So at this point the statute says that if you want to endorse the plan, you can, but you don't have to.

And if you're not going to endorse the plan, if you're going to take a vote to decline to endorse it, you have to submit that to the town clerk, you have to tell her in writing that 21 days elapsed, you didn't take any action, and you declined to endorse the plan, and then she has to, under the statute, issue a certificate detailing all of those things, and the

applicant is entitled to take that certificate and the unsigned MILAR plan and record it at the registry of deeds. But there's no recourse to this order if you don't sign it. If you don't sign it and you submit it to the clerk but the clerk refuses to issue the certificate in accordance with the statute, then the applicant can request the judge to order her to issue the certificate. But that's the procedure. Mr.

Chairman, can I, for the record, can I respond to those assertions? Sure.

Do you mind? Just for the... I'm sorry, there'll be a... Yep. Alright, so there was a... I just submitted it to the board and I want to make this part of the record. So there was a Form A submitted on February 9th. And immediately in response to that, in this packet that I just submitted to you, is an email from the town planner, Amy Messier, dated February 9th, back

to David, I don't know who that is, saying that the ANR application was submitted, that there was some type of plan, however, it was not a finalized ANR plan, and MILR are still required for the planning board to review and consider. please have the plan submitted to me no later than February 19th, 2026 for the February 24th meeting. And it goes on to list all of the things that the

plan required. Included in that, it requires that the plan show frontage for each lot and frontage is again defined as a public way private way or way under our subdivision so that was not submitted so as of February 9th the petitioner was advised that the plan was incomplete and additional information was needed now I don't know when that February 19th plan was submitted but there apparently is a plan that I've

never been given dated February 19th so let's assume it got submitted on February 19th and somebody at the town planner's office deemed in their jurisdiction that it was a complete application. We then had 21 days which would bring us to March 12th. We convened a hearing on March 10th. We started discussing it. As it was represented, there was somebody here and the board voted to continue the hearing. I don't mean to

interrupt your audience but... No, I just want to clarify that I disagree with the attorney. I'm putting this on the record. I disagree with Attorney Frank that as of March 10th, when it came before the board, we were beyond the 21 days. We were not. We hadn't even reached the 21 days from when the plan was given.

And I'm just gonna put it out on the record. I asked Ms. Messier to provide me answers to specific questions because I wanted to understand how this happened and her responses are in this packet. I want this part of the record. I want to post it on the town website so for transparency the residents know what's going on in Town Hall. Our rules require that the application be filed with the town

clerk. It should be immediately transmitted to the planning board. We are elected members under Mass General Law. Residents voted, put us in these seats. The application goes to the planning board. We didn't even see this. until shortly, or at least I didn't see it until I got the agenda materials for the February 24th meeting, which was canceled

due to a blizzard. There was a travel emergency in effect. Nobody could come. That meeting was rightly canceled under a state of emergency in Massachusetts. So I'm... I want this packet included. I want the residents to be able to see what is happening.

And Mr. Chair, I'm going to renew my request that we need to stop letting things be funneled through the town planner. If our rules say that it goes to the planning board, it should be going to the board members. I see these things right before a meeting. It's not right. If it comes in, it should forward to all five members of the planning board. We're not deliberating, but we have a right

to know when these applications are coming in. So I disagree with Attorney Frank and I've stated on the record the reasons I'm against this. We'll enter this packet and have everyone go and leave the phone. Absolutely. We will take this packet and we'll enter it. Plus we're going to have you give your response to your questions. At this point, this board You can't go backwards to it, but the only thing you can do

now is make a decision to send an account to her. You can say it's an incomplete application. It's an incomplete application. Kangaroo Law is going on. - Mr. Chairman, I would propose that the board provide the town planner with, I'm sorry, the town clerk with a response. This was an incomplete application. It doesn't have required frontage. It doesn't have required size. It's not a subdivision. Did we divide

means to separate not to put things together to try and cobble together enough square footage to call it a lot So I would ask the board respond that this was never a complete application the planning board never accepted this application You can count it I'm almost there I'm just constructively approved 21 days from by deed into action Which means that you

had no objection to the plan? We never saw the plan. How could I object to something I didn't even see? This whole meeting is going to blast it everywhere. So if you guys make a decision like that, you're going to live with it for the rest of your life. At town meeting, there'll be bylaws sent. to stop recalling people. Well, we need to provide a lot of room

in case of a blizzard that this shouldn't have happened the time you were by.

There should be something in there where they shouldn't be able to bring it back up. But, anyway, that's the... The applicant has somebody dismissed from the board because you're trying to tell me that this isn't a setup? In my opinion, this guy is his campaign manager. You're trying to tell me you didn't tell him what the rules were? Come on! Let's not be ridiculous. You're not gonna just fold this one through.

It ain't gonna happen. I'm not floating anything through here, by the way. We're going by what? All people say 21 days expired. They don't have a plan until February 19th. That's ridiculous. Were the abutters told that they... Did he send anything to abutters so they could come to a planning board meeting? No. It's not required in the

statute. It's not... Attorney Frank's right. It's not required on the statute because the town is supposed to, first thing you look at, does it have enough size and does it have frontage? Those are the two questions for an A&R. And we just got this cocktail napkin, literally, and said, oh, that's good enough. I just cannot wrap my head around it. Mr. Chairman, I'm asking that the board deny the A&R request. Mr.

Bednarik can pursue his rights to request a certificate from the time clerk. And if Mr. Bednarik does that and records it, I'm asking the board to put on its very next meeting to discuss, consider, and vote. on the planning board's authority to rescind any constructive approval of this application pursuant to chapter 41 section 81 W.

Is that a motion? I will make that motion Mr. Chair. I would like to move it forward and have everybody here. She's not here to answer any questions. At this point I don't think it really, the timeline matters. I don't want to keep adding on to it. So we've obviously been told that we're not going to get courtesy of an extension from the applicant. So at this point I

asked Ms. Messier because she told me she couldn't be at tonight's meeting. That's why I asked her those specific questions. She provided me her answers in writing and I did In fairness to Ms. Messier, I said, I'm asking these questions because I know you can't be at the meeting. Please provide me your answers in a format that you feel is suitable to submit to all the board members and to publish to

the public. So I'm not doing anything that she didn't know her answers would be printed by me and submitted to be attached as part of this record. I don't think we have any more time. Let's, we gotta do something with this because then it looks worse if we just keep going. Mr. Chair. Something has to be submitted. The statute requires you to submit a writing to the town clerk

that tells her that 21 days elapsed, no action was taken, and you declined to endorse the plan. Because that then triggers what she has to do with the statute, which is stationed specifically for women.

Arthur, can't we respond that it was an incomplete application and in no way, shape, or form complies with a subdivision request? I think the problem with that, Nicole, is that the statute says it shall be deemed to have determined that approval under the subdivision control order is not required. I don't believe that that's a rebuttal or a

presumption. Arthur, if you go to court and decide what the 21 days were, that's why we're lawyers. You don't just decide what the free health rate is, that's 21 days. You want to speak, you come to the chair and you wait your turn. You're not going to have a conversation with a board member or a attorney on their own. It's that simple. So sit down, please. I

told the town administrator that the non-action is appealable in the superior court vote.

There are grounds somebody may, oh, this board can't appeal it, though.

They can deny it, say it's an incomplete application, he can go to Superior Court and do whatever he wants. They're going to determine the 21 days off. They're going to look at the 9th and the 19th. This court wouldn't have standing to appeal it. So your draft set on February 9th is the application date. That's the only date that I have? That is the application date. And in Ms. Messier's memorandum, she

says that... In bold print, March 2nd, 2026, 21 day deadline concludes. That's where I got that from. From her memorandum. From her memorandum?

Who is she? She's not the planning board. She's not the planning board.

She's a town mayor. She's not the planning board. Hold on. She was asked. She's not a part of the planning board either. No. She's nothing.

Listen. she's nothing that's what she is listen you're going to be nothing in a minute you've got to go to the chair you're not going to have a conversation i'm not going to deal with this tonight okay just a quick point so man just this no just to say what he just said Nicole asked her for an explanation. That's the explanation she sent back. That's what we're all reading, that's what Arthur's

reading. Okay? So it doesn't matter who she is or what she is, that's the response that we go by. Okay? That simple. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Susan. I understand.

The real big question, though, is... Arthur, you're giving up the rights of the residents in a public hearing, right? I'm not giving up anybody's rights. Well, no you are, because you're deferring that she's got more authority than the planning board, and she does not have more authority than the planning board. It's the planning board that makes the

decisions. They're the ones who set the dates, and that's all done through the correspondence of the board here. Nothing to do with her. Nothing. She has no power or anything. She's never been sworn onto this board. this board is elected, she cannot circumvent this board's decisions. And you're taking away the right of the residents to, by doing this, you're taking away the right of the residents to be

able to come and speak on these matters. It's not right. You're not going to get away with it. So Mr. Chairman, can I ask Attorney Frank if he agrees with me? Attorney Frank, do you have the subdivision control bylaw in front of you? Do I have a copy of the subdivision control bylaw? No, I do not. All right. So, but you're familiar with it, right? Yeah. All right.

So for Mr. Chairman and for Attorney Frank, in 3.1 of our subdivision control bylaw, Article 3 submission of plans, it has language that specifically says failure to submit in this typo to provide any required item shall be deemed to be failure to submit the plan and any time limits for action on a plan shall not commence until the submission is complete in, it says

"a respects" but it should be "all respects." So my position, Mr. Chair, and Attorney Frank asked me, you know, I'm looking for your opinion. If it wasn't complete, it didn't show frontage, didn't show the required lot coverage, it didn't have a plan that complied with everything in our control bylaw, then the time never started and we can still deny this. Based on that language. You

took the plan up at the March 10th meeting and then you continued it, but the clock continued to run and when you let the clock run, you gave up all of those arguments. After that meeting, you told them it was incomplete. They didn't have a complete--you told them that. You can run the tape. It's not a complete-- I didn't get involved in this until March 6th. No, I understand that. You can't

just look at dates. You've got to look at what was said in the meetings.

And at the meeting, his representative was told that he did not have a complete application that he had to return. And then that's why he gave him a continuance.

They still didn't get those documents to the planning board. The clock never stops until you guys get all the documents. That's clear. It's clear off.

And I don't see what the big deal is to just start over. What's the big deal? Why, why, what is this? What do you gain by not doing it?

Mr. Petitio, what do you gain Mr. Barnard by not doing this? Through the chair.

Go ahead. So just so everyone can hear, the response from the applicant was no.

It was through the chair. That was the response. And so everyone knows the answer was no. It was through the chair. In response to the question, may I say something? Ask the chairman. Mr. Chairman, may I say something?

Yes. Is there ever been a plan that somebody like myself, the public has been able to look at as to what actually is really going to go on down there? Like how are we going to get sewer, water, electric, whatever essentials need to get down that road? Have you guys ever seen a plan with all of those utilities in there? They'll be available at the time of the building permit. So you

never see what the road's gonna look like and you're just looking at what then?

I mean I'm just saying I don't believe the caucus has started because I haven't even seen the plan. I was hoping tonight that I would see a billboard here with somebody representing this man and telling me he's elevations, this elevation, that, this is what's gonna be. Here we're going to give you some approval on something we haven't seen. None of you have you seen the whole picture? Are we putting a well

there? Are we putting a septic? Are septics legal in town? Are they not legal in town? Well, I don't know. I would like to see the whole plan, which to me tells me that you guys have not seen the whole plan. It goes through a building permit, fine. But what's the road elevations? How is it draining? Is it not? Was that something that's already been approved by somebody else? those are excellent

questions we have not for the record we have not seen a plan to my knowledge there is no plan for access and what we were told at the March 10th meeting from the petitioners representative is he was told he could put some asphalt down and that was good enough so let's have a another motion we need to get a second on the call unless you want another

so mr. chairman at a minimum I'm gonna if you don't at a minimum the board needs to deny this I'll make a motion that the board deny it let the petitioner pursue whatever legal recourse he has and I would encourage the board on behalf of the residents to do the same no emotion is an order yeah okay we have a motion to a here second to deny it right I application What

would the other alternative be to start again? Well, we have to deny it. We can't approve this. This is not a subdivision plan in any way, shape, or form. We can deny it. Just have it as unfavorable for Don Satterson. And you're going to let this go? Don Satterson. That's got nothing to do with what we're doing here. I don't need a statement. Not yet. The public can't hear, so I made a motion,

is there, the chairman's asking if there's a second. Motion is to deny the application for being incomplete.

Correct? incomplete and it's not a subdivision has no frontage it has no subdivision tonight for incompleteness and substance it's not a subdivision mr. chair what a motion on the floor so so what comes next there's a second proper motion on the floor what if it's seconded you vote on the motion and that would be reported to the town court and then what under under a1p

There was no action taken on the plan within 21 days, we were already at May 26th. And the clerk would then be pressed into issuing a certificate evidencing those facts, which she'd have to give to the applicant if he demands one. And he would take that in the plan and record it at the registry. Or she could deny it? She could, if she refuses to do it, then he'd have to go

to court and have a judge court her. I don't want to have anything approved that's broken that may be fixed. Is there a remedy to this? I don't think you even have to ask.

That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Alright, I'm gonna second it. I'm gonna second it. I'm not saying no, I'm saying if it was reapplied for and everything went the way it was supposed to go, things could end up differently. I think it's more...

Is that a question for him? What's that? Is that a question for him? No, no, it's a statement. It's a pleasure. Did you say something? Did you second it? No. I did second it, yeah. You second it? Yeah. Okay, motion made and seconded. To deny this application. Due to? Due to lack of information and not being told by you properly. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?

Nicole McDonald, aye. Bill Raposa, no. Tim Turner, aye. Gary Simon, aye.

Mr. Chairman, before we move off this article, if a certificate is requested from the town clerk and recorded with the registry of deeds, I would like the board to invoke its authority to revoke that certificate. So I'd make a motion that the board place on its next agenda, well, I'll make a motion that if the board is notified by the town clerk and we obviously should be notified if the

town clerk issues a certificate and then at the very next meeting that the planning board set on its agenda to discuss this and take any necessary action including a vote to revoke the certificate. Motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Do we need a motion to have something put on the agenda?

No. I thought that was through you. If we're notified by the court? Yeah, I can put that on the agenda. Okay, and there's your answer? Yeah, I can put that on the agenda. I don't need a vote. If you request it, you put something on it and you get in there and he says it. Mm-hmm. That's good.

Who wants to notify? Who wants to notify? What she's saying is that when this goes through, if he takes that and goes to Tom Hood and she hasn't been caught, she wants to see if she can get it taken up again by this court. We want her to notify us that we need to take that up again.

That was what the motion was. Mr. Turner was saying is if you will voluntarily put it on the agenda. Yeah, ultimately I'll have a pump for the agenda.

Mr. Chairman, one final item before we move off this. I'd also request that I'm going to make a motion that the Planning Board notify all the other boards in town, including the Building Department, Water and Sewer Department, Conservation, that we did not approve this as a subdivision. I would ask the other town boards to be very careful.

If we see a building permit, that is given for this property or we see a variance given by zoning for something that doesn't have frontage is in a proper way I think that's going to be a big concern for the residents so I would like this board to notify all the other town boards that this does not have frontage and we did not approve this A&R. I think it's a motion

to approve. I'm in favor. Senator Moore, will you put this board as cost?

that we didn't approve. Notifications just automatically sent out to everybody. Right, they'll get notified that we, there's only one that will get notified that we didn't accept this application.

That's it. like we normally do when we give a decision so this board already decided okay we will send a copy to the zoning board and the billing department of our decision what we decided on this okay yeah i just want to make sure that i don't watch a zoning board meeting a month from now and hear well the planning board missed the 21 days and it's all good send it over to uh Good evening members

of the board. Tim Cabral 222 Baker Road, KTC Realty Nominee Trust.

Yeah, so I have... Yeah, no, it didn't. We have an irrevocable letter of credit from Bank 5, $80,000. The cost to actually pave the road is around $34,000, my last estimate. We do have the letter in front of us. It has been renewed by Bank 5. I have a letter which I believe I sent through an email.

But if you'd like to see this, I have it right here. So it gets renewed every single year up until the... It gets renewed automatically? Yep, automatic. Yep, every single year. Sir, choose which one again, please? Tim Cabral. Mr. Board, do you have any questions for Mr. Cabral? Since we asked him to come and clarify this.

So I actually, I bought the property next to this subdivision and the reason why the road hasn't been paved yet is because the engineering needs some drainage put in and I was told that there's no drainage on County Street that I could use or on Luther so we are looking to go across our roadway that we put in approximately 35 feet with a drain pipe which I have an easement for. So

the calculations are being done from Insight Engineering. We're looking to get the project moving this year. at least get the drain pipe in so that we can top the road, but that's been the hold up. We're not sure if we needed a 6 inch pipe, 8 inch pipe, 18 inch pipe. We weren't sure exactly what we needed to go through the property. And the plans have changed numerous times, so we haven't

had the full determination on the exact piece of pipe yet that we need to put in that roadway. But you're working on it? Yeah, we're working on it. We have an engineer that's working on it. We have an architectural drawing for the building that's going to be proposed to come in front of you at some point. When do you think that might be? Well, we want to top the road this year.

Like, we'd like to top the road before Halloween, which is the prime time. So I at least want to get the drain pipe in. Even if we don't do the project, if I have the sufficient drain pipe that's been engineered and calculated, we can get it under the roadway and we can just move forward. But they are holding... Yes. Yeah, because that's... The main part is the topping

of the roadway. Okay. Anybody else got any questions? Mr. Chairman, just for the record, what's the date of that letter that was submitted? The original? No, the one showing that there's a current... Oh, right there. It's right there. It's in your hand right there on top. That's the letter. 5-15... It gets renewed every September. 5-15... The email was dated May the 13th. and

says that the line is currently extended out until September 30th, 2026. Correct. At that point it will be renewed again? Every September. Alright, so I just want to address the concern. Is that a copy of the letter for the board to make part of the record? Sure, absolutely. And then, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman that originally came before us is here, so I just want to get a sense of when his address...

when his concerns are going to be addressed yeah that's that's not uh sufficient for me so we've been I requested all the documents I never got an updated uh irrevocable letter of credit the last one I have was renewed or the original one was February 26 of 2020 and that's when it was expired when I requested the documents to the town planner She told me that that's the last

thing she had, the last irrevocable letter of credit. And my visit was based on that, amongst other things. I've been in my house for five years now, 2021, and the street has yet to be paved, which is concerning because like I brought up in the last meeting, I have two handicapped children, visually impaired, legally blind, and the bus has to travel through there. Mr. Tim Cabral has

been neglectful in taking care of the street. for most of the years. These are my neighbors here. We're three of five representing the cul-de-sac right now. They can attest to it if they'd like. If not, it's fine. But they're here to contest that too as well. So something needs to be done. Five years I've been there. Mr.

Patel has been this how long now? Three years and you've been there five and a half years. So at what point does this board say, okay, that's enough time?

What are the parameters to have the unpaved street at the expense of the potential risk fall risk for my children too as well not to mention the town doesn't plow the street because it's not recognized uh as a street as a thruway so we're left in limbo and going on five years for me now and so forth for for my neighbors Not to mention street sweeping as she's contractually obligated to do

per the contracts that we have. That has not been done. If you go down there now from the trucks coming to pick up the trash, there's glass everywhere. So it's neglectful on Mr. Cabral's part, no offense to him, but it is what it is. We're here because I have my concerns and they need to be addressed. I'm here for my children and that's my main focus out of everything. And we have

an issue with the drain also, if Mr. Cabral would like to speak on that, where the water runs down his street because it's not properly paved and the drain...

grill kind of sticks up and you know if he wants to speak on that but I just want the street paved and I I would ask that whatever parameters you're allowing Mr Tim Cabral to have from now on I'm I'm hearing what he's saying about October that would be perfect I would want no less than that honestly because five years is long so I'm asking you what is an accepted length of time where it's

okay but so if if not by October then we begin to move on the letter of credit as long as that's the parameter set for today I would be okay with that. Mr. Chairman? Yeah? Would it maybe be safer for us to set the ending date of this letter of credit? It ends sometime in September. That way if there's a glitch about renewing it, right now we've got them

on the hook with this letter of credit. It runs through until September. good we require the road to result by september then we can just seize the letter of credit and just one more thing this he's saying this is renewed every year he's provided it why was i not provided with that proper documentation when i requested it okay so with that being said you just got it that's your most updated one

why has the town allowed an irrevocable letter of credit for five years because you just got this one so you weren't aware that he had renewed it so it expired back in 2020 why has the town allowed it to expire it doesn't expire you're asking him now though that's different you just said you got that one that's right your first time it's extended but to my knowledge on this it's a broken

letter it automatically gets extended until it gets me Is that the practice? It does get automatically renewed? Yeah. This one has to get automatically renewed. Why wasn't that argued upon then when I submitted my complaint on the last meeting? I went further and asked to check on you what the status was on that. Because we were told that it wasn't. Okay, but... That it ran out and it didn't. Okay, so that

does not... Nothing matters now if he's going to end up doing it by October and you guys will do your due diligence and we can take that money out.

Why don't we give it a deadline of September 1st and don't give it a chance to run out? correct yes i would i would i would like that and like i said because when was this supposed to have been 2020. before i moved in before any of us moved in and the only reason it hasn't been done mr chair is because of a drainage pipe i mean that it doesn't seem like

that issue my kids are going to graduate high school before the street is done how is that just yeah so If the money's there, it's already been approved, it should have been done, so let's keep it on a tight diary, let's get it done, and before that letter, I agree with Mr. Mendes, and I think it was a good point, Lloyd, to make sure we do that within, and if it's not

done, then we can use the money and do it. is sufficient to do that work because is that an updated estimate or was that a 2020 estimate well the 2020 was 80 grand and i find it hard to believe with 84 that's going to be completed you held 80 they you hold a substantial amount more money than And it hasn't changed due to the price of crude oil? I find

it hard to believe. That's all I'm saying. $34,000. So is that a recent price?

As long as it's up to date. So Mr. Chair, can you just confirm that's a recent price? That was a recent price, right? We just had a real cash.

I'll make a motion that if work has not been finished or substantially underway by September 1st, then we move to complete it ourself. finish would be great substantially underweight leaves it up for just nonsense just just finish it please and thank you so do you want to all right I'll amend it that if the road is not finished by September 1st then we will move to take action with the letter credit

Could you be more specific if we're going to take the money and have the vote go? No, move to take action on the letter of credit. That's what that means. Which means that, yeah. So I will second that motion. Thank you. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Lloyd-Metheny's aye. Nicole McDonald, aye. Voter opposed, aye. Turn right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Okay.

On the new business, Stonewater application, Mark Raymond for property located at 721 J.I. Somerset, assessors map A9 mark 226, go to the opposing Taco Bell fast food restaurant. Good evening. My name is Lindsay Dittono. I'm with McClure Engineering Company. Here with me is Mark Raymond from Desert Auro Foods. And we are here to discuss the Taco Bell at 721 Grand Army of the

Republic Highway. We were here on March 10th in regards to the project for a ZBA recommendation for the project itself and acknowledged during that meeting that a separate stormwater permit application needed to be submitted. We prepared and submitted that and now just want to talk through the stormwater details for the project.

Got a couple boards here. the general traffic location. Can you see that in the camera back there? Can they, Mr. Chair, if they're over there? Can you just hold that up over there so she can at least get it on the camera for the residents that are watching?

So the project location, you can see the orange kind of box, that's the Taco Bell restaurant that's proposed. The site is, the property is between the Sonic and the Stop and Shop, 721 Grand Army of the Public. It's adjacent to the recently approved car wash on the same lot. This is really pad site number two on that lot. And what we're proposing is essentially a 20-seat Taco Bell

restaurant with adequate parking and access drives. And what we're here to talk about tonight is really focused on the stormwater. So let's see, Mark. So you can see the site there, same location. Ori and yourself, we have driveways kind of facing the frontage there and the property itself in its existing condition, it's forested, it's undeveloped, it slopes somewhat gradually in some locations, a little steeper in

others towards the back of the property, so from the frontage back and stormwater runoff is conveyed over the undeveloped property in that way on the property today. What we're proposing to do is provide again the circulation drives, parking, and the restaurant itself as well as landscape areas, sidewalks, and the garbage amenities refuse location and in the back what you see in kind

of that circle shape that's a bioretention basin. So the premise of the stormwater design is we have catch basins on the property to capture runoff over the drives and parking lots at the low points and those catch basins have deep sumps and hoods to improve the TSS suspended solid removal And those will be conveyed via drainage pipes to a hydrodynamic separator which provides extended TSS removal and

pretreatment. And then sort of belts and suspenders I guess you could say. And then discharges to the bioretention basin in the back. That bioretention basin is designed to hold the recharge volume and water quality volume meeting the local and state standards for stormwater infiltration and water quality improvements. And it will discharge any overflow, which is pretty limited in most cases, except for the 100-year

storm, off to the kind of back portion of the property. So, from what was collected around the site, it was kind of to the back, discharged after the hydrodynamic separator, we're unfolding it into the bioretention. In the bioretention, you have three feet of filtration media, compost, sand, and that will do that filtration for you with the stormwater. A portion of that will

infiltrate, which shows a relatively conservative infiltration rate based on the test pits that we have on the property at that location. And then any Overflow which in some cases there is depending on the storm will discharge after a little while of the property which is kind of where we did those today. That is the general approach for the stormwater. We are meeting all of the state standards and the local

bylaw requirements in regards to peak flow mitigation. So anything leaving the property it will be less in the proposed condition as far as the peak flows go as compared to the undeveloped site. and we are meeting the recharge volume, water quality volume, and that's kind of the overall premise.

additional things say that the fire retention system is one of the sort of low impact development techniques that provides that filtration and treatment through sort of natural recourse in the filter media and then filtration around the world so you're not sort of conveying speeding up the rate of the runoff to getting all that treatment. One other thing to note is in the curbs construction In

accordance with the erosion and sedimentation control requirements, we will have silt fence, sediment barriers, silt sacks and catch basins, temporary sedimentation barriers when catch basins are completed. We included a maintenance and inspection form in the packet per requirements that talks about the maintenance and inspection required for each of these stormwater BMPs. I think at this point

I'll welcome any questions you have. How deep is that pond that that's at? Yeah, the top of the, when I say top, the actual like ponding area is at, so I can't remember what I said, elevation 145. The outlet is at 146.5. So it's a shallow ponding area because the filtration media extends three feet below. So that ponding area is a proportion of the volume that you're getting.

A lot of it is in the subgrade below the bottom of what you see as the pond bottom. Any more questions from the board?

Yeah, I have a question. Of course, there is going to be more runoff in the original site, so there's a significant amount of water to deal with. The outlet that flows to the west, to the southwest of the drainage pond, What's the shape of the burn? Does it burn? Does it break through? Does it cause a torrential? No, there is a, so the berm is at 147. We have an emergency

spillway which just means that area is designed to resist higher flows so it's rip-wrapped on the berm to protect those downstream flooding. So it's not going to just wash out like the water we can. Correct. And a lot of the times you don't have a lot of runoff in many of the storms just because of the infiltration.

and the filtration below and the volume you're getting in that system. Mr. Chair, we have this peer review. So I appreciate the completeness of the application. I think you did a nice job. I think the applicant has done a nice job on all its filings. So I would just want a peer reviewer to review it and make sure that, you know, from our

perspective we've done our due diligence. I didn't see any, you know, questions that I could think of not being the peer reviewer. So that was it for me, Mr.

Chair. I appreciate the completeness. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Before we send out the activity, we've got to pick up the engineer. So with that, with that, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to recommend that we use Roo LLC. We've been using them now for the last few years on another project in town and I think they've served us well. Can I be heard on that first? Oh, you go to Mike. So can I ask the board to consider prime engineering that we just used for the subdivision? I thought their comments were very thorough. I thought they

had a quick turnaround time. I thought they actually provided useful information to the board, you know, do this, this, and this, and then those items were done, and then we moved along. No disrespect to Roo, but I think Prime Engineering did an excellent job on the stormwater they just reviewed for the subdivision that was before us. I would ask that we use them. They're local, they turned it around quickly, and I

thought their comments were very helpful. I don't want to hear about things from 30,000 feet overview and potentials. I want to know it's right or wrong, make these changes, and we're good to go. And I thought Prime Engineering did How much experience does the board have with these two different peer reviews? How many years of experience?

With what? With crime and rue. How many years do these folks have experience?

I don't think we have more with rue than we have with crime. Well, first of all, before you do any of that, we made a motion for rue. I second. Second. So we're going to, before we can move to crime or anybody else, if we get denied, then we can move to crime. But, yes. I'd be happy to withdraw my motion, my second, if Mr. McDonald has something

new to add. If you could answer my question, does prime engineering have a... I'm not trying to force this down your throat, but if Roo has considerably more experience... No, for a change, you're actually asking a legitimate question. So, Mr. Chair, I mean, this is just my opinion, but, you know, I've read a lot of reports authored by Roo And I think when

it comes to something as technical as stormwater, we need somebody that's going to say, "You need to make these specific changes and give us bullet points that go back to the petitioner, they make the revisions, it comes back." So on the subdivision that was just before us, prime engineering turned around and said, "You know, the plan has

to be changed with this little modification. Do that. and gave five or 10 things.

The applicant made the changes. It came back to us and we worked through the process to where prime engineering said, this complies, the board can give it its approval.

I don't want to read 10 pages of, you know, hypothetically we could consider this and it may be and you might want to do this. I want to know, do 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, make those changes, we're good to go and we can all move forward. I thought prime engineering was just very direct. I didn't come up with them. Tim had suggested them on the... That was from a smaller project.

Well, so this is, I mean, this is... And I'll tell you why. When we heard that last project, when Roo came in with their price, obviously they have to make... X amount to make a project for them worthwhile. They will price much more than prime engineering. And so when we looked into prime engineering, that seemed to make the most sense at the time based on the size of

the project and what they could do. That was really what it was about. But am I the only one? Did the board appreciate that Prime Engineering's feedback was two pages, ten bullet points, get it done, and we all move forward? So I mean I think it was very helpful. Well, I'm glad to add to that. A lot of the engineers that we used, that's how we normally get them. Right. If for

some reason we do go into a loop, we can request that he does that. If he doesn't, then we don't use him again. So, Mr. Chairman, I'll second Mr. Turner's motion. Motion made, second. I rule as the engineer for Taco Bell. All those in favor? Floyd Mendez, aye. Mr. Cole-McTominay, no. Bill Raposa, aye.

Mr. Turner, aye. Every second. So, we'll move it through on this particular... Just having dealt with this, and please, I'm not trying to jump over you here. No, go ahead. Having dealt with this before, we're going to get a quote from Rue.

If it's acceptable, then we would need a check from you. We're going to a special account just for this project. So at that point, I think we'll need a continuation. $11,500 each year? Yeah. $53,000. Yeah, we do. It's pretty typical. Yeah. They do the same thing for the song. does the um public hearing portion of this continue on or can that be closed okay yeah to our next meeting Do you want to

set a date certain for the meeting? Yeah, I think, yeah. How long will it appear review date? For this, I don't think it's going to be much of a turnaround on this. Well, when we get back and appear review, if there's any questions.

Yeah, we like to address them before coming back if that's, yeah. So, what we've, another thing we've done in the past is we've allowed open communication between our consultant and the applicant just in an effort to keep things moving along. So, I think that's what you're asking me, right? Yeah, that helps. That's also somewhat common, but as long as you guys let us know who it is and if they're okay with

calling us if they have any questions. Yeah. Yeah, I'm listening. Realistically June 16th. Is that enough time? That's three weeks from tonight. Is that enough time for that?

Because you want to have time for... I think so. Let me, are you done with zoning? No, so we are not going Thursday. We're going the next May June meeting, so. All right. Okay. So you have some time built into the project. june 23rd june 23rd to give enough time for the review and you can respond as needed sure mr chairman i'm modifying my amendment to continue to

june 23rd just put the same amendment motions containers june 22nd june 23rd motion made second second mcdonald aye bill reposed all right turn around Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Okay, summer application breakpoint LLC we're about to locate that one breakpoint move summer 7-9. Assessing the map, 8-2, lot 2 and 8-14 and lot 26 for decommissioning of remaining structures associated with the former cooling towers. Waiting to support future water dependency or power generation development for installation of a comprehensive stormwater management system

to manage stormwater runoff and be protective if the site is adjacent to critical shelf-edge growing area including construction of water quality basins. Mr. Chairman, do you make a comment before it begins? Excuse me? Do you make a comment before it begins? Thanks to Ms. Lohman? Yes. The public didn't receive any documents at all to be able to make reasonable comments or any kind of comments at all.

It is a public hearing and I would ask that we are given reasonable time, that a decision is made tonight, that we are given reasonable time. We're not going to make one tonight. Okay. We're not going to make a decision tonight.

can i get that one Can everyone hear me? Not too well. No, you gotta hold the button until it turns orange.

Now? There you go. My name is Alyssa Schloeder and I represent the Great Point LLC. They are the owners of the former power plant down in the Great Point Road. This particular application is nearly identical to the application that we submitted to the Conservation Commission. So I'm going to go through kind of what we What we've done with this set of plans, who has looked at it, who has

reviewed it, how the design compares to the requirements of Somerset's planning board and Massachusetts stormwater handbook. With me tonight is our engineer from VHB. So he will also be speaking with you tonight. Okay, so this is The northern portion, so north is heading off to your right as you look at this figure. This is the northern portion of the site. If you look

at an aerial map, and I've got one at the end of the presentation, you'll see that there's sort of what we refer to as the loop road that goes around the northern portion of the site. The southern end Down here is where the cooling towers used to sit. You can kind of see a vague outline of those. The reason why we're here is because we want to execute a grading plan to basically smooth

out this entire area inside this boundary. So this is the outer dash line. boundary of work so everything would be happening inside here.

It's a little over 59 acres. One of the differences between the application that was submitted to the planning board versus what was submitted to the conservation commission originally we thought that we might add a little bit of excess cut that we were going to put into a lot that sits around the former ash dome But we realized we don't need that so that has not been included in

this application. We're not planning to use that. But the purpose for doing this is to try and level it out to make it a more attractive piece of property for potential tenants who want to come in and do development.

The area inside of this entire grading project, there's 10 acres. I don't know if any of you have followed the South Coast Wind set of applications. They've been before the boards in town. But they currently have ten acres right in this, basically the northeast corner that they are going to use to develop a converter station. And so that's the one tenant that exists. We

would like to make the rest of this property again attractive to future potential tenants. So, and The historic stormwater system that operated for the site was very dated and this brings everything up to current code.

There are two proposed stormwater basins. This one is the entire width of the southern end. This area right here is a sand filter. And I'll talk more about that in a minute. And on the northern, most of this area will drain to the south. There's a little bit up here and then this portion that's just across the loop road will drain to this basin and that's the sand filter for it. So basically we are updating the

storm water management system for this entire area for the Grady project.

So again, we submitted our NOI to the Conservation Commission back at the end of October of 2023. And we went through extensive public review. and third party reviewer. So eventually the conservation commission issued the order of conditions which is effectively granting a permit but for all of the conditions that they required to be met. So then we proceeded to begin working through a list of the

conditions that needed to be met for the conservation commission before we could ever put shovel to ground. There were several of them. I think in addition to what is the standard language on the Wetland Protection Act form, there were 54 additional conditions that were placed on us. Many of them were very similar to what's in the state form, but spelled

it out a lot more clearly for everyone to understand. Some of the major conditions that we had to meet There is a landfill cell that's in this area and there's what's referred to as an activity use limitation area. which is, again, if you look at the aerial, it's a trapezoidal shape. Again, I'll point it out on a later slide. But there was some work being done for that landfill that was under

the jurisdiction of the state. That work has been completed. So that was one of the things we had to finish that work. Then we had to not only look at all of the historic soil data that has been collected in that entire work zone, we also went and installed additional soil borings, focusing on the areas where we were going to be disturbing soil. So, any places where we were

going to be cutting, and then also sampling all of the materials to be used in fill. The project has been intentionally designed to be effectively a zero-sum effort. So we will use the lumps to fill in the shallow spots within that 59 acres.

The material that we intend to import are things like sand for the sand filters. There are various places where there's got to be some large diameter riprap. Varied degrees, I think everything from two feet diameter down to like six inches. So anyway, we'll be importing things like that, but not any actual films here. So anyway, we had to do the sampling

program. The work plan was submitted to the conservation commission. the third party reviewer the engineering firm roo associates that the conservation commission hired to review all of our documents went through it we made some changes at their request they approved the work plan we then implemented the work plan all of the data was collected and submitted in a summary report to

the conservation commission All of these documents are publicly available. Although I know that Tim is here in this capacity as a planning board member, he is the conservation commission agent. So if anyone has copies of that documentation, he can certainly point you to where all of this is located. So we did that. And then one of the

things that we had to do was develop what's referred to as a construction management plan. which really is an umbrella for a whole lot of things.

It was our contractors health and safety plans. It was different emergency protocols. It was what do we do if there's any groundwater that's encountered that needs to be removed, which we do not think is going to happen, but we've got all of the programs to handle that if that's encountered. It also included taking all of the soil data that was collected and using it to develop both an ecological risk receptor

risk assessment and a human health risk assessment. So in other words, anyway it basically looks at the chemistry of the soil that we're going to be disturbing and determine is there a risk to the ecological receptors in this case where the storm water is going to go are there any ecological receptors if so what are we going to do to ensure that we are not doing anything

to harm those ecological receptors. So one of the things that we will be doing is we will be doing monthly surface water sampling in Foxgill Cove. For those of you who are familiar, and I'll point it out to anyone who isn't. And then there will be dust monitoring occurring. In addition to trying to be as conservative and protective as possible, The state requirements are that dust monitors go

at the property boundaries. We actually brought them in closer to the work being done. So they will be stationed around the perimeter of our work boundary, not the property boundary. In addition to having six dust monitors around the work zone, like the immediate boundary of that work zone, there will also be three dust monitors for anyone who's familiar. There's a large berm as you drive down

Braden Point Road when you get south of O'Neill as you head towards the Barnhouse. There will be three dust monitors stationed along the top of that berm to ensure that there's nothing that's going into the neighborhood. There will be Basically, it's the way that it's determined. There's sampling that's continuous for the size of the particle that is being introduced to those monitoring

stations. They record weather data so they know which way the wind is blowing, how fast is it blowing, things like that. And then on a, I believe it's roughly weekly schedule, they will they will actually be collecting filter samples where there's a sheet of paper inserted into a sample collection device and any dust that accumulates on that paper stays on

that paper, it gets submitted to the laboratory and then they do analytical testing on that material. So anyway, there were a lot of things that went into this construction management plan. There were seven different consulting firms who were involved in putting different pieces and parts of that together. And then the company that I worked for, our analytics group,

basically stitched everything together and that is what was the construction management plan. So we did all of that, again with lots of public input, and got the construction management plan to the point that the Conservation Commission approved it. So we met that condition. The next thing that we needed to do was to basically get the sediment

and erosion control measures installed. That was also part of the construction management plan. And so the perimeter effort has been installed. So the silt fence and the waddles, all of that has been done. About the time we scheduled that meeting, let me back up. Once the Conservation Commission approved the construction management plan, that happened, I've got a timeline, So that happened in January when they

approved it in this year. And this planter mod just means we had to redo the way the ground was going to be graded. And so anyway, the Conservation Commission approved both the construction management plan and the current grading plan that is in this application. We installed... whoops.

Okay. Sorry about that. So we installed those sediment erosion control measures in March and April. And while that was going on there were a few pieces of documentation that still needed to be finalized with the commission. One was the spill containment and control plan, or the SDCC plan. which basically talks about, okay, you're going to have heavy

equipment on site. Where is that heavy equipment going to be fueled? Where is the maintenance going to take place? What are you going to do while you're fueling things and while you're working on different pieces of equipment to ensure that you're not creating any petroleum spills? Things like that. Where are you going to have any hazardous chemicals?

uh if so where and how are they going to be stored so that sbcc addendum speaks specifically just to the construction project itself we also provided the spcc plan for the entire property to the conservation commission so rue reviewed all of that and they approved the addendum. At about that time, even though we researched the planning board's regulations online, evidently they had changed and we were not made aware

of that. So we thought that we were finished. And then we were informed, basically rooted their due diligence. sent a letter to the town saying hey, Great Point LLC has checked all of the boxes. We're about to go do the field inspection to ensure that all of the sediment erosion control measures were installed properly. Will they be ready to go if they have

done all of that properly? and we found out that the planning board revised their stormwater regs and they just never made it to the website so we neither grew nor we knew about it so as soon as we found out we basically submitted our application i think two weeks later so um and again but for for the one area change as far as we're not including anything around the Ashdale that any of you

who follow the Conservation Commission proceedings might have seen. That's not included. And we did note to the Conservation Commission that we were removing that. from our work plan and So anyway, that's kind of where we are today. And so we're here tonight to present everything to the board and You know, I know that everyone was concerned about Submittal procedures

and things like that. So we work closely with the town planner and some other folks in town hall to ensure that we followed the checklist that is part of your all's regulations which is very helpful so we followed all of the requirements that were in the checklist for our application to middle and From a high level, and I'll ask Eric to come up and speak to

you about this, basically the state of Massachusetts has what's referred to as the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Every single person who has to do anything stormwater related, that is the absolute minimum requirements that must be met in the state of Massachusetts.

So that handbook is what Roo used in reviewing all of our documentation for the Conservation Commission. It is also the set of regulations that the Planning Board uses. However, the Planning Board has a couple of differences, being how total suspended solids are handled and then total phosphorus removal. And I'm going to hand this off to Eric and let him talk to you about that because that's

Hi, I'm Perrick O'Brien, PhD in Civil Engineering. I think Elizabeth covered a lot of what I was going to say, so I'll just focus on this part here, which I'll walk everyone through because it might not be possible. But just to kind of reiterate what the importance of this project is, Elizabeth said it originally was before the Conservation Commission. to the

NOI process because there's a corner of the site that gets opposed to the resources. So the NOI was a proper item. At the time, the regulations-- actually, the regulations asked for it when it was originally submitted. It said that any project going through the NOI process was exempt from the plan. After submission, that regulation changed. Elizabeth said, we were aware of it very recently. And I

bring that up because through the ENAVOT process, when you're demonstrating the form through the Records and Convention Act, you are pulled into the Massachusetts and the Northwest Airways as found in the ENAVOT. Now that we are in front of the planning board, we have to follow an additional document, and that's the Planning Board's stormwater regulations. So when

I learned we were going to be in front of the planning board, the first thing I did was to look at that document and try to find the difference.

Because, as is typical for a lot of municipalities in Massachusetts, the planning board document is heavily on Massachusetts term water standards. It says, essentially, you have to meet these standards, and in addition to that, you need X, Y, and Z. Actually, in this case, it's really only X and Y because there are only two zones in the state. So there's all sorts of procedural differences, that's why we're here. As

far as the actual design of the stormwater basin, TSS from Louisville documentation to the Fossers from Louisville documentation, the only differences that required me to support or to supply the framework with additional documentation, not what I had in the original stormwater report. I'll skip this for a second and just highlight this line down here. No changes were made to the design of the site

at all, or the stormwater report at all, the sand filters, the swales, everything was exactly as it was in the approved, planted report that went through the NMI process.

All they did was add additional documentation to the report. So what are those additions?

So up here we have how we document our total suspended solids, TSS, on our way, measure the efficacy of stormwater in Massachusetts for the hand load. That removal target for our site is 80%. And in the first stormwater report we documented 80%.

using the numbers provided in the handbook. So Massachusetts allows you a certain amount of TSS removal for a particular BMP, in our case, the Sanford.

So that was approved through the Edoi process. Somerset has the same removal target for this site, but they require EPA Region 1 documentation. So EPA wants also to test on different, similar BMPs that provide TSS removal.

allowances and four sand fills with one water volume value, our removal is actually 99% through EPA. So again, nothing about the sand fill can change, it's just how you document the removal numbers, but according to the EPA numbers, the sand fill looks a little better. That documentation is not part of the original stormwater report, so it's now

part of the planning report of stormwater. Moving on to total phosphorus, this is a standard that is not yet standard in Massachusetts stormwater handbook for all the projects.

So we do not have a personal review of this process, but it is common in MS4 apartments, it's common in certain municipalities, and it will be part of the state's handbook soon. So I'm going to have them provide this calculation in all of Massachusetts stormwater reports anyway, prior to So we provide 53%, according to EPA Region 1, 53% total phosphorus for the wool. And this was in

the approved Snow Water Rule. Though it was not required, we submitted that to the review in precept as to the conservation condition. Summarset regulations require 50%, but we have already documented by 53%, so Now I'm happy to go into detail if there's any questions about any particular stormwater vehicle you're practicing. But I wanted to focus on this chart because aside from

these two things, the entire stormwater design has been peer reviewed by RU and it has been approved by the conservation committee. so one of the things to go back to what we provided to the conservation commission originally it was touched on earlier with one of the applicants is how are you How are you going to confirm that the soil and water system is doing what it's supposed to? Well one of the things that we

had to provide for the Conservation Commission and one of the things that is also in this application is basically all of the operation and maintenance schedules, the inspections, when those are done, the Conservation Commission actually in their 50 some odd additional conditions. One of the things that they require is that we have a professional

engineer come to evaluate the efficacy of how the stormwater management system is working and so we agreed to do that and so that is also something that is in you know that Rue went through and reviewed and approved so those results would be provided to the planning board and anyone else in town who wants them and So anyway, long story short, this is the aerial of the site. I think Google Earth has this image from

October of last year, if I'm not mistaken, so that's what we used. This area, this trapezoidal area right here, is the activity use limitation area. And this little, I refer to it as theme, this is landfill cell 1A. It is under a different jurisdiction for the site than the other landfill cells that are out there. There are two here, there's one here, and then there are eight in this field to the

west. And anyway, the work that we were doing, basically we did not want to have a large pump in the middle of this graded area.

at the same time this landfill cell cell 10 was open for anyone that's ever looked at older aerials it looked like white strips that was basically the plant's wastewater treatment solids that they put in geo tubes and we wanted to close that landfill cell and and so basically we took some material from this landfill cell because it's effectively the same stuff and we put it

we moved it up here so that when we do the grading project all of this will be when it's finished you won't be able to see where the landfill cell is physically located we're actually putting even more cover above it We're not removing the asphalt cover that's going to stay in place. The reason why it's there is to prevent rainfall from infiltrating the ground around this area. And so we're

going to leave that in place. There will be basically sort of a pipe. People are familiar with French drains around the outside of their basement. There's a very elaborate French drain section that's going to be collecting any storm water that would be on top of this so that there's no ponding to create any soft ground cover So all of that water will get drained to the south to the stormwater basin. And I forgot

to say this, there are some park copies up here available if anyone did not get a copy and would like one. In addition, this presentation was emailed to the town. So Tim has a copy, the woman who's the town planner has a copy. and it can be made available to anyone at, you know, just reach out to them and they can make it available to

you. So anyway, basically this figure just kind of superimposes, this is our grading plan, so the high point will be up here and it will very gradually decrease in elevation down towards the south end. This is going to be a rather large stormwater basin along with this one at the top. These stars indicate where, should there be a 100-year flood or something like that, the

overflow that's required to be installed, and even the woman who was speaking about the Taco Bell project, there has to be an overflow of what happens if that retention basin were to be overwhelmed because of a huge flood. So should anything ever leave those basins, for this one it gets discharged here.

We have an on-site body of water that we refer to as a lower supply basin. It is not continuous with the bay. There's a dam. that was placed in the canal. I don't know the dates, but that was something that went through the planning and zoning, well maybe not the zoning, but I know the planning and the conservation commission, like in 2000, six or something

maybe. But anyway, this is where our stormwater was going anyway for the plant for the majority of the water that was collected through the stormwater systems on site. So we're just continuing to use it for that purpose. And then up here There is a long way to go from here to Foxville Cove, but this little body of water is Foxville Cove. This is where we are going to be doing our surface water sampling on a monthly

basis. We have to Because of the landfill cells that are here and here and the two over here, we're already doing semi-annual sampling. It's been getting done for a very long time. I don't remember how far back analytical data goes, but it is quite a ways. So basically, we said, "Hey, there's already a huge history of data associated, so if there are deviations from anything that we were doing, It will

be obvious when you compare the results of the sampling that would be done for our RAIN project against that historical set of data.

It doesn't really vary significantly. Those reports are submitted to the MassDEP and again are publicly available. so basically that's that's kind of what's going on again rue is peer-reviewed probably you know all but a couple of things that well really just the one thing that eric highlighted because they already looked at the phosphorus removal calculations and when

i say look we're We gave them the Excel spreadsheets, showed them how the numbers were developed. They went through and did their own evaluation to confirm that our numbers agreed with theirs, which they did, or they would not have approved it. In effect, this has been peer reviewed by an outside consultant. Similar to what Tim was explaining earlier, the board hires a

consultant of their choice. The applicant has the option to pay for that consultant and they don't get to move forward with their project.

So that's kind of where we were. Again, all of Rue's reviews, their comment letters, our responses, their memo to the board basically recommending that all of this get reviewed. All of that is available through the Conservation Commission. There's a public repository for all of that documentation. So you can go off and look at it if you'd like. And with that, I'll...

if the board has any questions Eric and I are happy to address them. Alright, thank you. I'm going to get to you, but I'm going to reserve my comments for after the period.: What do you got?: Do I need the mic or can they hear my old sergeant's voice?: We can hear you anyway, but that...: Mr. Chairman, I did ask some technical questions for the applicant, but really my biggest

question is for Tim, who understands both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission. In what ways does the Conservation Commission's stormwater report differ from the kind of things that we require? Now, the African has shown phosphate in... So, the big difference is, for conservation, we can only limit it to the area, the resource area, whereas the Planning Board looks at the entire project for

stormwater. So what's the project? Is it just where the soil is disturbed or is it where the contour is? Yeah. Well, I just want to clarify one point. You corrected the jurisdiction of the conservation commission as the resource area. However, the entirety of the site discharges to resource areas and so the entire project was reviewed by the conservation commission. Because it looks, I couldn't see the

difference when I was studying the plans, it looks like the whole area that's being disturbed is on the report that was given to the conservation commission. So I was looking for the difference. There's not a lot of difference. Were you guys disappointed that Standard 5 and the checklist, the stormwater checklist to the state...

We were quite surprised. I was quite surprised that that exception had been removed. I understand that the Planning Board has, you know, the TSS, they prefer the EPA RG1 method. whereas Massachusetts stormwater handbook does it a little bit differently. Excuse me, Ms. Schlager, I'm trying to do something different. Oh, okay. Standard 5 is a higher pollutant probability area, so

you're required to be more careful about water erosion. Because I guess it's not proven pollutant level, it's higher probability of pollutants. And so you're required to more carefully, to limit water erosion that might spread this gunk around.

: Yeah, so I think a couple of standards have been conflated in past hearings.

: Could you hold the mic here?: Oh, yeah. Standard 5 is for what we call a level which stands for land use without a potential pollutant load. So that is for a proposed land use. There's also a standard for discharge to a critical resource which has to do with where you are discharging. So this site does meet the requirements for discharge to a critical use. This site does not have

a land use, so it cannot be leveled. And this is something that probably should have led with. Right now, what we're showing here is just a graded sudden.

There's no building, there's no use. You know through Southwest Wind's process that if you are going to build on here, you still have to go through the proper avenues. Our stormwater system is designed to treat a potential maximum of 85% impervious as a planning exercise to make sure that we have capacity. And to make development easier, that's the target we've designed to. I know

from my experience with the standards that we have the water quality value for an individual with a higher retention per unit loading. Again, I don't know what land uses might come here, and certainly land uses have additional requirements. So if you were a land use that had a high potential for an oil spill, you might need a

particular containment method. That's not something we can plan for, but when those future uses come, they will provide the evidence that they are meeting the levels standards. But again, our total water quality volume does work for levels. Oh, okay. I understand your point then because there's no land use selected yet. Then let's go to the, uh, uh,

first let's go to the thing that concerns me the most and it's neither phosphate nor total suspended solids. It's the arsenic that GEI found. And by the way, thank you for making all those documents available online for the public. It was tough to download a 100 megabyte file. Thank you very much. but I slugged through it. The arsenic is clustered around the cell A1. It's not, so for instance, I'm not

worried about the, anymore about Fox Hill Cove, because that drainage area showed no arsenic. - Right, so historically, the the words of the arsenic is within cell 1a in this activity use limitation area and there's also an interesting thing about boundary I don't know if that came from the cells one through eight or Are you talking about this or over here? Over there. Okay. Well, no, but within your,

where GEI sampled, right along that boundary, there are some worrisome... So, all the arsenic impact was evaluated through the ecological Let me be upfront, I'm not a licensed site professional for the state of Massachusetts. We did have a licensed site professional who put together the summary report and the folks who designed the dust monitoring program,

they had both industrial hygienists and LSPs involved. in the development of the dust monitoring program. So what they did was they did a risk assessment to see how, you know, it's like smoking a pack of cigarettes. Maybe you are some kid in junior high and you try smoking a couple of cigarettes with your buddies but you don't become a lifelong smoker. Or you are a lifelong smoker. There are

different risk levels associated, you know, how much nicotine or how many cigarettes do you need to smoke to have the potential to develop cancer.

So along those lines, they looked to see did the potential for any arsenic-impacted soil entering either the ecological receptors, which is basically the water around the site, again,... which over here is there. And even though this does not connect to the Lee River, they, basically they looked for the ecological risk receptors. However, because of...

Water flows downhill, so it will surely go into the Lee River.

Actually it won't. So that's one of the things. This entire, so you can't really see it very well. There are swales that entirely go around this entire area. So we're not going to be... discharging anything outside of that work area. I'm talking about the northern... Okay, so up here, yes. So the water goes into the stormwater basin and then into the sand filter and that technology is,

has been deemed sufficient to remove those, that concern. So, and, you know, If we need to, you know, again, this has already been peer reviewed, but the LSP and the industrial hygienists who developed that dust monitoring program also again looked at how is the arsenic going to potentially impact the shellfish population and it doesn't. And that's one of the

reasons why we're doing the surface water sampling to confirm that additional arsenic is not being introduced into those areas. But you're not water sampling in the lower supply basin which feeds right into Mount Nobe? It does not feed right into Mount Nobe. It's separated by a kayak here all the time. Yes. And the The elevations in the lower supply basin never match

what's in the Lees River. They are not... No, not the Lees River. The supply basin is separated by a little stone dam and then there's water on the other side in the old cooling canal and that runs down to Mount Hope Bay. So, but that water doesn't transfer through that dam. So again... Where does it go? If you're looking, it stays put. So... It evaporates? Yes, it does. So that water does

not... it does not have direct transmission into the Lee River. Either through that storm dam or through the sidewalls out to the west. But don't say Lee's River because what I'm asking about is does it feed directly into Mount Oak Bay. I know it doesn't feed into the Lee's River. The southern supply basin leads into Mount Hope Bay. The Fox Hill Cove one leads into the Lager. So

I guess it's a matter of semantics. Well, no, but you're not sampling the lower supply base. That's right, because the worst case scenario was determined to be Fox Hill Cove. Because it's closer to where people need the shellfish. Correct. Well, yes, but if the tide's moving inland, when that water's coming out of the Goulden Canal, it'll just go up through these rivers.

And by the way, Somerset doesn't have shellfishing, but I'm worried about our neighbors in Swansea who do eat the shellfish from there. I myself have gotten a Swansea license and shellfish there and eaten the shellfish. I don't tell you exactly where I took them. That explains a lot. What I'm asking for is that you do the same sampling you're doing on Fox Hill Cove, you would also do them

on the canal, the old cooling canal, and at the outlet to Mount Oak Bay. That's all. I'm just asking you to duplicate the water sampling. If the planning board decides to put that as a condition, then that's your prerogative. Just one more. Just to add one thing, and I know your comment goes beyond this, but I just wanted to confirm. If shell fisheries is considered a critical resource,

that's standard six. So when you're discharging to a critical resource that comes with some elevated water quality standards, you need to treat a full inch and some half inch of what we're doing in pits or retreats and targets between them. So the review can improve plants and show performance with the standards for discharge to the shellfishers. Sure,

and I understand the state is focused on phosphate and total suspended solids. But most of the state isn't the site of a formal coal mine. What about the coal oil mine? I'll admit I don't know exactly what the state looks at when creating the regulations for the discharge to the shellfishers. I brought up phosphorus and TSS because

those were the only differences between the state standards and the Somerset plan for standards.

So two different things. There was nothing in the planning board standards that went above and beyond in terms of shellfish reserves and other resources. So we fell back to the state standards. You understand it's not the shellfish I'm worried about, it's the people who eat the shellfish I'm worried about. And that's part of the ecological risk assessment.

So part of the other piece that was done again was a human health risk assessment in addition to are the shellfish in danger was are people going to be in danger from any of the actions taken from this grading project. So that human health risk assessment is available and has been completed and did not present any risk. could not be managed through best management practices. Those are my only questions.

Can I get the mic? I'm not as loud as Lloyd. I want to back up a little just to orient myself. So, Breaking Point LLC purchased the power plant, was it January of 2018? That's correct. Alright, and since January of 2018, has there been grading and demolition taking place on the property?

Yes, there has and the grading has been through the Conservation Commission when we worked on the south end of the property. At any point from 2018 up until the present time has the applicant obtained a stormwater permit from the planning board? We note that again that was not required prior to. So with the way that you all have your regulations written now Had that been in effect

when we were doing the grading project on the southern end of the site, we would have been in front of this board, but there was the exception, so we were not. Did you have a notice of intent for the grading on the southern side? Yes. And when was that obtained? I honestly couldn't tell you. I would have to go back and look at it. So since the planning board modified its

regulations in March of 2024, has there been grading going on on the property?

Only through the Massachusetts DEP. So associated with landfill sales. All right, but the If I go on Google Earth and from 2024 up until now you haven't already been grading various parts of this property? The only things that we have been doing any grading with are here and up here. Alright. My I've been attending these meetings for a lot of years and going back to I want

to say 2019 we've heard about proposed stormwater systems for a vacant lot where the scrap metal was eventually located the entire property to be a commodities for South Coast wind to have 10 acres within this area prismian to grade the 50 acres on the south end But I don't think there's actually a stormwater permit for this property. So where has, my question is, where has all the stormwater

been going as 300 acres of brownfields, former coal plant, asbestos, soil has been graded and moved around. Where's the soil that's been going?

So the site, the site is required to have an EPA construction general permit. And we've had that the entire time. And when the scrap operation was in effect, They had to have an NPDES permit through the EPA, which they did. And they submitted discharge monitoring reports and all that to the EPA. When the SALT folks, they had to do the same. So although those tenants have had to have NPDES permits

specific to their business, That's where... So all of that was regulated through the EPA with those specific companies. And then Breakpoint LLC, because we've never run a business, all we've been doing is try to decommission the site to get it to where it can be developed by someone at some point. and that involves the EPA construction general

program which we have and which Rue reviewed. Our stormwater pollution prevention plan was also one of the documents that was part of the construction management plan. So all of that has been reviewed. So before, while we were doing work, prior to, when we were specific to the work being done for being done for cell 1a. We were asked to see our stormwater pollution prevention plan for that, which was provided. And

then we also developed the plan specific to this project which has also been reviewed.

Reviewed by Rube. So my question is from 2024 up until the present time is there an act has there been and is there an active SWPPP for the entire 300 acres? Correct. Yes. And under whose name is that? It's under and is there an active construction general permit with EPA? Yes. And it has been that whole time?

Yes and all of that documentation was provided to the conservation mission as part of the review of our life has this has it been provided to the planning board as part of this application all the documentation for the conservation Commission I provided the link to the public repository so and I used it it works okay so so mr. chair I'd like confirmation from the applicant that there has been in

effect continuously a SWPPP and a construction general permit for the entire property from March of 2024 up until the present time and I'd like copies of those documents to be submitted to the board directly not through the repository so my next question is in that yellow area. What you proposed to the Conservation Commission included demolition of buildings. Is that still proposed?

Yes. And what buildings are you demolishing and are there any demolition permits that are currently active? Yes, there is a demolition permit that is currently active. And it is for the buildings we're going to use over here. So this is a former chemical warehouse. This is the former pump house. This is the former substation.

for the power that was utilized for all of the cooling tower process.

There's also a retaining wall here. There are two very small retaining walls to either side of the pump house. and this other discharge basin. So those structures and buildings are part of the demolition department. And so are you able to provide to the planning board those current active I would be happy to provide that documentation.

and confirmation from the building commissioner that they're actually still in effect? Correct. Yes, I can provide that documentation. You'd agree with me that the conservation commission's review was limited only to the wetland jurisdiction area that they have jurisdiction over? I would caveat that with a yes, but because everything within this yellow area

drains to areas that fall under their jurisdiction, the entire project was reviewed. But what they... Sorry, go ahead. I just want to add too, as part of their review of the stormwater prevention plan, SWPPP, and through the construction management plan, it touched on things like dust monitoring, transient, any avenue of potential pollutant that could hit a resource

area or any sensitive receptor, including the was reviewed as part of the MLO. So it really is not accurate to say that the conservation commission was only reviewing what was within the resource area. That was just the trigger to get this title mentioned. So I'll rephrase my statement. The conservation, when they took their vote, they limited their decision to only applying

to the wetland jurisdictional areas. I would disagree with that in the sense that all of the work that had to be done as part of the grading project was reviewed and that includes the demolition. Now, they did not go in and, you know, they wanted to see documents that would typically be in a construction management plan that are not necessarily conservation

mission purview but we were required to provide that documentation and everything was reviewed but I was and I'll I'll track down the language but they specifically read a statement provided by council that says this decision pertains only to the jurisdictional areas of conservation. In other words, they're not overstepping or controlling the actions of the planning board or the board of health or

any other boards in town. The conservation commission It's quite adamant that they did have a review of the site as it did drain through and in some cases to a resourced area. And so, you know, we are in front of the planning board for a stormwater management permit. And as far as the stormwater management goes, the entire site, all of the stormwater was reviewed as part of the NOI. It was

reviewed in contrast or against the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. So that's where the differences come in. There are additional requirements in the Planning Board regulations that I went over, I think, that might So in addition to the planning board is the applicant also requesting approval from the Board of Health and if so what's the status of that? We have not been approached by the Board of Health and if

they have concerns I have been open with both the conservation chair, Rue, Tim to say if the Board of Health needs something. We have never been approached. I know that this particular project has been discussed at Board of Health meetings. We've never been invited to those. We found out about them after the fact. So if the Board of Health has questions for us, we're happy to address

those, but there's no permit that needs to be pulled from the Board of Health to accomplish this work. So are there any businesses operating on the 300 acres currently?

No. And for this area, I'm familiar with the South Coast Wind project. So South Coast Wind has 10 out of the 50 acres. And is that project going forward?

As far as we know. I mean that's one of the reasons why we are trying so hard to get this done is because we have a contractual obligation with them to get their site prepared for them to do their development. So when you say get the site prepared for South Coast Wind to then do their development, so is South Coast Wind after you do this, is South Coast Wind going to further

develop the land for their project? So my understanding is that they will be in front of, and I think they've already been in front of the Conservation Commission, and I don't know what other permits they have. They are responsible for pulling any local permit that needs to be obtained in order for them to do anything to modify the 10 acre parcel as we hand it over

to them. So is the stormwater system for Southwest already designed? I honestly am not sure about that. I know that there are there were general plans. I know that they've been in front of the Conservation Commission about this but I don't on the particulars of their, I can't speak to any of their submittals to town boards. Well, so South Coast Wind was issued a

comprehensive permit by the Energy Facility Siting Board in October of 2024. Has any of the South Coast Wind work commenced on that site? No, and it can't until we complete the grading project. So my question is, rather than, and what's the total time to do this proposed project? Well, originally when we, before we realized and remained aware that we would have to submit an application to

the planning board, we wouldn't have been in the field already. So we were intending to basically begin the grading of late March and then move early april and be finished by the end of november at this point we probably will not be able to have everything done in this calendar year so depending on how bad the winter season is um and whether there

are significant delays associated with that. We would be looking to be finished. One of the things that we have to provide the Conservation Commission is effectively a completion report.

And so at this point we are probably thinking that that won't happen until at least the second quarter of this coming year. My recollection of the Conservation Commission meetings was that it was 18 months of construction. Originally we thought that we were going to be stopped. So we thought that we would, we didn't think that the conservation commission process would have taken as long

as it did. So the original schedule basically had it happening in two different phases. doing the demolition and all of the perimeter storm water management structure installations and then doing the grading of the interior of that secondary and so we originally split it up into those two phases because we thought that we were going to be you know doing some stuff before winter and some stuff

after and unfortunately instead of getting things done in the 10 to 12 month time frame which was revised as things progressed with the conservation commission we were able to tighten up the schedule. Now it may go back to a longer time frame because of the winter break. Alright, so did I remember correctly that the proposal to CONCON was 18 months of construction? Originally we thought that that was going to

be the case. And what is it now? Well, originally it was 18 as we progressed through the Conservation Commission and things slowed down and we didn't start last year which was the hope we were focused on getting everything done from the beginning of spring to... So what is it now? As of tonight what is the proposal? We have not had that conversation because we have to get through this process before the

contractor can give us an updated schedule. Okay. Are there any other leases for that area, the yellow area? I'm not going to comment on that. It was represented by somebody on behalf of Freighton Point LLC that there was an option to lease 30 acres for battery storage in that area. Is that still viable? I don't know that anyone ever said that, but but there was an option, I can confirm that, and

there is not now. Alright. And if I go on LoopNet, does it show that there's any other optioned leased area? Well, I have now having a conversation outside of my engineering. Alright. So this is why I ask those questions. If you have 50 acres and 10 acres is South Coast Wind, and I know from the Energy Facility Siting Board decision that South Coast Wind is going to have to do their own

stormwater system, Why take 18 months and just be grading soil and moving it around only to then have a land use come in and then we have to restart the project again, move the soil again, disturb the soil again, subject the residents and the resource areas to that. Why not just, why can't we just stabilize the site Leave it alone and if you get South Coast Wind to come in then you grade their area.

We do it once and only once. So that's actually a good question and I'm happy to answer that. South Coast Wind, so one of the reasons why we are doing this is... I guess we went to sleep.

One of the issues is... South Coast Wind and any other tenant has to have a larger stormwater system, management system to put their stormwater into. So in other words, the stormwater management system that we have proposed here has to be installed because somewhere up here along this boundary, South Coast Wind will put their stormwater into our system. More stringent requirements for

them. Just like there may be more stringent requirements for someone that's going to be doing something with a lot of petroleum or maybe some other chemical. They'll have different standards that they have to meet before they can put their stormwater into ours. But this system collects all of the water from any future development. We designed it when we were

approached with the option for the other 30 acres. We had a conversation with south coast wind we had a conversation with that entity and 85 impervious is basically a compacted gravel lot and that's what both of those entities were interested in I'll let Eric speak more to the engineering specifics of all of that. Well, I want to clarify just the intent of this

project, too. It's a bit like a master planning exercise. It's not a master plan, but it's like a master planning exercise. You could imagine an alternative scenario where somebody comes in and wants to build up here, and you carve them out a tiny little thing, but put them down here just for their couple of minutes. and then somebody else comes in up here and you need to dig it out bigger, and

someone over here, dig it out bigger. That's multiple disturbances. That is an inefficient way to build a site. What we're trying to do is plan ahead by building out the infrastructure that can support a huge amount of impervious on this site, which for most of its life is, you know, the same filter will be over capacity and over treatment. But in the protection of all adult scenario, we can treat 85% impervious.

over their site. And so it does become easy for someone to come in and say, "I've got a SAM filter I know I can discharge to, I know it's been designed to handle my site, I haven't particularly used their room fire before, they can invite that on their own, but we're just trying to plan responsibly and to your point, come here and do it once. This is

just my opinion. I think, I don't find, I'm not convinced that you coming in saying that you're gonna flatten that area and put some sand filters in is somehow going to account for any and all potential future uses including a south coast wind converter station, 30 acres of batteries, or whatever else is going to go there. I don't see that there's any need to do this.

And I'm going to go back and look at the EFSB decision because my recollection of those hearings was the EFSB was saying to south coast, "Where's your stormwater going?"

They're saying, "Oh, it's going into Braden Point LLC stormwater." And I know for a fact there was no stormwater system. So, at this point south coast wind was permitted in october of 2024 i'll have to look when their commencement date is but If this plan is basically designed as either grass or gravel or paved with no uses, no vehicles, no structures, then this by default is not going to be the last

and final. And it was represented that when south coast wind comes in, they're going to have to submit their stormwater. So we don't even have a stormwater for south coast, so how can you, you can't You can't, this is just my opinion, I don't even need an answer. You can't say that this is gonna not result in having to dig up and redo everything in the future. So South Coast Wind, so

to your point, because I understand it's concerning, South Coast Wind had our grading plan.

They also have the modified version of our grading plan. And when we modified our grading plan, the only thing that changed were the shape of these lines.

This filter here, this basin and that stormwater filter, and that basin and that stormwater sand filter, none of that changed. The design did not change to manage the volume of water. It was just how the water was going to travel across the ground to get there and that's what South Coast went and used for their submittals to the ESFB.

And they may need to meet a pretreatment requirement before they discharge into our larger system just like any potential tenant depending on what their use is, may need to pre-treat their stormwater before it leaves their parcel and then enters the larger system. But Eric is 100% right. Once this is installed, It's that much less work for any potential future tenant to have to do and that's part of what will make

this hopefully more attractive to future tenants. So Mr. Chairman, because the Energy Facility Siting Board has already issued its approval of South Coast Wind and within that approval it's required that there be a stormwater system that is talking about 10 acres within this same 50 acres. My request from the board is that the petitioner should be required to reach out to the EFSB and say this is what we're

proposing is that going to be sufficient to accommodate the South Coast Wind project because otherwise we're doing this twice and I don't I don't think it's gonna meet the requirements so I'm just gonna leave that comment there I just want to move it along because we're getting late and I don't want to take up too much time So is the applicant agreeable to have the planning board

make a site visit and walk the area? I don't know how your meeting laws are constructed. I know that with the conservation commission there were members of the conservation commission that came in dribs and drabs. Generally Tim would come and another conservation commission member would come. So if the planning board needs to make a site visit, I'm sure

that that could probably be arranged. I can speak to that. We've done it before.

Exactly. So as long as we go and we do not deliberate, then we're not violating any open meeting laws. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the board um schedule a site visit at you know the first available time so that we can physically see what's going on in that area and tim's right we've done it before at this property we can schedule a meeting it's not a public meeting the board

members go there's no deliberation i think tim the last time we even videotaped it i did he walked it just to confirm there was no deliberations um so i would like a site visit mr chair um i wanted to since we started this meeting on a timeline issue what is our timeline to decide this and i want to make sure we have an extension confirmed and in place to allow the board

to do you know its investigation and get a peer review so mr chairman i'd like to request that we address that now and get that confirmed before we move forward with the application mr chairman before we uh go ahead on that i'd like to comment on that I'm very much in favor of an extension from the applicant for us to do in good faith to do our due diligence.

But I would personally vote against just kicking the can down the road for months and months and months to delay the process. But as long as the extensions are made in good faith, requested in good faith and made in good faith, then yes, I would have to support extensions from the applicant.

I'm sorry mr. chairman so we understand that the board may want to hire you know a third party peer review to look at the one thing that we have not reviewed also feel that the majority of this work has been very thoroughly reviewed so we would not be interested in a start from scratch approach be interested in a build on what has been done and look at any differences between what the planning

board requires for their stormwater permit versus what the conservation commission requires.

So, and we are happy to make available, editable the Excel files that were used for the calculation that Eric discussed to a consultant that the board hires. But again, we're looking for a limited review.

We're not looking to reinvent the wheel on this. Mr. Chair, don't let an applicant dictate the scope of the planning board review. Well, Mr. Chairman, that's easy. I would vote with the applicant on that one. I certainly don't want to start this from scratch, and I'm not allowing the applicant to dictate to me. I'm dictating myself.

We've wasted an awful lot of time on this board, running through questions again and again and again. If... Let's take the stormwater report that's already been done, see what it needs. Absolutely, don't skimp. If it needs something from our perspective, add it. But I would absolutely vote against requiring a totally new stormwater report just

to drag out the process, just to discourage the output. So, Mr. Chair, just on that, this exact same area, was there was a stormwater report prepared by Brayton Point LLC when they came before the planning board, the zoning board for the proposed commodities port. I would ask that that original report be included in the review to see what changes have been made to that area because I think that area has

already changed significantly with no stormwater in place. And I forgot to ask it if you would indulge me Mr. Chair. So Mr. Mendy's question, so the lower supply basin, the water goes in it and then the claim is it evaporates. Has water ever been pumped out of that lower supply basin? It has not. Can we talk to your second point? I'd like to address your first point. Because years ago I actually

worked on the stormwater design for the commodities area. And I worked on many designs that never come to fruition. But to me it's another one of them. That project has nothing to do with this project. They are completely independent. It's just a project that was permitted and never built. I'd like to see the representations that were made

for this exact same property prepared by BHB for the Commodities Board, submitted to Planning and Zoning. I'd like to see that versus this. I'd like to know if there's differences and if there are, I'd like to know why. All of that documentation already resides with the planning board, so we're not, you already have it. And if you want to do a review of that, that's fine.

It has nothing to do with this project. It was for a completely different purpose, for completely different areas. That was in correct me if I'm wrong, kind of dribs and drabs like specified areas for things. This is one comprehensive plan for this parcel, for, no parcel is the wrong word, but for this portion of the parcel. So that, this is what's before you and what has been suggested previously. is for entirely

different reasons and rationale and you have that documentation if you want to look at it. Mr. Chairman, it's almost 9 o'clock. Are we going to allow Mrs. McDonald to have a revenge tour here? The commodities court is dead. Stop being removed to work.

I take offense.

Don't even try Mr. Chairman, the reason that's relevant is because there was a site plan submitted with elevations and I believe the elevations are completely different and they're completely different because things have been mounded on that site for years with no storm water in sight. We can get that information and when we pick up the consultant, we can have him look at it. Okay, this

says we can't have a look at it, but... - Mr. Chair, if I may elaborate one more time. In my case, I'm not sure, we have a new survey for this project. Have you, within this project, um those were mentioned by the mod too was because it was a mistake considering we originally used designing this project and when that mistake was discovered we had to adjust the program and so even within

this project some of the grades have changed and has not been really affected on the site which i can't speak to but they do have a demonstration correct i have no idea if they move things around or not i'm just saying I'm not talking about an error from a survey. I'm talking about actual soil that has been mounded and the whole topography has been changed in that area. And it was discussed at ComCom. So

I'd like we have something submitted by the petitioner and the MPHB for the commodities, let's see how different it is now. And if it is substantially different, I think the question is how did it get to be that way and where has the stormwater been going for all those years? If I may, we've been using the existing stormwater infrastructure on the site. the work that has been done we've had demolition permits we have

a construction general permit which addresses storm water management and we've had that the entire time so to your board members question all of that has been addressed and managed maybe not to anyone people's likings but we have been in compliance with our stormwater management. We've been doing inspections. Those are available. Everything that is needed to happen from a stormwater

management perspective, we've been using the historic sized stormwater system.

For example, there are stormwater drains in different places and swales in different places. We need to change that in order to accommodate this grading effort. And in order to accommodate this grading effort, we're going to completely redo how stormwater water management has been done in the past versus what is now being proposed there are components such as using

the lower supply basin that are similar but that's going to be the only place really that you and it swells but that's going to be the similarity between anything that's been historically done and what this is with that last point essentially just said what i was about to say but Again, to reiterate, we are in front of the planning board with this project. We're pursuing to use stormwater management

regulations at Somerset to get a stormwater management permit. So we've expected this project to be fair to the regulations during review. And I cannot speak to anything that's happened before and I'm not sure how it's relevant because we've struggled with this design for the plans and regulations. Do you have any more? We've got to pick a consulting firm. And we need

a firm date, Mr. Chair, because our stormwater regulations say that we hold a public hearing within 21 days of receipt of the completed application and take final action within 21 days from the time of the close of the hearing. And I refuse to be part of a claim that we missed another deadline.

I agree with that. What was the date of the application? I don't know about that. I'm just going to check the time. We submitted the application to the town planner on the 20th of April.

That's the date that the clerk...

Timestamp. Timestamp, yes sir. Mr. Chairman, can we just ask if the petitioner is giving us an extension?

Otherwise, we'll move this to a vote tonight. If the playing board would like to have an extension, we would be willing to grant it but not for more than about six weeks. I mean we really want to, we want for you all to be able to have a consultant to talk things over with. We're happy to provide them information directly or go through whomever you all would like to direct us to go through. We would

like for that consultant to have reviewed the differences before we meet again so that they can speak to those at that meeting and provide a recommendation to the board. So you're saying like roughly the middle of July? I would prefer end of June, early July, but yes. But six weeks would be... If that's what six weeks is, then the middle of July. But at that point we

would ask for a vote. yeah I saw that with that being said I'm not cutting off any any more talk I'm just gonna put it out there I would make based on the fact that we have used room for the lab over over two years they know the site they've already done the stormwater for conservation I would make a motion to hire room to keep going on this and that we reconvene

on the 23rd as we are for the other project and if they still need more time we have the luxury of having the full six weeks to move up to move on beyond that date I second that can we discuss something Exactly. Well, if you'd like to discuss, I'll withdraw my second. So, two things. It is a public hearing, Mr. Chair. I think we need to open it up. And just when

we're setting timelines, if the petition is going to hold us to two weeks, or I'm sorry, to six weeks, and we only meet twice a month, I would just caution the board if we go out to June 23rd and then we don't have what we need we literally have one more meeting which is July 7th and I don't know if people have vacations scheduled. I don't. But I think that's kind of

tight so if I say we hold this for a meeting June 9th, see where we are, then do June 23rd. In other words, keep it on a tight schedule because we haven't even heard from the public and I don't know what we're going to have, but we seem to set ourselves up for the one meeting, we don't have what we need, then we're scrambling and we make a rash decision. The peer

reviewer will be ready. I did say I wasn't trying to cut any more conversation off. So if the planning board meets twice a month, we should... We frequently meet more than twice a month. I'm fine with meeting more than twice a month, but I'm saying don't go from now until June 23rd and then we only have another two weeks after that that we may or may not meet. So we should put

it on for our next meeting on June 9th. Or do a separate meeting for this, Mr. Chair. What's that? Do a separate meeting for this outside of our normal Tuesday. I didn't want to comment. As the person who prepared the plans for the conservation commission and the planning board, I can't speak to the group's schedule, but they reviewed all but one page of the stormwater report that you have for me.

It's literally a one page difference to add documentation to the region one. And the site plans are exactly the same except that Elizabeth mentioned the depleted ashtone area. And otherwise they're the same. So it's not much to review at all. Well, we can do it on June 9th and send it out to the peer review and if we have it on the June 9th and if not, we'll allow them for an

extension on June 9th. Before we do that, Mr. Chair, can we lock in the extension from the petitioner to a date certain and then work back from that? So can we do the extension now and then we'll do Rue and then we'll do public and then we'll do scheduling? Well, she said six weeks. Six weeks, why?

July 7th. What did you say, Tom? July 7th would be six weeks from today? Did you get that? Yeah. Why don't we do the 17th because July 7th is the first Monday. We may not even meet until the 14th unless we do a special meeting. And I don't think it's fair to the residents to book it the July 4th holiday week. So I'm asking for an extension to July 17th. Is the applicant agreeable to that

on the record and we'll sign something in writing? We'll go to the 17th, but we would like to have the vote no later than that. And Mr. Chair, I know Tim made a motion. I'm... So to discuss that motion Mr. Chair, I'm just going to put on the record, we already know what Rue was going to say, so I don't see any value in having Rue just tell us the same thing they told the

planning board. I'd ask the board to consider having prime engineering take a look at it, just have a second set of eyes on an industrial property and stormwater. Mr.

Chairman, that contradicts Mrs. McDonald's desire to have the meeting quick on June 9th.

If we give it to Rue, they can quickly get up to speed and evaluate the last page that still hasn't been evaluated. We can move this process along a lot quicker if we stick with Rue. We have a motion on the floor in a second. Yeah, can... So this is...

so mr chair can we withdraw that motion can we hear from the public before we decide on route can the public weigh in on this public being weighed in on was it you can weigh in all night we have questions specific to the stormwater permit and specific to the presentation that was done tonight I wasn't closing the meeting. Right, but I'm saying before you make your decision, we may have questions that we may have

to review. Specific to the CMBG mandate for the fly ash.

I'm going to pause the motion for now. Thank you. Mr.

Chairman, I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

does any of the other board members have any more comments before i open the department no yes okay do i have any from the audience when did the planning board rescind the stormwater uh power from the conservation commission and put it back in your realm due to these projects march of 2024 march of 2024 so they came before i'm speaking as a resident they came before the conservation commission on a

modification of a previous order of conditions after that date so as a resident anything that they said before that date number one it never happened number two they saw the modification my recollection as a citizen is that the conservation commission ruled only on our one percent jurisdiction we had a statement read that said that they had to go to before all of the boards their construction management plan

was maybe put in a packet before conservation but the way we voted, I'm speaking as a resident not as a conservation commissioner, was at that meeting, I can speak as a resident, was just for our 1%. So I think that the construction management plan that goes along with this stormwater plan before the planning board needs to be reviewed because I don't think it's been reviewed by anybody. We actually said we

don't have the expertise to review a construction management plan. And I see here in the audience tonight a bunch of construction workers that are probably going to be associated with this stormwater plan. I heard contractor. How come a contractor isn't coming before this board to explain what a contractor is going to do in putting in these stormwater systems? If they got a contractor, I'd like to know

who it is because All I know is I lived down there since 2018 and we had buildings ripped down, not by union laborers, but by people from Texas with ankle monitors on, held as a danger to the community, but still down there working, ripping down buildings, blowing up stuff, just letting the dust go everywhere. I think that we should have a contractor down here for the residents to say, and i know

some of these guys and i'd love to see them working down here they're union labor i'd love to have that down here i'm not saying that they have to do it but it'd be nice to you get somebody to to go to to the unions to talk about this stuff i think they probably want to protect the neighborhood that's what i want to see when this storm water system is being put

in because isn't this thing all contaminated and i wouldn't want to see these guys coming down with cancer and all sorts of bad bad diseases over what potential is under there because they brought out a whole bunch of nickel but we didn't We didn't find out about that until later on and they talk about stormwater. They got fined by the EPA, by MassDEP. We had the Attorney General's office suing them, going

into settlement agreements with them. So they haven't come in like they're Lily White on a white horse and we're here to protect everybody. Do you have a question somewhere in the head? I do. I want to, who's going to review the construction management plan for this stormwater system? Who's going to review it? You guys going to review it? Or is it just going to be, there's a stormwater system,

nobody reviewed the construction plan. I think they have to go before Board of Health with this. They have to go in front of the building inspector. Why isn't the building inspector here at this meeting? Isn't this his realm? Isn't this his realm? When there's a thing like this that's going on, 60 acres in a brownfield site, I think our building inspector... and the applicant should say, hey, this is courtesy to the

public so we know what everybody's going on, that a contractor that's gonna do this is here, explain it. Explains it to the building inspector, explains it to the planning board. I had the same questions, and I think Mrs., I think that Mr. Szilagyi will tell you, I don't know what stormwater system, I question what stormwater system is on this property. Because at first it was for 62 acres, And it really didn't

involve the public filled tidelands but they put a business on that that came before nobody and all I ever saw was a pump going out of a pool that was just cesspool type of on the public filled tidelands and a pump going into the water. So I don't think we've had any stormwater system. I don't think that, I think at one point Mr. Mendez was questioned about a stormwater drain that went

into the tidelands over by the marsh. I don't think anybody had an answer as to whatever happened to that one. Remember we talked about that? Did you find that one, Lloyd? No, but as an old soldier I can read contour lines. And none of that drainage will go into the marsh. It all goes to the north and to the south. I studied that very carefully. So at one point there's a pipe

somewhere that goes to that marsh, but you're convinced that... No, but the cultural life showed that water can't flow uphill. But they're using the same one that they said they're using that stormwater system. So obviously if they're using that stormwater system, there's contaminants going into that marsh area. Yes, but from part to the side. I don't know,

Mr. Chairman, is it proper for me to... so either you can and and we're talking about rushing things they have been telling this they've been telling various lawful authorities including a court that there were 95 with this done with this with this remediation back in what 2021 It's 2026, let's rush, let's rush, let's rush, let's rush. No time, no time, no time,

no time. Why? It's been 2018, it's 2016, there is no rush for this. Let's just get it done right, and like I agree with Nicole, that this should be one time, one and done. This is just going to be a put it down, dig it up, put it down, dig it up. The next person might say we don't want it being six foot high, we want it being back down three feet

high. This is just, and just so you know, there is also an order that they're not supposed to move some of that soil on that property. That's out there too for you guys to take a look at. Anybody else? Thank you. Nancy Thomas, 65 Bellevue. I have a question through the chair from Mitch Lager. I heard her mention several times that they were going to monitor the dust monitors. They were going

to put paper in it. They were going to read them every week or whatever.

From experience, I know that that information is never passed on to us. We were never alerted when there was a dust problem. We were never alerted when there was a high wind problem. We were never alerted of anything. So my concern here is who is they and how are the residents going to know when there's a situation where the monitors are reading that there's a dangerous situation for us in the neighborhood.

I'm happy to respond to the question from the public. So, that's a good question. We, as part of one of the requirements, one of the conditions, in order of conditions, we will be submitting weekly documentation. So, when I say we, it is a collection of Manafort Brothers as the contractor. I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Who? I don't want to have to look at links. I want someone to notify the residents in real time when there's an incident. So one of the things that those dust monitors do It will have Tim as the agent for the conservation commission and he is also the agent for the board of health. He will be getting all of that information on his cell phone as it happens so if there's any exceedance

he is going to know as soon as the rest of us do because it's as it happens and then if something like that were to happen then there are thresholds at which we we either either say okay we need to stop working over there we need to add more water basically use best management practices to address whatever the level of the exceeding is there are

certain levels where if it gets up to a certain point everything shuts down until that has been addressed there are weather conditions that say if the weather is a certain I don't remember all the specifics, but they're basically weather protocols. And these dust monitors have weather stations built in so that it's live anytime Jim wants

to know what the wind direction is at nine different locations on site, it's going to be on the spot. Are you seriously going to look me in the eye and tell me that? what you just said is real life. We complained constantly when there was a weather incident, when it was high winds, when it was storms, stop please, when it was storms, when it was high winds, when there was dust blowing

onto my windows, Windows. We complained constantly. No one stopped it in real time. Moving the scrap metal didn't stop. Moving the salt, it never stopped. Not once. They gave us a hotline number. We called the hotline. They put us through some switchboard in India. No one, I probably logged about a hundred fifty calls myself just me never

mind all the other residents myself never once out of those hundred and fifty times approximately did anyone respond to me with a complaint so i don't believe you for one second i don't believe that you're going to do anything to protect us i don't think those dust monitors you could put thirty of them never mind six are going to protect us you don't care about us That doesn't help us though.

And you're not being truthful. Nobody contacted us.

It's not an accusation, it's a fact. Ed Souza, 130, Casa Street. I worked at Brain Point for 27 years. I'm glad you guys are here because I work with Manafort all the time in the current job that I have. I'm sure that some of you guys are Manafort. Protect yourself against fire. About 14 of us have already died since we left the plant. It's not a joke. You need

to protect yourself. That's the biggest thing that you take out of this meeting. You wear those respirators and you get those pressurized caps. Do not let them put you in a cap that is not pressurized. It's important. Other than that, let me digress. We need to put the protections in to make sure that the public is protected. So are you coming back, I know we're talking about a stormwater plan, are

you coming back with a construction management plan where we're going to talk about how you're going to protect the public or is that all encompassing with what you did at the conservation committee. You're coming back with an actual construction plan where we can ask the vendor questions, the people who have knowledge on how to do construction. And

the reason I ask you is fly ash. Anybody know the reportable quantity for fly ash? Anyone? You must know, right? It's 10 pounds. That's two pails.

So it's two pails of fly ash, Mr. Raposa. That's the reportable quantity. Are you guys listening? Two pails of fly ash, the reportable quantity. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay, how are they going to contain an entire site? You're welcome. How can you contain an entire site and say it's not a reportable quantity as soon as you put a bulldozer blade down? That is what you

guys need to consider. Because you cannot, and I worked with fly ash for many years, again, 12 of us are dead, that worked with it on an everyday basis.

But there is something that you guys have got to remember. You cannot do after the fact. Once they put it up, and if they're not looking at weather plans and what the weather is and what the remediation is going to be and how they're going to wet it down, they're only going to open up a certain amount of the basin, however you're going to get around that reportable quantity. I don't know.

It's capped, or it's supposed to be capped right now. If you open that and you want to do a stormwater plan, that material cannot mix with any other material from the wind people. They have to be separate stormwater according to the regulations, I believe. So your plan to put this all-encompassing big circle and net around the whole thing and then let everybody dump into yours, well you've got fly ash in yours

and they're not supposed to mix. We're not going to be opening up any caps. That was the entire project related to cell 1a that was being done under the supervision of the state MCP. And when we do this grade project, we're not disturbing any caps. Does Flyash in all of that? Guys, be tired. I will. I will. I'll wait.

And the AUL, we are intentionally not disturbing it. And so there's not going to be... So I understand the gentleman's concerns with the fly ash. It's nasty stuff. I understand that. That's not what we're moving around of here. It's all been chemically tested. All the soils that we are going to ever... We looked at the cut-fill plant, the LSP that we had who

did that investigation, looked at all of the data, and there was nothing new to report. We had one small zinc exceedance that was addressed. It was literally one cubic yard of soil that had to be removed. That's all been submitted to the state.

The conservation commission was given copies of all of that. So everything has been documented.

You're saying that all, that whole entire area, there's no fly ash? You're not flying ash. She's replying to him. I work that site. I put the fly ash there.

I know where it is. Unless you moved it already, without going to the public and letting us know. You've got questions here on this. This is to do with the stormwater. I do have a question.

Do you have their insurance carrier?

The name of their insurance carrier?

Could you ask that as part of their plan? Please. We'd like to have that. We have multiple. And for the operators in the room? Just know that the pile that they're asking you to grade is specifically the 12.5 acres that stored coal for at least 30 to 40 years.

That's the pile. That pile wasn't there. I can show you the Google Maps. They created the pile. Now they're going to ask everybody to grade the pile. It's fly ash. Trust me. So they tested the top 2%. Is the NPDES permit, can you ask who the NPDES permit's name is in? Whose name is on that NPDES permit with the EPA please? Every permit that we have is under breaking point LLC. So

you're not planning on pulling a new permit for this stormwater? You're not required to?

We've done that. You've pulled a new one? Okay, do you know what month you did it, what year you did it? It's all in the documentation that was provided to the... Five years ago, four years ago, three years ago? We had to update it to address this specific grading project. The regulations changed, the construction general permit regulations changed in 2022. and these plans get changed as different

work is being done around site. I understand. That's what I'm asking. That's what I'm asking. I think we're on revision 9 to approve this. So the last email I have from the building inspector regarding your building permits is that they were all revoked and I have an email from you to the building inspector on May 4th asking for one of them to be reinstated. Was it reinstated? It has been reinstated. As

of what date? So it was May 4th, your email. That's when you asked permission.

Today is May 27th. So within the last three weeks it was updated? Yes, we did. He has asked for specific documentation. We provided it. He went two rounds. He issued you a new permit? He reinstated the existing permit. Within the last three weeks?

Yes. So if I ask, he's going to send me that? Sure. Okay. And I'll make it available and I'll send it to you. So they were all revoked. I mean, Ms. McDonald was not incorrect. You did not have permits. You just recently, right, and they were all revoked. And so you just got one back. You can laugh.

I'm not laughing because I know what you are. You're Brayton Point LLC. I'm talking.

You can come up to the microphone and speak. You'll have your turn. This is my turn. This is my turn. Those are the questions I have. The insurance document, the NPDES permit for this specific project, and the updated permits. Thank you. Your turn. Go ahead. I didn't hear you. I was sleeping. Yeah. It's not his turn. I have a motion and a second on the floor. Do we have a... What was the motion again?

The motion was to hire... It's been a while. Mr. Chairman, could you speak louder? I can't hear. The motion was...

um Okay, so we'll be the one, we'll get the information out to him on what we need and anything else that this board needs to look at. Before we do that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the planning board schedule a site visit.

yeah well we've said that before but i want to officially make a motion have the board agree to do to it do it and get it on the floor to have your findings whatever i second that since you made second all those are big what do you think is that the common tonal die go to pause all right i'm trying to write every time we'll get with you on uh i also

need from this board to continue hearing um I'll make a motion to continue this to June 9th. I'll second it. Motion to move and second to continue this hearing until 3.0 is seen to June 9th. All those in favor? Aye. Bill Raposa, aye. When are we going to do the site visit?

I'll have to contact you. I don't know when you guys will be able to do it. I'll have to contact you too. Is there any particular certain days? So I would ask that it's going to be somewhere between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 or 3. And as far as any specific dates, I will have to double check with my side staff. I don't think that

there are any dates that won't work, but I just need to double check to make sure that there's not something wrong. You double check. Get back to me on that. I'll relay it to the board. I'll send an email to you in time. Yeah, that's fine. And then we'll schedule an emergency. Sure. Okay.

Okay. Uh-huh. Um, no...

minutes 3:31 4:46 5:46 So Mr. Chairman, it's late and I'm not going to delay this, but I would ask Mr. Mendes to again stop using words like that I debated Nislar again I mean he's attributing statements to me that I don't think I meant I didn't say I should say so well it should be one Mr.

Chairman, I always listen to the video and write down Mrs. McDonald's quotes, literally. It's the characterizing words that she debated, insinuated. I never used the word "insinuation." We've had this conversation. stop making the meeting minutes five pages it's not a transcript it should say we address and we discuss the issue there's questions without this word for word so much she nominated Sorry, sure. We did ask

you before. I have 50 pages. I always try to protect the applicant by whatever...

Generalization, what went on? And I try to protect the board when the applicant makes a commitment. So I make sure that anything... And I time stamp it. When the applicant promises something, so that we can hold them to it, I write that down in the memo. That's okay. The rest of the stuff is normal. And if a board member makes an accusation... All you need is an reply.

You don't need an accusation. All you need is an reply. Let's curve it a little bit, okay? Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the minutes as distributed to 331.26. You want minutes? You can't do you want minutes.

Well, I'll make a motion to waive the reading of and to approve the minutes of 331.26. Motion made and second. All those in favor? Nicole McDonald, I'm going to say no because I don't agree with the tone that Mr. Mendes wrote the meeting minutes in. Golda Fawes, aye. Kim Turner, aye. Gary, aye. 41426.

All in favor? same thing i'll make a motion to waive the reading of and accept the minutes of 4 14 26. i'll second it motion made in second and all those in favor mcdonald no because i don't agree with the tone that mr mendez characterizes things on bill riposa all right kimperin right gabby simons five six twenty six Anybody have a chance to

look at them? Yes, I just threw in, those are the ones I gave you.

I emailed them to everyone on the weekend. And then I gave you the hard copies to wait if Amy's not here. Right. i'll make a motion to move on the minutes of 5 6 26 at our next meeting i'll second it motion made second all those in favor um yeah there's no alarm okay There's nothing else before the board.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second that.

Motion made and seconded.

All those in favor?

I call McDonald aye.

I call the vote aye.

Tim?

I'm sorry, Tim Turner aye.

Gary Simons aye.

Thanks.

you