Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday October 5, 2020 6:30 p.m. Conducted via Zoom Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For a recording of the meeting, visit www.ltc.org Members Present Thomas Linnehan, Chairman Gerard Frechette, Vice Chairman Richard Lockhart, Member Caleb Cheng, Member Russell Pandres, Associate Member Sinead Gallivan, Associate Member Members Absent Robert Malavich, Member Others Present Jared Alves, Senior Planner A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. I. Minutes for Approval September 24, 2020 T. Linnehan motioned and C. Cheng seconded the motion to approve the September 24, 2020 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). II. Continued Business Site Plan Review & Special Permit: 671-683 Rogers Street 01852 Pure Lowell, Inc. is seeking Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval to open a recreational marijuana dispensary at 671-683 Rogers Street. The property is in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district and the use requires Site Plan Review approval under Section 11.4.2(8), Special Permit approval under Section 12.4.o, and any other relief required of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Joseph Clermont, Applicant’s Attorney Kenneth Cram, Bayside Engineering Attorney Clermont said that they had not yet received the Police Department sign-off for the meeting on July 20. They received it on July 22. The Board wanted to see a streetscape rendition and alternate materials for discussion. That has been submitted. Thirdly, the plan needed to be modified to provide a more defined pork chop island at the site to require drivers to exit by turning right only and to include a sidewalk. Fourthly, MassDOT reviewed the exit and entrance to the site. They indicated that the pork chop island is appropriate with the signage. The island must provide for pedestrian access, which it does. They did not require the exclusive left turn lane into the site. Initially, they indicated no left turn would be appropriate, but they were considering exiting the site not entering. MassDOT is no longer looking for a prohibition of a left turn lane into the site. Mr. Cram said that they had asked MassDOT to opine on the left turn possibility, which they did as Attorney Clermont reviewed. The one thing that mostly changed is the way that MassDOT wanted the sidewalk path to go through the island. If they had kept it at the curb line, it would have eliminated the island. As a modification, about 20-25-ft. west of the driveway they angled the sidewalk into the site and created a level path that goes through the island that is in the site and not the pork chop part. They submitted it as a sketch and MassDOT said it would be acceptable. Any project on a state highway, where there is a new curb cut the drainage must be kept on site. So, they also regraded the driveway a little bit to show that. This was all resubmitted and they are awaiting any final comments before MassDOT issues the permit. All the departments within the district office review the application and as of this morning, no comments have been received back. Based on his experience, they would hear in less than a week or so. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Peter Aucella Elias Saad, 711 Rogers Street Mr. Aucella said he understands that MassDOT looked at the turning situation. On behalf of folks from Belvidere, there is a lot of skepticism that this won’t be a problem. So, he hopes that the City will keep an eye on what will occur without any turn restrictions. He thinks a lot will back-up to the intersection with the pizza place. He wanted to make sure that their concerns are on the record Mr. Saad said that taking a left off 38 will create serious issues. It’s not even 50 feet before turning left. It will be craziness to enter the property by taking a left turn. He thinks a left turn will be a big mistake. He has done business on 38 for 20 years. He doesn’t think the traffic report is accurate because of COVID-19. The street will be crowded. Discussion: Member Frechette said he understands that the facility will opening by appointment-only and would be subject the full police department… or City of Lowell agreeing to then lift that requirement. Attorney Clermont said that’s correct. Member Frechette said they have another project looking to reopen without appointment-only, and therefore requiring a robust monitoring program to determine whether shifting to appointment-only is necessary. In this case, they are starting with the most restrictive approach to opening and letting the City determine whether shifting to open access is possible. He appreciates the revised renderings. With the streetscape, he prefers rendering #2, which is the flat roof with some sort of wood composite on the facades facing Rogers Street and the parking lot as well. Rendering #1 reminds him of the original McDonald’s further down the street. The materials and the design are an improvement. He appreciates the landscape plan. He thought the communication from MassDOT was extremely confusing. They had discussed redesigning the pork chop exit to make it more pronounced, which MassDOT agreed with. He is satisfied with what was proposed. He said they determined snow removal and storage. He asked about drop-off for rideshare. Attorney Clermont said that was added to the plan. Member Frechette said the applicant has addressed the initial concerns. They were deferring to MassDOT regarding Rogers Street. The agency had the final say. He understands the concerns of the residents. To Mr. Aucella’s point, he would like to have as a condition is to revisit the traffic conditions after the appointment-only 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 2 restriction is lifted to have some sort of monitoring component in the approval if the Board so wishes. In case there is more of an issue than MassDOT is forecasting, that they would have some mechanism in place to review it. They can discuss the interval, e.g., 6 months after appointment-only lifted or one-year. Member Lockhart said that Ms. Vance said there should be a bike storage facility. Attorney Clermont said that bike storage has been added to plan. Member Pandres said that everything has been covered. Member Gallivan agreed with Member Frechette’s comments. She appreciates the renderings and streetscapes provided by the architect. Both solutions are acceptable. Chairman Linnehan asked about the sidewalk out front. Attorney Clermont said that the sidewalk has been added to the plan. That was also a requirement of MassDOT. There will be a full sidewalk across the entire site. Chairman Linnehan said the main thing was to continue the matter to hear what MassDOT wanted regarding the turn in or out since, it’s a state road. The Planning Board doesn’t have control over 38, as the Board has learned in the past. Motion: G. Frechette and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to approve the Site Plan under Section 11.4.2 with these conditions: 1. The facility will open by appointment-only, with this restriction to be lifted when the City of Lowell deems it to be appropriate; 2. Six months following the lifting of the appointment-only requirement, the applicant will work with the City of Lowell to review the activity to and from the site to determine whether returning to appointment- only is necessary based on any accidents or issues regarding parking and entering and exiting the site; and 3. The applicant will finalize the façade materials with DPD according to the design of rendering #2 presented by the applicant. G. Frechette motioned and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to approve the Special Permit under Section 12.4.o with the same conditions. The motions passed unanimously, (5-0). C. Cheng recused himself from the petition. Associate Members S. Gallivan and R. Pandres voted on this petition. Site Plan Review and Special Permit: 1201 Westford Street 01851 Full Harvest Moons (FHM), Inc. is seeking Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval to open a recreational marijuana dispensary at 1201 Westford Street, Ste. G1-A. The property is in the Office Park (OP) zoning district and the use requires Site Plan Review approval under Section 11.4.2(8), Special Permit approval under Section 12.4.o, and any other relief required of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: George Theodorou, Applicant’s Attorney Kenneth Cram, Bayside Engineering 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 3 David Fieldsend, LandPlex, LLC Attorney Theodorou thanked the Board for their patience on this project as they have reviewed it since July. Princeton Properties brought up some confusion regarding parking. They have 33 on-site spaces and they have a license agreement for 15 additional spaces across Carl Street. Those 15 spaces are for employees. The application itself and the memo from Mr. Alves indicates that they comply with the parking requirements, which specifies 1 space per 500 sq. ft. At 4,000 sq. ft., that’s 9 spaces. Since they comply with the parking, there is a provision in the ordinance that if you do not comply with the parking requirements you can have parking within 400-ft. of the entrance. This requirement does not apply to them because they already meet the parking requirement. Conceivably, they could shuttle employees from anywhere to alleviate parking. There was also discussion about calculating the square footage and Ms. Vance concluded that gross square footage would be appropriate. They had argued that they needed to lease the entire first floor for security purposes even though they will not use the entire space. They submitted a floor plan to show that they could operate at 2,500 sq. ft. Mr. Cram performed those traffic counts based on 2,500 sq. ft. and 4,000 sq. ft. Ms. Vance said that the applicant’s approach was acceptable. He asked Mr. Cram to address the traffic scenarios. Mr. Cram said that after the last hearing, he reached out to his colleagues who have prepared studies for dispensaries. He asked if they had any data for dispensaries in Massachusetts after it has opened and operated for a while. Mr. Dirk referenced counts at a Millbury facility. He obtained data for Fall River and Hudson, MA. He took that data and created a giant spreadsheet, which he shared with both Mr. Dirk and Ms. Vance. The data showed that the morning went down in the morning. They are not concerned with the morning commuter peak hour because they won’t be open. The evening peak hour increased a bit. The highest hour was virtually the same for ITE numbers. The same for Saturday too. Overall, the ITE data was comparable with the three new sites. They applied those numbers to the 4,000 sq. ft., i.e., the entire first floor. They did a comparison analysis if it’s only 2,500 sq. ft. Basically it’s the same levels of service. Ms. Vance identified three points for monitoring and the transportation demand management program. They concur with these. Mr. Dirk also agrees with that. He differed on the 3-month horizon. He has found that when a new type of project comes to town there is a big novelty vs. a new Burger King. Everyone knows Burger King and their food. These dispensaries are still relatively new. His inclination would be to start monitoring at 6 months, and then do 1 year, and 2 years. The transportation demand management program. They have developed an extensive program that has been vetted by Mike Allen with the Police Chief. They have proposed subsidized LRTA passes for their employees. There will be bike racks on the site. The sidewalks on the Westford Street will be ADA compliant. Attorney Theodorou said that they have addressed the pertinent issues from last time. He is happy to answer any questions. Chairman Linnehan said that they received several letters, which are on file, and the Board members have read. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Jeff Brown, Princeton Properties Jeffrey Dirk, Vanasse & Associates Inc. Erin Bradley, 39 Carl Street Discussion: [Note: The Chair took this item out of order to allow Jeffrey Dirk to present due to a scheduling conflict] 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 4 Mr. Dirk said he appreciates the opportunity to work with the applicant’s traffic engineer. It has been productive. He also appreciated the assistance from the City’s Transportation Engineer. They have now arrived at an estimate for the traffic that the project will generate. His letter echoes Ms. Vance’s email. They are seeking a project with appropriate conditions. All three traffic engineers have noted the variability in the amount of traffic that could be generated. He agrees with Ms. Vance’s recommendations regarding traffic monitoring. She suggested 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. The other part is the traffic operations plan. The monitoring tied with maybe an appointment-based system to begin with and if the monitoring shows that there are no issues with the parking and traffic then they could ease the appointment system or increase the number of appointments. He believes that an appointment system could allow the facility to open, operate, and mitigate any unintended consequences from increased parking and traffic demands. Changing operating conditions and the opening of other dispensaries could ease off the appointment-based system. In other cities, appointment-based systems tend to phase out when coupled with monitoring. Member Frechette asked about the condition of appointment-only visits. Ms. Vance said that if at 3 months traffic exceeds estimates by 10 percent, then switch to appointment-only. He asked if they instead wanted them to open up with appointment-only. Mr. Dirk said that they agree with Ms. Vance. The applicant doesn’t want to open and cause problems. It seems reasonable to let them open and operate. To the extent that it causes a problem, it gives the Planning Board a fallback. Member Cheng said he is clear on the impacts. He is glad that the traffic engineers are in agreement. Attorney Theodorou said that given uncertain times regarding retail businesses closing. There is uncertainty about traffic and collecting traffic data. He asked if 3 months is an insufficient period to collect the data. He asked if condition could be improved to collect data over 6 months or a year. Mr. Dirk said that from his work the retail marijuana business has not slowed down. They have found the opposite in locations that are closer to the NH border. The ones in Salisbury picked up a lot of business from NH. 3 months might be appropriate given the nature of the business. Monitoring is not too much of a heavy lift. Attorney Theodorou said that if they do not show too much in 3 months. Other dispensaries will be opening in Lowell and Tyngsborough. He asked if 6 months would be more appropriate. Member Frechette said that Ms. Vance recommended 3 months and 6 months. Attorney Theodorou said that he doesn’t want to see his client prejudiced by a 3-month study that doesn’t really articulate a true picture of the traffic out there. A 10% spike would make them move to appointment-only. It’s too small a snapshot. Chairman Linnehan said that it’s for the Board to decide. They now have Mr. Dirk’s recommendation and Ms. Vance’s recommendation. Attorney Theodorou will have an opportunity to discuss this further. [Note: The Chair suspended the hearing to return to 671-683 Rogers Street] Mr. Brown said that Attorney Theodorou is right; they have been at this since July. The traffic volumes have gone all over the spectrum. They started at 713 with the initial reports by Nitsch. Bayside came in at 582. Ms. Vance came in at 1,022. Now they are at the somewhat hybrid value for 632. They don’t really know what is going on with the traffic here other than it is excessive. The primary point raised in Ms. Vance’s email from September 9: given the existing congestion and volume of traffic in Lowell it’s a reasonably conservative approach to trip 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 5 generation. There aren’t many studies available through ITE. In his opinion, to adopt the concept raised by Ms. Vance to assume the most conservative approach they are taking this proposal the absolute wrong way. Just as Rogers Street proposal. They are starting with an appointment system because the scale of the traffic problem is unknown. They use the analysis and the monitoring to adjust accordingly. Here they will open up and adjust backwards. Mr. Cram hit this correctly: there is a novelty aspect to this when it opens up. He is exactly right. The highest traffic volumes will be right when this opens up. He doesn’t see the logic in opening up without appointments, waiting three months, suffering excessive traffic, congestion, and volumes. At the lowest add 582 vehicles and at the highest almost 1,100 vehicles. He thinks that approach is wrong. He asked the Board to adopt the approach used in Rogers Street. Start with appointment system. Use monitoring and then relax. They already have a traffic intersection with Technology Drive that all of the traffic engineers have recognized is a high traffic volume and high crash intersection. There will be around 76 vehicles per hour added. At the full square footage, 122 vehicles per hour. It’s undisputed that based on Mr. Cram’s traffic report there will be increased queuing at these intersections. They will be significant backups to an already constrained road. He’s not a traffic expert, just an attorney trying to put together some common sense. Consistent with Ms. Vance’s approach, they should start with the most conservative approach with appointment-only and then adjust accordingly after monitoring. Regarding the parking, he doesn’t understand Mr. Theodorou’s comments. Throughout many of the discussions throughout the summer the lack of parking on-site was discussed. In their application narrative, parking will be needed in excess of 30 spaces. To say that they satisfy zoning at 9 spaces is inconsistent with their own narrative. Mr. Cram’s peak vehicle trips between 76 and 122, they are well, well above this nine figure, which Mr. Theodorou suggests is compliant. The 15 spaces are necessary. They obtained those spaces, but it’s not a forever and absolute right. He doesn’t feel that the criteria for Site Plan Review and the Special Permit has been met. The project is significantly impacting the neighborhood through this excess traffic. 1,000 more vehicles added per day. Queuing stretching out towards the Rourke Bridge. Princeton is an abutter to this property. They also have 1,000 units of apartments in this immediate area all impacted by this congestion. They have heard from neighbors who are upset about this congestion. The impact to the neighborhood is obvious. Carl Street cannot handle 60 additional vehicles in a peak hour. He recommends that the Board not approve the permit until the parking situation is resolved. Ms. Bradley echoed Mr. Brown’s comments. She still opposes the project. Mr. Brown talked about the safety of residents. She is a runner. To get from her building before the dispensary opens… walking on the street is already dangerous as a pedestrian. Adding cars is a bad idea. At a minimum, there should be appointments only. Member Frechette said that it is unprecedented… the way the applicant’s traffic engineer, abutter’s traffic engineer, and City’s traffic engineer got together and agreed to the proper approach. He tips his hat off to everyone involved. Going into this meeting, he was inclined to go along with the recommendation from Ms. Vance. The applicant’s traffic engineer and counsel made it a concern that they basically testified that there will be a surge when they open because it’s a novelty. He thinks it needs to open up as appointment-only. He would require a similar monitoring plan as they did with the preceding project. He asked Staff if it meets the parking requirement. Staff confirmed that it meets the parking requirement. Member Frechette said that it meets and exceeds the parking. They did provide additional parking. It meets the zoning requirement for parking. That case is closed. It’s whether how much above and beyond that they want to go. The monitoring plan will address that. He would like to condition imposing the mitigating measures that the applicant proposed. He would like to have it open as appointment-only. He asked about stormwater. He thanked the traffic engineers for working together. He asked about stormwater. Staff said that Stormwater Review Team said that the project is acceptable as proposed, with one change. The total infiltration trench depth should be 24-inch, not 18-inch as shown in one possible interpretation of this drawing. 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 6 Mr. Fieldsend said that they can make that change. Member Gallivan said that during a previous meeting Ms. Vance reported that the traffic increase would be less than 2% of what the street could handle. The applicant has done a lot over the last three months to address these issues. She agrees with Ms. Vance’s comments about the traffic-monitoring program. Understanding that they would need to live with something for three months, if it’s a negligible increase then she leans on Ms. Vance’s most recent communication about monitoring vs. implementing appointment-only on day one. Member Lockhart concurred with Member Frechette’s analysis and said it only makes sense based on the testimony heard tonight, followed by a 2-year monitoring program that would also evaluate the parking issue. Member Cheng asked about the square footage that the applicant has committed to. Attorney Theodorou said they would prefer to use the larger square footage of 4,030. It makes more sense when they look at the security of the first floor. Member Cheng said he is still undecided regarding appointment-only to start. At the very least, he will stick with Ms. Vance’s monitoring plan recommendations. Member Pandres asked about bike parking, sidewalks on Carl Street, and Uber and Lyft. Attorney Theodorou said they would construct the sidewalks on Carl Street. They will add the bike parking and Uber/Lyft drop-off pending permission from the property owner. Member Pandres said he would lean on Ms. Vance’s comments and implement 3, 6, 12, 24-month monitoring plan. If any increase in crashes or negative impact on the neighborhood, then they could institute appointment- only. Chairman Linnehan thanked Ms. Vance for all her hard work. He agrees with the traffic monitoring. He doesn’t think 3 months is a hardship. He knows that traffic is tough up there. He has visited before each meeting to observe the traffic. Carl Street is narrow. He needs to pull aside when another car comes and that is without snow. The big question is about appointments-only. With the testimony tonight, he doesn’t think it’s a hindrance to do appointment-only. They approved another project this evening on Rogers Street and it has been stated by all three of the traffic engineers that when other facilities open it will reduce traffic for others in the city and surrounding areas. He doesn’t think by appointment-only would be a severe hardship. Ms. Vance mentioned measures about Westford Street/Technology Drive suggest as signage and flashing beacons. The Planning Board could also accept money set aside for improvements. It’s a tough spot, but starting slowly is appropriate. He doesn’t want to wait for crashes in the first three months to switch to appointment-only. The economics is not his biggest concern. It’s the traffic. It’s difficult to get in an out of there. He hopes that the conditions will be agreeable to all people, especially starting a little slow. Member Frechette asked about transportation demand management. Staff noted that the objective is to reduce the number of people driving alone. Member Frechette noted the possibility for putting money into escrow. He would like to tie that into the monitoring program if it’s determined that additional traffic mitigation is determined to be required as a direct result of this facility. Member Gallivan is correct that the traffic generated from here will not necessarily trigger some sort of signalization at Technology Drive and Westford Street. 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 7 Attorney Theodorou asked if it would be possible to limit appointment-only to the first 30 days and have it monitored and reported to the Lowell Police Department and to have a recommendation from the Police Department. Member Cheng said that at issue, they need a robust monitoring program and a reasonable appointment-only period. Assuming that the traffic is at a reasonable level… if they want to cut it short on appointment-only, then they need a more robust traffic-monitoring program. If the appointment-only period is longer, then the traffic monitoring program intervals do not need to be as frequent. The key point is avoiding negative impacts to the neighborhood without having to wait too long to resolve them. Member Lockhart said that 30 days is not enough time to give it a good evaluation. 60-90 days is needed to get a true measure of the impact of an appointment-only system. Chairman Linnehan agreed with Member Lockhart. He would go for 90 but not lower than 60. Member Lockhart recommended 90 days. Member Frechette said then they could open it up at that point. If the impact is negligible then it will be in the monitoring program. Given the sensitivity of the site, he believes it is a reasonable approach. Motion: G. Frechette motioned and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to approve the Special Permit under Section 12.1.o with these conditions: 1. The operation will open by appointment-only, with this restriction to be lifted by the City no earlier than 90-days after opening, and with the applicant implementing a traffic-monitoring program at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years after opening. 2. The applicant will work with the City of Lowell on any traffic mitigation measures that may arise as a result of the traffic monitoring program; 3. Prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy, the applicant will work with the property owner to install a bike rack on the property; 4. The applicant will provide bus subsidies to those employees who use the LRTA to go to and from work; 5. Prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy, the applicant will fund the restriping of the crosswalk over Technology drive and will fund or install MUTCD-approved signage on Westford Street at the approaches to the intersection; 6. Following the traffic monitoring program, the applicant will work with City to determine whether retiming the traffic signals in immediate vicinity of the site is necessary; 7. Prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy, the applicant will repair the sidewalks and curb cuts on Westford Street to meet ADA requirements; 8. Prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy, the applicant will add or repair sidewalks along their frontage on Carl Street to the specifications of the City’s Engineering Division. 9. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant will obtain approval from the City’s Stormwater Review Team. G. Frechette motioned and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to approve the Site Plan under Section 11.4.2 with the same conditions. The motions passed unanimously, (5-0). Associate Member S. Gallivan voted on this petition. 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 8 Site Plan Review Amendment: 2 Prince Ave, 1 Markley Way 01852 The Markley Group is seeking to amend a 2018 Site Plan Review approval to expand the data center at 2 Prince Ave, 1 Markley Way. The data center is in the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district and the applicant is seeking approval for outdoor water tanks and a relocated driveway in the northeastern part of the property. The changes require Site Plan Review approval under Section 11.4.2 and any other relief required of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Luke Kipfer, Markley Group Theo Kindermans, Stantec George Eliades, Applicant’s Attorney Mr. Kipfer said they took away a list of action items from the previous meeting. They have also been in front of the City Council for the fuel storage permit. They received approval from the Fire Department on the fuel storage. They have had a separate meeting the neighbors to better understand their concerns. They have tried to continue discussion with several of the neighbors. The meetings have made it clear to Markley that they need to improve communication and transparency with their neighbors. Several comments during the last meeting they’ve addressed via a letter from Stantec. Mr. Kindermans discussed the letter he sent. They met with the Superintendent of the Water Utility and discussed water pressure. He communicated to the Planning Department that he doesn’t see any issues with water pressure. Regarding fuel storage, the Fire Department doesn’t have any issues. It’s in the City Council’s hands for neighborhood concerns. Generator emissions. There is an attachment from Eric Slagle from a year or two ago. They are meeting the DEP requirements. They are currently investigating raising the smokestack. It is not as easy as it sounds. Structurally it might not work. It might have a bit of a negative effect on the sound that is emitted. They would like to raise the stacks if possible. The Andrews Street exit. The facility is highly secure. The rear entrance doesn’t have a permanent facility for security personnel to reside and no infrastructure for checking credentials. It is a backdoor used occasionally if needed. Fencing. They are planning on redoing the fencing along Gorham Street. It will happen next year. In the meantime, the fencing is cleared up some of the vegetation and rubbish. Regarding the location of the tanks, they need to be at the higher elevation to reduce pumping and to have access the main water line. They need to be above ground to detect leaks and reduce points of failure. Since he sent the letter, they met with the neighbors via a Zoom call. Communication will be a regular occurrence. They have released some of the landscaping to go in this fall. They need to replace the fence before some of it goes in. They are also starting to construct berm behind the existing generators and the homes on Otis. There will be more screening and landscaping this fall. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Jake Fortes, 36 Iowa Street Nancy Fortes, Iowa Street Salina, Bourne Street Eileen Castle, 64 Otis Street Randall Snead, 63 Otis Street Discussion: 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 9 Ms. Fortes referred to the letter from Eric Slagle on 10/10/2018. It states that the senior health inspector and local building inspector observed the generators in operation. Markley said the generators are run for 5 min each week and 4-6 hours one day per year. They are run on the weekends. One generator is run on a Saturday. The other is run on a Sunday. When these other two generators come online, she asked if they will take four days to run each one at a time. More than once per year they have had generators on the weekend. The City said staff stood halfway between the generators and property line and couldn’t smell below. First, they were down below. They didn’t come to her property. In her property, the fumes are collecting. The tests down below were inaccurate. She can’t enjoy her yard because she never knows when they run the generators. It’s not the same time each week or day. They need to raise the stacks or put in scrubbers. She asked that they hold approval of the generators until they fix the fumes. She also asked why dump trucks loaded with dirt are dumping behind her house by the generators. Mr. Kipfer said that the dirt is part of the landscaping and grading plan for the area. They are building up the hill that separates the generators from the house. They are raising the grade to create a berm so they are not looking directly at the generators. It’s a base layer and they will be landscaping it to add screening. They will create a better separation between the generators and the house. Regarding the generators, they provide redundant power sources. It would be 2 generators one day and 2 generators the next day. It would not be four days of generators running. Ms. Castle said she still has more than her share of questions. She attended the neighbor’s meeting. She hasn’t heard about anyone coming to her house for a further meeting. She knows that the applicant is speaking to one person. She would like to know whom they can speak to if there are issues with the water pressure. Chairman Linnehan said that the City gave a letter stating that there wouldn’t be any issues. So, she should speak with the Water Department if there are issues. Ms. Castle said that the tanks are still 30-ft. from her house. They didn’t move them and didn’t discuss trying to do so. She asked about the timeframe for building the second water tower. They seem to say they won’t do it and then the next week they do it. Chairman Linnehan said the first question is about approving it. If they don’t approve it, then they won’t go up. He reviewed the City Council process regarding the fuel storage. Their plans are to go forward with the first tank and they are unsure about the second one, based on what they told the Board in the past. Mr. Kipfer said that the Chair is correct. He can’t give a more definite timelines because it depends on the type of tenants who lease the space. Some clients do high performance computing that might require more cooling and backup water storage. Other tenants are just pure data storage and not processing power, so they require less water backup. At this point, they don’t see a future need for the second tower, but they want to have permission in hand in case a client need emerges. Ms. Castle asked about the cooling towers. They are on the site plan. She has been looking them up. They will be about 20-30 feet high. She won’t need to worry about them because the water towers will cover them. She wants to know about the emissions that come from. That is an issue for legionnaire’s disease. She wants to how they can look it. Mr. Kipfer said there are not emissions from the water towers. There is water vapor. They maintain a rigorous water treatment program. These are not different from what you see on hospitals or on top of other businesses downtown. There is nothing harmful that comes from the output from these towers. 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 10 Attorney Eliades said they did a Zoom meeting with neighbors. Two city councilors were present. The Markley Group agreed that they haven’t been as in touch with the neighbors as they could of or should of. It may be an opportunity for another new community group to form. They also talked about having more contact on a regular basis. There is a huge difference now in terms of the company’s connection to the neighborhood. He noted that Ms. Castle has been in discussion with the company about selling her home. He is pleased that a lot of positive things have come out of the meetings. There has been a wakeup call. Chairman Linnehan asked about the City Council process. Attorney Eliades said they are working to address those issues. One Councilor visited the premises. They have come a long way and he is cautiously optimistic that the issues of the fuel storage will be dealt with. Chairman Linnehan said that the issues from the Council are broader than the water tanks and parking. Attorney Eliades said that they are just concerned with the fuel storage. Salina said that Mr. Kipfer is meeting with her tomorrow morning. She is pleased that he reached out to her to address her concerns about the smokestacks. He will walk her yard to see where she is coming from regarding the smell from the smokestacks. She is very thankful that he is coming out. Mr. Snead said that the generators will be voted on more at the City Council, but the Markley Group brought it up at the session. The existing towers and the attempt to figure out ways to mitigate the problem have been going on for four years. They need to move forward with true action plans. He asked if they are voting on the cooling and water towers. Chairman Linnehan said they voting on relocating the water towers and parking. He reviewed the case history. Mr. Snead said that if they are moving forward with the cooling towers, then he asked if there is any kind of risk for health. He asked if there is any noise that comes with the cooling towers that may be running during the summer months on a regular basis. As to the generators, they haven’t shown complete good faith on the existing ones. Adding two more generators will expose more residents to these same effects. Mr. Kipfer said that regarding the south side generators, they have extended the stacks. They came with 10-ft. standard stainless-steel exhaust stack. They are now at 18-ft. He understands that neighbors still have concerns. So, they have pushed up the berm and landscaping. Neighbors haven’t seen progress as quickly as they would like to see, but they are moving forward. It’s possible that raising the stack height might not impact the particle dispersion, but it could just make them louder. Regarding the cooling towers. They are standard. The cooling water for the building is critical. They have a rigorous treatment regimen. There is no health risk from the water vapor pushed for these towers. There will be some noise from these towers, but they are working with VHB to be within the limits set by MassDEP and the City. Mr. Fortes said that some of the neighbors were under the wrong impression given some of the documents uploaded for this site plan review. There are more changes than what the Chair has discussed. The Markley Group have made changes in the past without seeking approval. During the last 5 years that Markley has come to town, in 2018 the group came before them for approval. At the time, they were to fix the south side of the property prior to doing other work. Now they are starting the landscaping. He thinks they have finally gotten through the Markley Group with the community that has assembled. Ms. Castle may be alone regarding the actual water towers. He is not opposed to them going in. They are an eyesore but they won’t really be an issue. He has an issue with the past lack of good faith. He’s not convinced that they will complete the screening behind his house. They 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 11 may stop the generator modifications. MassDEP made them make changes that VHB overlooked. It wasn’t out of the kindness or compassion of the Markley Group. He wants to make sure that the City keeps their feet to the fire. Attorney Eliades said that Mr. Fortes is right. Things have been fixed along the way. All work done has been complied with the involved regulatory authorities. These things are more custom. If there was a greater connection with the neighbors in the past, then he feels that these issues would have been fixed faster. Things are different now. They have Mr. Kipfer’s name and can get to him with any complaints. It will change the dynamic. Ms. Castle said she is confused because she thought that all of the information was on the cooling towers, everything down there. That’s what’s on the plans. She didn’t realize that they are just voting on the water towers and parking. They were working last Saturday until 7 PM. 7 AM until 7 PM they hear banging. She knows that they are trying to be good neighbors. Until she sees results… Mr. Fortes has been waiting for years. She thought they would have flowers and trees here. All the dirt is gone. She would like to understand if that is the circumstances and what they Board is voting on tonight. Member Frechette asked about what they would be voting on based on the site plan. Staff clarified that the vote would be based on the entirety of the site plan. Mr. Kindermans said that they submitted a full site plan several months ago. At the first hearing, he ran through every change with an overlay. They ran through the whole gambit of changes. Chairman Linnehan said that the last meeting they spent the majority of discussion about the water towers. Mr. Kindermans said that they did a presentation at the first meeting showing what was approved and what they would like to change. They went through several locations on the site, the generator yards etc. Chairman Linnehan said that they only sought approval for the water tanks and parking changes based on the notice. Some of the improvements require site plan review and some don’t. He doesn’t think it would be advertised properly to approve other items. He doesn’t think it would be fair notice. Member Cheng said that his understanding is that when they submitted the minor modification, they had red lines dated July indicating the changes. When they moved the Site Plan Review amendment, he has a site plan dated August 13 that includes more cooling towers but it otherwise fairly similar to the July plan. He noted that the other changes such as additional cooling towers are not mentioned in the advertisement. Chairman Linnehan said he would only vote on the water tower and parking changes because the advertisement doesn’t show these other changes. Attorney Eliades said that there is an argument that the plan itself was submitted in its entirety. This matter will still go before the City Council. Perhaps, it will be an opportunity to clean up the rest of the process. Unless Member Frechette is asking for it to be re-advertised. The site plan was submitted in its entirety. Member Frechette said that perhaps it should be reposted so that the application reflects what’s requested. Chairman Linnehan asks that they continue the matter and then revise the notice to include the other items beyond the water tanks and parking. Member Frechette said it would be best for all parties concerned that it be properly advertised. 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 12  Chairman Linnehan said that he doesn’t like seeing the phrase and any other relief requested because it’s not fair for notice. It’s way too vague. Staff said that the next available meeting would be November 2 based on public notice requirements. Member Gallivan asked for a new site plan that shows the red line changes. Member Frechette said he was also quite surprised that the landscaping had not progressed as far as it should have. The applicant needs to make a lot of headway between now and the next meeting. They need to improve the visual buffer. They should look at the Lowe’s on Chelmsford Street as an example. Motion: G. Frechette motioned and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to have the applicant re-notice this petition to reflect all of the requested modifications on the site plan. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Associate Member R. Pandres voted on this petition. III. New Business IV. Other Business 2021 Meeting Schedule G. Frechette motioned and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to approve the 2021 meeting schedule. October 19, 2020 meeting Chairman Linnehan cancelled this meeting since there are no agenda items V. Notices VI. Further Comments from Planning Board Members Member Lockhart said that the Historic Board has been quiet and have not scheduled a meeting for October. VII. Adjournment R. Lockhart motioned and G. Frechette seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 9:17 PM. 10/05/2020 PB Minutes | 13