Rockland Planning Board Advances Car Wash, Hears Boat Storage Plan

[0:00] Chair (Planning Board): Oh, can anyone else hear an echo? Is that something we could, is there's an echo coming from in there? Maybe if the door just gets closed, it would be helpful. Yeah, thank you. Hello everyone, welcome to the Tuesday, October 6th meeting of the City of Rockland Planning Board. [0:21] Planning Board member: Let's start with a roll call down at this end. Irene Flynn. Claire Stanton. Pat Brooke. David Eberhardt. Devin Mosher. [0:29] Chair (Planning Board): On our agenda tonight, we have a pre-application meeting with Landmark Corporation on behalf of SHM Rockland LLC for a proposed building on an existing gravel yard for boat storage and maintenance on New County Road. We have a review of an application and site plan submitted by Trillium Engineering on behalf of Eastern Express Car Wash for a bay drive through and self-serve car wash structure on an existing lot at 131 Camden Street. We're gonna have two discussions of ordinance amendments tonight, oa 27 and oa 28. There will be a public hearing for oa 28 as well as the Eastern Express car wash if we find completeness on that, and then we'll do some previous meeting minutes if we've got, if we've got it in us. There will be a moment for public comment towards the end of our meeting if anyone from the public would like to address the board, but for now let's get started with our first agenda item, which is the pre-application conversation with landmark about the new county road proposal. So I'll have folks come up to the table. And if you could just introduce yourselves and your relationship to the project for the record. We'll start there. My [1:56] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): name is Mike Sabatini. I'm with Ian [2:00] Buba, regional project manager (Safe Harbor): Buba, regional project manager. I'm actually with Safe Harbor, the client, owner of 56 New County Road. Wonderful. [2:07] Chair (Planning Board): Welcome. So we can start with, you sent us a nice cover sheet covering kind of what you're hoping to talk about this evening. But if you could just start with a short presentation about what you're hoping to accomplish tonight and what we should be starting with. Yeah, sure. The [2:26] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): commercial building, our recent owner expanded it with a gravel yard, and that's an existing condition plan. You can see where the gravel yard was expanded behind it. And that's what it looks like today out there. And then the proposed project, so Safe Heart Earth bought this on 21. They would like to build a building where that gravel yard is. The purchase included the laying of the Pleasant Street property, which is a small home along Pleasant Street. And those properties are going to merge, kind of for zoning reasons. And we're going to build this building, expand the paved yard, I'm just going to gravel some utilities, which I'll go over here in a moment. And it includes a connector to the existing building so that employees can move between the two. This will just offer an additional interior bulk storage and a little more room for maintenance. Just quickly about the utilities, there's existing LT gas tanks there. We're going to add a tank and run a line to the new building in this location. There is going to be some bathrooms in the new building. So there will be a pump station here that will pump up to an existing sewer connection in Pleasant Street. Water will be connected internally using a distance service connection, and then utilities will be a new pole put across the street and then go underground to the building. [Chair (Planning Board): Across Pleasant Street.] And obviously on the plan you also see some storm water management where this is under the jurisdiction of BP for a full stormwater permit as well as a wetland permit. And that stormwater includes two grass soil filters, one of which is located here, the other over here. It's a very tight site and that's about all of the stormwater management we could fit. And we're going to mitigate some additional impervious area. We worked with BP on this. We're going to put a filter on some of the existing water to mitigate some stone water there. We're connecting into the public stone drain system in places where the site drained previously. [5:20] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, that's about it. [5:21] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): I do have other topics I want to talk about, zoning, stone water, some other things. [5:31] Chair (Planning Board): Could I just ask a clarifying question about what is existing on the property now in terms of stormwater and impervious surface? Where the actual building is going, is it basically replacing what right now would be considered impervious anyway? Yeah, it's really hard to see. There is an edge of gravel that's shown on here, but if you just want to get a visual, these are at the same scale. So that building was built right here. [5:55] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): That's where all the impervious area already is. The impervious area is actually about 5,000 square feet less because we're removing some gravel along the edges, basically. One thing you can see in common on both of these, this temporary shelter, the fabric building that you see there now, that's going to come down and go away, but that shape is right there, and then if you look at where the building is, that shape is right there. [6:27] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, great. Yeah, that's useful. Useful and [6:32] Chair (Planning Board): just thinking about again kind of orienting as we talk about what additional information might be useful to us, the like operationally, would the plan be, I'm assuming because of this connector to the existing main building in terms of, you know, activity on the lot and kind of flow of traffic and where people would be, it would kind of primarily like the entrance and access points, would that still remain New County Road, or would it try, it would you also be trying to add kind of new flows from the Pleasant Street side [7:19] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): typically [7:26] Buba, regional project manager (Safe Harbor): no, we don't use that entrance. The idea is not to use it. There was mainly just to kind of keep it for essentially for the fire department, so that way they had access on both sides, right, so they would specifically for emergency purposes, that would be the intent [7:38] Chair (Planning Board): yeah, and the way I'm understanding this building, it's like the back, the part that you would be seeing from like a Pleasant Street side would be like the back of the building, yeah, and the main side back, okay, and [7:54] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): you know, having the connectors so the employees, it's kind of a safety thing. The employees now can go back and forth between these buildings. We're going outside in the travel way where boats are being moved around and going into that tent, the fabric building. So it's going to be much more efficient. A lot of the boats that were stored in the fabric building and outside are just going to go into the building now. So there's not going to be an increase in boats necessarily served, but they'll be able to maintain them better with more space. same thing with the employees last year there was 30 employees there 's only 26 now and they plan to bring that back up to 36 but there's really no increase in employees status quo [8:43] Chair (Planning Board): does anyone else from the board have a question before I think I'll ask Elias to turn us to the table next [8:48] Planning Board member: I just have a question about the house, yes, did I see it's being demolished, yes [8:57] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Yes. Is it? At least in a couple weeks or a week or so. Oh, okay. [9:01] Buba, regional project manager (Safe Harbor): Yeah, we already own it. We already disconnected utilities. We're just finalizing contracts internally, so they should be in for permanent in the next couple weeks to remove it entirely. Okay. [9:13] Chair (Planning Board): I see that you have a list of topics that would be good to move through. I think if we had a LISEP at the table as well, that would be, then we can get some staff input as well as notes from us. Do you want to introduce which, yeah, so I'll just click down through the zoning. I was just [9:34] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): kind of acknowledging that this is in the C1 zone and in that zone storage, I guess, is allowed when the parcels front on Newtown Road, and since the Pleasant Street parcel is being merged, the house is getting torn down, it's basically all fronting on Newtown Roads, just clarifying that. [10:03] Chair (Planning Board): Just a clarifying question. Both lots are C1 already. Go ahead, Elias. Sorry. We [10:14] Speaker G (unidentified): discussed this before. It did come up. I think we were both of the opinion that whether it fronts on more than one doesn't matter as long as it fronts on the New County. [10:27] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, the zoning table has a little footnote that says boat storage is okay as long as you front on New County. So that's, we're just clarifying that. [10:38] Speaker G (unidentified): Probably specifically in reference to this. [10:41] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Probably this, although you know O'Hara owns that other building on New County as well. So that's that. On landscaping with my next item, I just wanted to clarify in section 402 there is a part that in particular, which I think applies, is the buffering and screening. It's, it's section B, and in particular it's where there's residential zones or uses next to it, and you know, I didn't show any landscaping on this, you know, preliminary site plan, but yeah, where I was planning on focus and I would love to get your input on this is, yeah, this is this next, this parcel next door, butter, I think it's partly residential, partly commercial. Let's just assume it's residential at this point, so I was planning on an evergreen row right along here to buffer this commercial use from a potential residential. And the only other place that I was thinking is, you know, this parcel here is not residential, it's commercial, but this is residential, so maybe up on this slope there could be some plantings there. So that's where I was going to focus as a start. There already is plantings along Pleasant Street and those are going to remain. Those were done when the gravel yard expansion happened, and so there's more mature beds there with plantings in them, and so those are going to remain. Yeah, so [12:30] Chair (Planning Board): Does that seem like I'm on the right track? Yeah, I'm just rereading this portion about buffering with residential zones, but that does sound like you've identified the areas literally around the site that would need that, and it seems right on track to me. Yeah, is there's the I had not knowing the full relationship of that corner of the building with the house next door, you think it's reasonable to get the actual standard is something it's kind of large. It's like 10 feet of. Yeah, no less than 10 feet wide and 6 feet tall along the abutting residential zone. Yeah. [Mike Sabatini: Yeah, okay, that] makes sense to me. Any questions from other folks about landscaping or [13:36] Speaker E (unidentified): thoughts about this particular thing? Just quick, whether you're demoing the house is what's gonna happen there in that path? [13:45] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): So we're kind of biting into this backyard and there'll be some grating, so where the house was [13:50] Speaker E (unidentified): will be a slope, okay, down to the paving, okay, so you're not gonna like flatten it and put sore boats there too? No, it's there's a difference in elevation. Yeah, okay, I wasn't sure, thanks. Yep, yeah. [14:09] Chair (Planning Board): That all makes sense to me. I think the there are some new building planting suggestions, but you were describing there being some existing plants. Yeah, already on the site is the mostly surrounding the building, it looks like pavement for a driveway, not necessarily any grass or anything. [14:45] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Be some landscaping here, we're having a stone drip edge which is part of the dp treatment, so there is a little gap right here that would be grass. Yeah, okay, Elias. [15:04] Chair (Planning Board): The new the new way that we count landscaping and buffering in here is still somewhat new to me. Is there anything that's [15:12] Speaker G (unidentified): flagging to you about this? No, I think I'd have to go back and look at like the exact specific numbers. I mean, they call out species and diameters and that sort of things for the actual planting plan. For the most, like, the actual number of trees and shrubs is only prescribed for new parking area. And other than that, it's more like, yeah, like you said, the 10 feet by 6 feet high. Evergreen hedge. And adequate, really just adequate buffering and screening around the residential properties. Yeah. [15:44] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Yeah. We can look at it in the site walk, too, if you plan on doing that. Yeah. [15:49] Speaker G (unidentified): And feel free if you have to email me those questions, too, and I can get back to you. Yeah. [15:56] Chair (Planning Board): Does that answer your question? Yeah. That's great. [15:59] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Okay. Want me to move on? Sure. Okay. So, stormwater plan. Obviously, the city has stormwater standards, and I would just ask, I guess, we're subject to DP review. We're doing all we can on this site, and the impervious area from the city's perspective is actually getting reduced as part of this by about 5,000 square feet. So can you either defer to DEP's review of stormwater in lieu of having to do a separate report for the city? [16:33] Chair (Planning Board): Are you specifically talking about like in the case that we might ask for like outside review of the actual plans, or like I think it would be useful for us to, especially if you were preparing them anyway, to be able to see the, it sounds like you have somewhat of a plan in place already. Yeah, are you, so are you requesting to not share that as well, or [16:58] Speaker H (unidentified): to not prepare something? I'm happy to share that. It's, you know, a lot of paper, [17:03] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): and it's, we actually submitted one copy to the city already, but we're happy to, I'm happy to share that with the planning board. Yeah, I can do that. Yeah, but you know, the DP standards and the city standards are slightly different. Okay, so [17:21] Speaker G (unidentified): yeah, typically the site plan review standard hinges on the post-development condition not increasing the surface runoff from the pre-development condition, and historically when the impervious surface is reduced, that has made it a little bit easier to proceed without some of the [17:45] Chair (Planning Board): strictest applications. Yeah, I think for our purposes that probably is the thing that we're trying to record, that we have evidence of. So I wonder if we would feel comfortable with referencing the MDP report, like the MDP approval, as part of our analysis that this would be acceptable, and then either language in a narrative or the numbers that, I think we should be able to record the specifics of the change in impervious service in order to. [18:24] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): And I'm happy to provide all that, like I'll do that in a cover letter, you know, a little paragraph, and then I can refer to the DEP application, too, [18:32] Speaker G (unidentified): and just a little more detail on that as well. Like when you go to do your application, Chapter 16 allows the planning board to waive certain submission requirements. So when you submit your application, you can request a waiver for the full drainage study and then provide justification for the reason, and then the board will assess based on that information. That makes sense. [18:56] Chair (Planning Board): And just a quick, since we are having this pre-application meeting to give you a heads up about where that discussion might go, right off the bat, are there concerns that people have about that kind of initial take? No, not necessarily. [19:10] Speaker I (unidentified): Concerned, but I just, because I'm not a hundred percent up on the differences between DEP and the city, it would be some very quick bullet points right on differentiation would be helpful at the time, and that can come through, you know, well, through you. [19:26] Speaker G (unidentified): Broadly speaking, I think it's volume of runoff versus quality, right? That was what we talked about at least once. [19:31] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Yes, in general terms, DP focuses on water quality management, and your ordinances now focus on pre- and post-development quantity. You can kind of do one and the same. DP takes the first flush of stone water and stores it, which in effect has a good impact on quantity control as well as quality control, so anyway, happy to give some background on that and make the case it formally as a waiver request during the time of application. The last piece to [20:10] Speaker G (unidentified): that I would suggest that you address would be if there's any changes in the direction of the surface flow that would impact budding properties. Yeah, it's all [20:17] Chair (Planning Board): going to the same spot. Yeah, I had my head turned the other way, so I want to make sure that if you had a comment about that, I had the same question, Steven. Great, okay, escrow fee, escrow fee, right, so [20:32] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): so the project, it doesn't really have any complicated studies, and since the stormwater is going to be reviewed by NDP, by DP, is an escrow fee even needed, or do I have to formally [20:44] Chair (Planning Board): waive that? I think we do have to formally waive it, but it's a pretty, we ask for a justification and then we discuss it. Yeah, so like, yeah, another [20:55] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): oftentimes traffic gets reviewed by it, and there is no increase in traffic with this project, so employees are the same, the customers are the same, there is a [21:04] Chair (Planning Board): bigger building square footage, but yeah, I, we do have to formally waive it. I'm looking to Elias because I'm... [21:12] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, so anything that's in Chapter 16 when you're going through the submission requirements that you feel that you should not have to submit because it's either not applicable or it's covered by some other process, you can request a waiver. The more information we have to base that waiver off of, the better. Yeah. So if you just say, we want a waiver... [21:29] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Yeah, no, I'll give you some background for sure. So likewise, the performance guarantee, this has to do with if there was, like, public improvements like either landscaping in the right-of-way or a turn lane. I think that's what this is geared for, and obviously this project will not have any of that. So yeah. [21:50] Speaker H (unidentified): That feels like a pretty treat out the same way. I guess is justification. [21:54] Chair (Planning Board): It's it's the same process. Yeah, and yeah, in terms of confirming that, probably would be an easy justification based on what you just said. [22:02] Speaker G (unidentified): Although hand-in-hand with that is there's a requirement that sidewalks be provided within the growth area. So you would want to address that as well. [22:10] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): If there's, okay, that's okay, so take a look at that section and address it. Yeah, because there's no sidewalks to connect to, but that's traditionally been waived in other applications, I believe. [22:23] Speaker G (unidentified): Depends on the location, depends on the situation, so okay, we can we can talk about it, you can. [22:28] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Send me questions. All right, great, that's all been helpful. So then I, the last thing on my list here was I kind of lumped a bunch of things in together, which are the additional plans and studies that the board may ask for. It's the section 203d, which include the traffic study, which we already kind of talked about. So then there's a natural features plan, which I would understand if we were had a green site and we were going to put this building on it and there was some important natural features, but. This is not that. We do have some wetlands that were impacted, and we're actually getting a permit to DP for those, but that doesn't seem necessary. I was wondering what the board thinks about that. Is might. [23:19] Chair (Planning Board): You want that? Can you talk about where the wetlands are and in. [23:24] Speaker H (unidentified): Relationship to the site again, there's two little wetlands, there's one here that's been already. [23:29] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Impacted, and there's one over here that has been slightly impacted, and we're going to impact it just a little bit more. There are some wetlands that will remain down in here. [Speaker F (unidentified): So.] I guess, you know, if you were planning a larger project on a on a green field on an undisturbed site, I would understand a natural features plan. We will show the features that natural features on our plan, mm-hmm, you know, the wetlands is shown, the tree lines are shown, so just trying to avoid like a separate individual plan. Yeah, I think. [24:13] Chair (Planning Board): Documentation like the requirements for the site plan itself and having the existing conditions and everything noted, that's kind of baseline I think. Beyond that there is a question, so can you talk a little bit more about the process that already exists for the wetlands work? You mentioned something just now. Yes, so [24:37] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): obviously DP has jurisdiction over wetlands and the initial work with the previous owner they impacted some wetlands and it was non jurisdictional then they did this additional yard work and impacted more wetlands that should have received a permit and now with this project we're getting that an after-the-fact permit okay so then there'll be some slightly more just a little bit more wetland impact associated with that soil filter to the right side of the plan so in talking with them they understood the situation, understood that it was after the fact. They actually waived the need for a wetland report because they saw what the quality of the wetlands and that they were already impacted. So I didn't even have to provide them a wetland report, which is next on my list to talk about with you guys. So they're, they're good with what we're doing and we've justified the wetland [25:41] Speaker H (unidentified): impacts that have happened and they didn't see any problem with it. I imagine we would discuss [25:49] Chair (Planning Board): it during our conversations and might have you know findings in our record about the DEP permit. I think based on what you're saying now, I doubt that we would be asking for that additional information. That's a pretty unusual one for us to request beyond the typical, yeah, just site plan, yeah, saying that [26:14] Speaker J (unidentified): this project will not have an impact on the existing wetlands, is that it? We're so that [26:21] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): there's already been some wetlands impacted and we're going to do a little bit more to provide [26:25] Speaker J (unidentified): some stormwater management, but they were impacted by the project, by what's there now. Yes, in other words, what you're building new is not going to adversely affect, right, existing, right, that's all. Any [26:40] Chair (Planning Board): other thoughts from folks about where that conversation might go when we're [26:45] Speaker I (unidentified): In an actual site plan review, sort of, yes, but specifically with the soil filter number, I think it's the second one in the plan, east, right? Yeah, so tell me if this is correct. It's going to aggregate, you know, your stormwater, and then it's going to, via catch basin, go plan east to the right, over some riprap, it looks like, right? So, and because I'm trying to follow the contours, and this is the question, once it empties out of that catch basin, more or less, is it now going to existing site grades, or are you regrading in such a way as that water's gonna go somewhere else? [27:25] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): This is a low spot right here. Okay. And the water, the outlet to this low spot is this existing drain that goes into the public system. Got it, okay. So that whole, all that water that goes there [27:36] Speaker H (unidentified): is gonna go out that pipe. Okay. Yeah. [27:38] Speaker I (unidentified): Okay, cool, that answers that question. Thank you. So in certainly back to Claire's, so no, with that [27:48] Speaker G (unidentified): My main thought on that is that probably that analysis by the board would hinge on the documentation that's provided from D. Sure, the thoughts are on that. Yeah [27:57] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): Okay, so there was a couple more noise report. The use really isn't changing, matter of fact, some of the noise, some of the activity on boats that was happening outside is going inside, so we didn't see it, you know. Does the board feel like they would want a noise report for this [28:18] Chair (Planning Board): that seemed unreasonable? Typically I feel like when we've talked about expansions of business like this, we want some type of documentation and confirmation from the applicant of that assessment and discussing like the operational changes that might affect noise, but not necessarily asking for, unless there's yet, unless there's a ton of new outside equipment or anything like that. Great, so kind of similar, like if you in the application referencing in and saying operationally this is our what we [28:58] Speaker I (unidentified): believe is gonna happen, and I would just add to that too, because I wanted to circle back to the boats going in and out and exiting Pleasant Street, you mentioned that's not gonna be the intention, but that kind of confirmation would be welcome. [29:11] Speaker G (unidentified): I do want to just flag to you, and I know you know this, but as specific concerns come to light, like if a butters come and identify specific concerns, or the board starts looking at things differently, or I start looking at things differently, these determinations can change, but from an [29:23] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): initial standpoint. I appreciate the initial input. The last one I guess here year is a solid waste storage and removal plan. I'm going to show where dumpsters, they have dumpsters there now, and I'm going to show where they'll be. [29:43] Speaker H (unidentified): Great. Is that good enough? Yeah, and [29:45] Chair (Planning Board): sometimes if there's similarly information that is useful is if there's operational changes that would say, like, the dumpster is going to fill up twice as fast, and so it will get emptied twice as much. If you have an indication of that type of operational change, it'd be useful to be in the [30:01] Speaker H (unidentified): application narrative yeah I mean the whole thing with this project is the [30:06] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): operational thing is the same yeah it's just going from outside yeah it's gonna be contained so it shouldn't but we can confirm that of course yeah great that's [30:17] Chair (Planning Board): the end of my list I appreciate it okay anything else that has come to mind as we've been talking I [30:25] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): can't think of anything we're hoping we're hoping to be I guess the first meeting in November we have to submit a week from today I believe. That did land on election day so I asked you about that. Do you hold [30:45] Speaker H (unidentified): a meeting on election day? That's a good question. [30:48] Speaker G (unidentified): I haven't come to an answer on that so I apologize for that. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't. Obviously city hall is open on election day so yeah well yeah I just wasn't sure yeah [31:01] Speaker I (unidentified): seems you're planning on it I can be there we'll vote earlier don't worry [31:06] Mike Sabatini, engineer (Ian?): okay well good then I'll just plan on playing on that okay anything from you [31:38] Chair (Planning Board): Okay, up next we have a review of an application and site plan submitted by Trillium Engineering on behalf of Eastern Express Car Wash for a property at 131 Camden Street. If we could have folks who are representing this project come to the table, and if you could just say your name and your relationship to the project for the record, that would be a good start. Yes. Eric Duby. Sounds like you're on. Is that on? [32:13] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Yeah. Okay. I can't hear, so. Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering. Wonderful. [32:19] Chair (Planning Board): And thank you for joining us. we had a site walk earlier today with most of the board but it would be and you gave us a bit of an overview of the project then but i think for this public setting and for the recording if you could walk us through the proposal and we'll discuss each of the pieces of information that you submitted as you walk through them yes can do on that and elias i had sent a pdf [32:51] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Earlier, what's up, I had sent a PDF earlier. Do you need my laptop? Yeah, actually, I forgot my laptop. I was thinking I was in Bedford. My fault on that one. Feel free to kick it off. Yeah, okay, sorry about that. No worries. I almost had my laptop on my hand too, and I was like, no, I emailed Well, Dan, so it should be good. So that's my fault on that. That's okay. [33:13] Chair (Planning Board): Does everyone, has what they need up here? [33:17] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Yes. Yeah, okay. Just want to make sure the audience at home. [33:20] Chair (Planning Board): Totally. No, it's great to have the PDF. So we'll get that started. But I think you can, yeah, kick us off. [33:26] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Okay, sounds good. So as noted on site, we have two existing buildings. We have an automatic car wash building, which is perpendicular to Camden Street. And then we have a basically self-serve existing four-bay building. Both of those buildings are going to be removed, and we are also removing a bunch of pavement and asphalt on site, as noted on our, let me make sure I got the right number, as noted on drawing C-101. And C-101 is basically a layout, proposed site layout plan, which is going to be a new building, which is basically 62 by 75 feet. We have two automatic car wash bays, which will be adjacent to Camden Street or directly adjacent. And then we have essentially a mechanical equipment room in the center of that space. And then we have two self-serve bays. And those bays are going to be essentially this, they'll be in the 62 foot direction and they will be parallel with Camden Street. So right now one of one of the issues that we talked about was that you can see the automatic car wash bays from Camden Street, and that's going to be completely rotated so in the new configuration. We also discussed on site that we have essentially four curb cuts that are on the existing site, and we're going to be reducing the four curb cuts down to two curb cuts, and we're going to have essentially on the south side of the property, we're going to be having a 20-foot wide curb cut that has in only and the left hand side of that will be for stacking lanes into the car wash itself, and then the right hand side will be able to access the existing oil change building and also the vacuums and Then just the propane that's sale on site and in that lower area, and then the northern curb cut is going to be a little bit wider. Thanks, lies, and that's going to be exit out with turn left hand and a right turn dedicated turn lane on that. We are, as I mentioned before, we are reducing the pavement width at that southern property line, and we're going to be establishing a new ditch which shown on our grading plan, which is C102, and because we have an existing detention pond that we're going to be basically directing our storm water to that existing detention pond, so we have internal drainage and we have essentially this drainage at the edge of that southern curb cut that's going to be into that ditch on the northern side of the property. We're going to be reworking grading on that as well, and we're going to be putting in an actual curb to be able to direct the storm water into our site and then catch it in existing catch basins and then into that existing detention pond. We have, so basically we're putting the new building, we're establishing in a 16 foot proposed setback from the property line on Camden Street, and within that we're going to be establishing some landscaping between the two curb cuts and in front of our proposed building, and putting in there is a pole that's in back of the automatic car wash structure now, and we're going to be removing that overhead pole, putting in a new transformer, surrounding that with landscaping, and then be able to connect the two buildings to that power. As far as utilities, existing stormwater, we have existing sewer line we're going to connect to with an oil water separator that handles the basically the actual car wash drainage, and that's connected in the sewer system, and then we are going to be connecting our water line basically into the existing water line as well. We have a site retaining wall that because of the grade change from where you would access the vacuums, so that'll be on essentially the east side of the new car wash building, separate retaining wall from the foundation of the structure, and then we'll be able to, people can swing back around and be able to utilize that on a concrete pad, access the vacuums, shown five vacuums, and then we also have a couple of spaces for employee parking as well, and a we have a little bit of an area of a grassed area down downhill that with a bike rack and then a grassed area beyond that. Besides that we're showing i think we're showing snow storage essentially off the side, we know there's an embankment off to the side of that existing pavement that we're going to be utilizing. We are raising the grades and reconfiguring the grades down by the existing oil change building and down in the propane area because it's just a little bit too low. We want to be able to direct water away from both buildings and also be able to capture that and put it into the existing detention pond. We also have shown on the south side of the pavement we have a connectivity for the proposed Harbor Trail from the existing sidewalk on Camden Street and as shown on basically the right-hand side we can basically about a five foot wide walkway that is able to be able to go over go down that little incline and then around the existing oil change building and around the detention pond and then and then be able to access the harbor trail beyond that as far as lighting one of the one of the things that we had just we worked with our lighting consultant on that off I'm sorry as a request and we developed a photometrics plan that was just submitted and it's basically going to be building mounted lighting cut off lighting and no overhead pole lighting beyond that within the existing property and we're doing that to meet the ordinance and just cut down on the overall reflectivity of the lighting off-site oh thanks appreciate that [Speaker F (unidentified): forgive] me i'm just looking for oh there it is right there a bit [Speaker F (unidentified): more there] we go so i've got the layout plan the c101 shown here just for reference on that so beyond that i think we've covered most of the items from the site walk and most of the items from our site plan so i'm happy to open it up to questions folks [42:07] Chair (Planning Board): on the board have any questions about that [42:09] Planning Board member: presentation i have just a quick question on c 102 around the developed area i just can't find it on the key it says sf around so sf is silt fence silt fence yeah so silt fencing is basically [42:30] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: shown on c300 so that's used during construction and then will be removed for permanent erosion so it's an erosion control measure so it's either a silt sock or a silk fence or sometimes people use like stump grindings things like that in this case here we're providing a silt fence [42:51] Chair (Planning Board): Could you talk a little bit more about the oil-water separator? And you said it's tying into the existing stormwater. [43:00] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Existing sewer line. The sewer line, sorry. Sewer line. So the existing oil-water separator that's out there now. So it's basically car wash. Obviously, they have suds, they have oils that can come off, things like that. So whenever you have those type of entities or garages, for instance, you need an oil-water separator. And so what an oil water separator does, it's similar to a septic tank, has baffles in it. A baffle is a vertical structure that basically is able to separate any actual, like, clean water versus dirtier water, and then you have to maintain that every so often, but you have settlement that happens within the actual tank. So we, the car washes that I've done before, mandate that you have to have an oil water separator in there. So we're providing, again, we're replacing it with a new one versus the one that's there now, but we'll be connecting it the same way. So the one that is [43:58] Chair (Planning Board): there now has the same connection as you're planning, correct? Yeah, okay. [44:05] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Yeah, they don't typically want you to put those into a storm water system because of that, was oils and things. I mean, even to know some, yeah, some of those things are, yeah, some of those stormwater infiltration ponds are meant for that. It's not really meant for a heavy use. [44:28] Chair (Planning Board): And this is, bless you. Oh, bless you. I wasn't sure what that noise was. This is a topic from the site visit, but if you could just quickly talk through, there's some planned removal of trees on the site. Could you talk through that a [44:47] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: little bit? Yeah, so we need to remove a few trees essentially on that, the new re-ditching of that, which is on the south side of the property, and we have to remove a little bit for the regrading on that north side too, where we're regrading that with the, with the new curbing, just to rebuild that slope a little bit better than what it is now. I mean, it's kind of beat up right now, so we've got to reestablish that with some riprap. [45:19] Chair (Planning Board): And then a bit down on the eastern side [45:23] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: of the property as well? Did I mishear that? The southeastern side. Southeastern side. Yes. Really for the regrading into the existing pond. [45:35] Chair (Planning Board): Other questions from the board right now? I'm just curious. [45:41] Speaker J (unidentified): Well, anybody else knows what's the purpose of the stone lined ditch is that there already? [45:48] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: No, that will be re-established or established, I should say, so stone line ditch, so you, if you ever look at the side of the road and ditches in general, sometimes they'll choose to do stone lines, sometimes they'll choose to do grass line ditches. Grass line ditches work good to basically stop erosion within the ditch itself and maintain that slope in the width. It works for a little bit, but then when you get to the end where you're actually dispersing the water into that, you really want to get introduce a stone line ditch to help [46:25] Speaker J (unidentified): with some of that runoff. Okay, and one other question, I know the proposed harbor trail is within your property line. Am I correct? Yes. How does that, I mean, is the Harvard Commission planning on building the trail through your property? How's that going to work? [46:53] Speaker H (unidentified): Do you know if all these microphones are on? That's a good question. Give it a [46:57] Alvin Chase, president of ownership group (car wash): little tap. Let's check and see if this one's on. I will. Sounds like it's on. Is it on Alvin Chase, and will be the president of the ownership group that's going to own and operate the car wash. Relative to the Harbor Trail, we have had preliminary discussions with Julie Hashim and Elias on getting access to the Harbor, expanding the Harbor Trail from where it currently is now. I think we're marginally beyond the brainstorming part. We met on site the other day and talked about having some type of viewing location for lack of it, you know, those of you that were there today, many made comment that it's the nicest view of any car wash or any quick lube in America, so how can we expand it, how we can we contribute to the harbour trail with that site, so there have been discussions about having it run along the harbor edge from the Maverick Street intersection, if you will. That may come to fruition in the future, but a short-term solution to get people access to the harbor would be to come down the edge of the property line. I had shared with Julie and Elias that both personally and professionally I've been involved in land conservation and public access for a long time and that cooperation with the city to have a harbour trail is something that we're very willing to have a conversation about, so I don't think anybody yet knows what it's gonna look like behind the quick boob like on that flat that you saw, you know, is they're gonna be a picnic table or is they're gonna be a And again, it's preliminary because there Are questions that still need to be answered, but my understanding would be of other pieces of the harbor trail is that there would actually be an easement that would be on the property to allow access to the harbor across that site. [49:23] Speaker J (unidentified): It is the car wash with the best view in the state of Maine, maybe in the country. I don't know. It's pretty nice. It could be. Okay, thank you. [49:37] Chair (Planning Board): This is just a detail question that maybe is to staff about the site plan itself. I find it useful for our conversations in understanding that 's a possibility, but actually reflecting it on the official site plan, do you see any flags on that, or is it just a, since it says proposed, it's not a problem? [50:00] Speaker G (unidentified): I wouldn't say there's any problem with that. I think we've, as Alvin said, we've established that there's a possibility that it is possible to do such a thing, but that's about it. [50:10] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, that's all. And because the operative word being proposed on the actual site plan. [50:15] Speaker G (unidentified): Yes, it's definitely a non-binding notation. Yeah, great. [50:17] Chair (Planning Board): Just check it, because it's obviously related, but adjacent in a way that might not be necessary. Cool. Was that your question, Pat? Do you have any more follow-ups? [50:32] Speaker J (unidentified): I guess it'll be more direct in the future, but if that trail does go through, you'll probably need some landscape buffering between the trail and your facilities, right? [50:47] Alvin Chase, president of ownership group (car wash): I don't know if I would describe it as buffering, necessarily. I mean, I picture, and again, it's in cooperation with the city and what's in the best interest of the citizens that are going to use it, but I would picture a walkway of four or five feet with some type of with some type of landscaping I don't think I can't imagine that we're gonna plant a row of trees that makes it a secluded walk through the woods off Camden Street to get there but to delineate it such that it doesn't appear as if you're walking through somebody's parking lot right because We yeah exactly I mean we want, given the limitations of the site, we want it to be the best possible experience that it can be, right? And, you know, maybe we squint as consumers. [51:44] Speaker J (unidentified): Or is that up to the city, possibly? [51:46] Alvin Chase, president of ownership group (car wash): Yeah, maybe we, you know. [51:47] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: I think it would be up to the Harbor Trail people, honestly. That's really what they're envisioning and what they want to do for that. So it's really going to be an access easement, and we're going to be, because we don't want to necessarily mandate what the trail people would want to see. But they do have access through a piece that certainly is going to be paved. And then beyond that, honestly, I think we would step back and let them kind of handle that. [52:12] Chair (Planning Board): Other questions from folks right now? [52:15] Speaker I (unidentified): Just a question for you. Eventually, is now a time or a little bit later to discuss just orientation and what that means for some of the comments that were previously raised? Or are you going to get to that in a later point? [52:28] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, so the first order of business is to vote on the completeness of the application, and there are a few sub-votes that we'll need to go through on that because there are a few requests from the applicant for waivers on some application material. So we have a staff report about completeness that we can go through. I we can start on that now if people don't have other kind of clarifying questions for this moment. Okay Yes, so from Oh Lucky. Oh, no. Sorry. I was incorrect. That's not the one. It's this one dated Prepared by Elias dated September 24th 2026 SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REPORT. THE ONE YOU HAVE IN YOUR HANDPAD, I THINK, IS THE DRAFT FINDINGS. SO I THINK EVERYONE, DO YOU HAVE ONE ON YOUR DESK? OKAY. YEAH. IT WOULD HAVE COME IN OUR ORIGINAL PACKET. Okay, so this is a, I'm speaking process aloud a little more than I maybe even normally would because we're, we have recently adopted new processes for site plan reviews, including the option to have a staff report for initial review of completeness. So Elias, is there anything about this report ahead of our conversation about waivers that you think is important for us to go through? [54:25] Speaker G (unidentified): So I would just flag initially that the original report had a few things on there that have since been provided, including the lighting photometric plan and site distances for all entrances and exits were provided in comments from Eric that are part of the board packet. [54:43] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, okay, great. So I think only one of those was actually, oh yeah, that was the last, the site distance, this is the last one, great, has been provided. So that leaves two waiver requests that we should discuss and vote on. The first is a trip generation report, which is about traffic and trip generations, of the amount of traffic on and off of the site. We did have some initial information about that in the application. I, without wanting to speak for you, can you say briefly with the kind of justification for that waiver? [55:29] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Request, so the waiver request is based on the fact that essentially we have four automatic bays now and one single automatic, I'm sorry, one automatic bay for self-serve bays, and we are basically going from there to two automatic bays and two self-serve bays. So we're at, we're reducing the total number of bays. It's hard to distinguish whether the automatics are going to be used more than, I think on certain times or, you know, certain days that we don't have rain or something for a little while and In the winter it tends to tick up a little bit more, but overall I think the use will be roughly about the [56:10] Chair (Planning Board): Same traffic wise, and the way that those reports are created is based on the use. So given that the use is exactly the same, that's correct, it would be logical that the fewer bays would correct. [56:22] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: I don't think they really distinguish too much between the automatic and the self-serve. [56:27] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, okay, we could do these in a chunk, but we could also just vote individually on the waiver. So I move that we request this, we accept this request for a waiver for a chip trip generation report. Any conversation? All those in favor? Okay, so we can wave that, passed 5 to nothing. And then the second is stormwater and drainage plans. We've talked about this a little bit, but if you could again for the record just talk [57:03] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: About the request. Yes, essentially we're reducing the overall impervious, we're, We're redirecting it back into, or some of it, whether it was missed or changed from the original, I'm not quite certain. But we are certainly redirecting it to where, in my opinion, it was intended to go, specifically the stormwater. We're not asking for a waiver from a stormwater plan because we're essentially giving you a stormwater plan saying, look, we're providing curbing, we're providing a new ditch and things like that to basically redirect this stormwater to the existing stormwater detention pond. I think the request is really just from doing a full-blown stormwater, essentially report and design that we already, we're just trying to reuse the existing in place. [57:59] Chair (Planning Board): And we do, yeah, we have plans about the changes in elevations and flows within the within the plans that you provided. Are there any clarifying questions or wish for additional information on this topic from folks on the board? I do, so I just want to make sure we are able to because the impervious surface, so the thing that's relevant to us is that the amount of water that leaves the site does not increase over the course of the redevelopment. And I think the main thing that I want to make sure we're able to talk through, because the impervious surface is relevant to that, but also the flows. Flows, so I believe that the information we have about the regrading will allow us to kind of confirm what could be called like an apples to apples conversation about the actual flow of the water. Does that feel reasonable to other folks as well? That because I think the thing that is the pitch of it's less impervious surface, yes, I hear that. I think also they're changing the actual, the change of the grade would have an effect potentially on what is shed off of the property, just an effect I feel. That in terms of the waiver, I feel like the information that they have provided to us will allow us to have that same conversation of understanding if new water would leave the property because we're able to trace, we're able to understand how the regrading would affect the stormwater. So I'm, I'm arguing and I'm just saying this out loud. [59:50] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: I can give you a brief little storm water thing and this is where it gets a little confusing to the lay person because they don't, all they don't understand the little ins and outs of this. So the storm water, when we say increase, it's a little misleading because it's not just the amount of storm water, it's the timing of the storm water that's really, that's a critical thing of how you, how you determine that. So when you have, you look at these type two 24-hour storms, you have this big curve where. You have this it coming through. I don't want to get too technical here, but basically what you're doing is you can, if you hold back water in a detention pond, you can change that curve because now you're holding back water so it doesn't, it doesn't leave on our three or four, which a lot of it, if it's sheet flow like this, it's automatically within minutes it's going to get down into or let's just say off-site neighbors property or to the resource itself. In this case here, we're collecting the stormwater, holding it back so it's gonna outlet at a, at a, I guess a longer time at a smaller rate. So that's what we're talking about in general when we talk about stormwater. So you can play around with that timing a little bit, add smaller pipes to release water, and I'm not talking about just our site but any site, and that's how you get a decrease in stormwater to the neighbor's property. It doesn't mean that the amount's probably still the same. It's just the timing is going to be a little bit different in the amount you let out. So, for instance, if you let it out of an 8-inch pipe, it's going to go flow more than if you let it out in a 6-inch pipe. [1:01:26] Planning Board member: Is the snow melt also going to that same drainage area? [1:01:33] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Some of it is, some of it, some of it is not, but that will be over time, the snow melt itself, because it's not going to all melt within 24 hour period. Yeah, just along that note too, like [1:01:50] Speaker G (unidentified): when we're evaluating and all the applications that the board has evaluated, we're typically looking at cubic feet per second of runoff, and so that's kind of what Eric's getting at is the rate of flow being more important than the total quantity of water that's moving. [1:02:07] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, but Eric, to your earlier comment on curbing, so you could reduce the impervious surface, but if you're changing grading and then curbing, you could have a net increase in flow leaving the site, just depending on how you're grading the site, right? So I guess that is the ultimate question. It is. Yeah, okay. [1:02:28] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Okay. If typically the way that you do it, well, there's multiple ways of doing it, but I mean, now we're introducing underground under storage parking, for instance, you know, I don't like that as much because I like the openness of open ponds and ditches because then you can maintain them a lot easier and see what's going on. But sometimes you have to use them in cities and things. But in this case here, if you detain it, which we are with an existing pond and you direct it to that pond that you're detaining it, and that's really what you're trying to do, and then and then slow that increase out so it doesn't just rip down that curb line and then just blow out at the end of the parking lot. [1:03:10] Speaker J (unidentified): Correct, is that we can get the information we need from other materials that have been submitted in regard to grading and leveling and whatever else. [1:03:27] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Correct. C-102 shows our proposed grading and drainage plan. [1:03:31] Chair (Planning Board): Okay. In combination with the fact that they're actually reducing the amount of impervious surface on the site. [1:03:37] Speaker J (unidentified): Correct. Yeah. I'm fine with that. Okay. [1:03:42] Chair (Planning Board): Any other questions? All right. Then I move that we approve this request for a waiver for additional stormwater and drainage information than what we already have. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Okay, that passes unanimously as well. Okay, on that note, I also move that we find the application for 131 Camden Street site plan to be complete. Any discussion? Okay, all those in favor? All right, so complete, step one, wonderful. So now having done the presentation and completeness review, I'm gonna open a public hearing, which has been noticed, I believe. Where's my agenda? Yes, okay. So I'm gonna open a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak to this application, they can come to the podium and share their name for the record. We did get an email comment that I think everyone on the board would have received as well. Okay. And everyone was able to read it for concerns from the public? Yes. I think the high level things are noise, lighting, and some questions about the wastewater from the wash bays, so the full email will be part of the record here, but those are the kind of high-level questions I believe you all also received that email. We did. Okay, sure, to give me the name and the date? Sure. It's from Melissa Statman, S-T-A-T-M-A-N, and it's from September 29th. Okay, hearing no one here at the podium, I'm going to close the public hearing for this application. I will give you a chance, since you have had an opportunity to review the email, we've gone through a couple of these concerns, but if there's anything directly that you'd like to address from the abutter, this isn't a butter, correct, yes, about noise and lighting, it's also part of our conversation generally, so we can just dive into it. Yep, so I think we talked about the [1:06:21] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Lighting about the fact that we're doing building mounting cutoff lights, which is not what we have there now. We talked about the basically the oil water separator to handle wastewater on that, and then the only other was noise about I think the probably the self-serve wash bays and they face right now, they basically the tunnels face towards Camden Street, so the anything any noise that echoes will be directed right back to Camden Street, and of course that's both the wash and the vacuums. The vacuums are gonna be actually down a level now, so I think there's gonna be a little bit of noise, attenuation just from the existing retaining wall, or I'm sorry, the new retaining wall we're installing. And then of course the wash bays, the automatics are nearest to Camden Street, and the self-serve are away from that, but they are turned 90 degrees, so I think any of the noise is gonna be dissipated by that, plus the fact that the tunnels are longer than what we have now for the [1:07:27] Chair (Planning Board): automatic wash bays and you had already talked a little bit about the wastewater from the wash bays and the approaches that the like just standard ways that car washes deal with, yes, correct, okay. [1:07:53] Speaker J (unidentified): When there is one day, I mean, playing your car stereo with full blast so that you can hear the music of the noise of walking your car. Something that never occurred to me. [1:08:07] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Well, I mean, there are concrete block walls, so there's nothing really to protect the noise. So if somebody is blasting their stereo there, I mean, it will echo straight out like a tunnel. So it's unfortunate that people do that at that time of night or morning, [1:08:22] Speaker I (unidentified): but unfortunately it does happen. You mentioned this on the site review, so I think it would be worth mentioning here as well, the hours of operation was something, and because that was brought up in the email of the complaints, so just give you the opportunity to talk about that. Yeah, I can tell you and there [1:08:41] Alvin Chase, president of ownership group (car wash): was a another butter that came to the site walk this afternoon and one of his concerns was hours of operation and he said, look at it's 24 hours, who washes their car at 2 a.m. I can tell you that we have not, we have not established hours of operation, but I can absolutely tell you that it's not, it's not 24 hours. We have tentatively picked a tenner of 10 or 11 o'clock stop time. We can finalize it if it's important for your process fairly quickly, but with everything else that we've got going on, we've committed to one another that it's a, that it's not 24 hours, and it's, it's more reasonable for all of us, the community, and everybody else. I don't want my phone to go off at 2 30 in the morning because somebody lost a quarter. Fair. [1:09:42] Chair (Planning Board): Any other initial questions? I think next we could go into a draft of findings that Elias had put together, which we don't need to read word for word, but I think if you could go through kind of an overview of how, sorry, an overview of this process and the draft that you have put together so that [1:10:08] Speaker G (unidentified): we can walk through it for the record. Absolutely, so you'll see in this draft findings report all of the normal standards under chapter 16, and then you know the narratives related to those. In addition to those, there are two other analyses of zoning requirements for non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures that are relevant to this project. The non-conforming use determination is a determination that's made by staff in the city in Rockland. Non-conforming uses are not allowed to be expanded, and what that means is we consider the total square footage of the non-conforming use in its existing condition as well as the intensity of the use. So given that this car wash is going from five bays to four, and the square footage is approximately a 200 square foot reduction of use, staff determined that there is no expansion of a non-conforming use. I will highlight for you that there is a typo in my zoning analysis for the non-conforming use. The total square footage of the existing condition should be four thousand eight hundred and thirty five square feet, not two thousand eight hundred and thirty five square feet, so we get to roughly, you know, 150, 200 square foot reduction in the square. The second piece of the zoning analysis which the board will need to consider is the non-conforming structure analysis. The way that non-conforming structures work is that if they are removed or destroyed below 50% of their property value, the property owner can reconstruct or move the non-conforming structure provided that it is as conforming as possible to the dimensional standard. So what that means, what that, what that means is that, right, like you have a non-con, you have a structure that perhaps existed before the zoning ordinance was passed. The zoning ordinance gets passed and now your structure is non-conforming. You don't have to tear your structure down right away to get into conformance with the zoning ordinance, and that allows the property owner certain rights in terms of if they want to relocate the structure on their property, like in this case, or rebuild it. And the way this ordinance is written is that when you relocate or rebuild a structure, it doesn't have to fully meet the standards of the zoning ordinance, but it has to meet them as far as possible, as far as practically possible. So and it can and it cannot increase the nonconformity. So for example, for example, we have two nonconformities here that will be, well, three nonconformities here, but two that are relevant to this analysis. One is the minimum building height. There's a two-story requirement for structures on Camden Street. The existing structure does not have two stories, so the analysis hinges on whether it's practically possible or practically necessary for the new structure to have two structures, or whether the one story can proceed as indicated. The same with the design requirements. There are requirements that there'd be certain variations in the facade for facades of a certain length that front on the street. Again, the existing structure does not have any of those, and that analysis can hinge on whether or not you believe that those sort of design elements would be necessary in the new structure. And also you can take into account, you know, the improvement from the previous condition to the existing condition from an aesthetic design perspective. It would be hard to argue that the proposal is not a improvement over the existing condition of the car wash. So I'll let Eric sort of explain the practical implications of the design and the two-story limitation with the, with the business model, the financials, all of that, why that would be practically difficult or practically impossible for the car wash to proceed should it meet those requirements, and then the board can proceed with that analysis. So That was a mouthful. Any questions about that? [1:14:45] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, the only thing I would say is that part of the practical conversation is starting from a baseline of the use of a car wash. So we were saying at the site, it's not about what's practically possible generally for a house, it's specifically for their use that they have the right to. [1:15:04] Speaker G (unidentified): And then the other standard that the board will have to consider is the front setback, and that's a slightly different analysis. The Camden Street overlay allows the board to approve a larger maximum setback if the applicant provides a landscaped open green space or public amenity, and so that's what the applicant's proposing. So those are the pieces that are a little bit different from what you might normally see, and then the rest of it should be reasonably familiar. We've covered a lot of it. Related to traffic, the reduction in bays, the similar, the lack of a change of use, there weren't any significant natural features that could be identified within the development area. There's a brook that runs to the north along that property line that's reasonably far from the development area, and then obviously there's the coastal bluffs and shoreline which are quite far from the development area, and then landscaping and screening. The applicants proposing two trees and a shrub as well as ground plantings on the existing or along the property line that fronts on Camden Street. Those will satisfy the requirements of chapter 16 for buffering and screening. Stormwater management, I think we covered accurately and with enough depth to proceed. We'll be looking at the curbing and the contours in addition to the stormwater management plan that Trillium has provided for us. Sediment and erosion control, we discussed it a little bit on site. There's not really real concern within the actual development area. There are other areas on the site that could be of concern, but not affected by this proposal. And public utility infrastructure, no change really to the existing condition. Community safety, there's fire hydrants, adequate access. One thing I did want to highlight too is the improvement of the curb openings along the frontage. That is a significant improvement for that site and will increase traffic safety and also walkability and aesthetic quality. Yeah, that whole curb open, you know, much of that curb is currently open, and so the proposed plan will introduce a just the entrance curb opening and the exit curb opening with everything else being landscaped and buffered in between. Exterior lighting, nine total exterior lights. I did want to clarify whether it was one fixture type or two. There's two different labels on the plan, but they both seem to have the same specifications, and only one cut sheet was provided, and that cut sheet was conforming to the ordinance, full cut-off fixture. Upon initial review of the photometric plan, it didn't appear that there was any light trespass beyond what is acceptable for the foot candle thresholds on abutting commercial properties or on the abutting right-of-way. For public right-of-way and commercial properties, you can have up to one foot candle across the property line. For residential, it's only 0.1. And so I think we got up to like 0.7 on the northern boundary but well below the required limit. Noise and vibration, we didn't get a any sort of study related to that, but we discussed it quite a bit on site, and I think the conversation sort of hinges on the fact that it is probably certainly an improvement over the existing layout and noise situation. Architectural and visual appearance, touched on that a little bit with the nonconformity conversation. Again, it's a [1:18:48] Speaker J (unidentified): car wash so what would you typically expect when you're driving along camden street you will see this west elevation i've seen the western side of the building yes yeah because it's underneath what 's the building that's going to be constructed out of [1:19:10] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: basically CMU block. Block. Yeah. I mean, that's most resistant. I mean, it will be a nicer block than what's there now, but it's... I think we're doing a split-face block too on that, but you really want that for the waterproofing details for the structure. For instance, you don't want to be using wood products. Very hard to waterproof, and then other products are difficult beyond that. It's [1:19:42] Alvin Chase, president of ownership group (car wash): similar to if you get an opportunity to go on the site, it's similar to the existing quick lube that's behind, and it's also very similar to the building that the city has in a Quince Cemetery and [1:20:00] Speaker G (unidentified): Then the performance guarantee is similar to a conversation we had about another project. Though the performance guarantee is required when an applicant is doing conducting public improvements in the right-of-way and where there's no sidewalks exist you have to require you have to construct sidewalks there are existing sidewalks the applicants improving the existing condition. Previously that was a sort of weighing of whether the sidewalk should be mandated by the board or it appears in the proposed plan that sidewalks are planned to be constructed. [1:20:46] Chair (Planning Board): If we're moving through just the structure of the findings of fact, I think a good place to start would be to talk about the dimensional standards and talking about the practically possible nonconformities. Does that seem reasonable? And then we can ask specific questions about standards as we get to them. Okay so yeah I think it would make sense if we just went through kind of each one and you shared the applications perspective of why the proposal when not fully conforming is the fully practical application. So let's start with the front setback. So this is actually from the overlay zone. So the front setback as a maximum would be 10 feet. You're proposing 20 feet with some green space. I know we have the ability to wave that given some green space, but I'm also curious from a safety perspective, the placement of that building and the setback choice there is that, is there a relationship between the traffic flow and where the buildings able to sit. Yes so we're actually showing a 16 foot [1:22:09] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: proposed setback which is on that see 101 mm-hmm it's kind of just right of where it says us route 1 on Camden Street which is sorry I forgot I have the screen right here. So I know it's not 16 and 20 aren't that much different but I just want to make sure we're talking the same language on that we're allowed [1:22:35] Chair (Planning Board): allowed to the allowance within the ordinances that we can allow up to 20 feet [1:22:42] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Okay so with that we wanted to provide some plantings a little bit of buffer between the building and just the sidewalk it looks a little bit better and then the other piece of it is for people pulling in you don't want them especially with the car wash to just try to figure it out pretty quickly and have to take an immediate left into that. So we wanted to give them just a little bit more buffer so that their tail end isn't hanging out into Camden Street in general so between those two things Then having a conversation with Elias, I mean, our preference probably would have been more like 20, but the existing building is roughly around 16 feet, so we wanted to essentially maintain with what we had and also provide that landscaping. So those are the reasons that we chose to the 16 feet. [1:23:32] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, for from my point of view, the traffic flow alone for the orientation of a car wash and wanting to have those bays feels like it's a practical reason to have that setback a little farther, and then with the addition of the green space that is kind of our mechanism for being able to say that's an acceptable non-conformity. We don't need to vote individually on these, do we, or is it maybe best to? [1:23:58] Speaker G (unidentified): I would vote overall on this section of standards, right? So, and if there's one that there's dissent on or there's one that's particularly contentious, you could call that out specifically. If you're all in agreement that everything is as practically conforming as possible, then you could probably put them all together into one motion. Okay. [1:24:22] Chair (Planning Board): Any follow-up questions from folks on that one in particular? Okay, the next one I've got is the minimum building height, the two stories versus one story. [1:24:34] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: So practicality of having a second story above a car wash is the issue is you're not going to do residential, you're not going to do business, just you know from a practical standpoint people are not going to essentially let's just say you know I guess have be a tenant to that sort of space, noise, moisture, things like that, you know we have moisture control issues and stuff. I mean the height of the building, it's not like very squatty, we still have high overhead doors because of you know what we're looking for and the eaves are high, so it's not like it's a small squatty one-story building, it's got pretty decent mass on that, but I'd say that probably the most practical reason is the fact that it's it's a car wash and you just it's just not practical to do two stories on that. [1:25:30] Speaker I (unidentified): Enough said, I would imagine your neighbors on the opposite side of the street would also appreciate that given the ocean is directly behind you, so I'm sure it's a [1:25:44] Chair (Planning Board): Win, that's a good point on that. Great, that does. So I, it seems like we don't have any objections to that practical point of view. The one, the one right above this, actually I'm realizing, is not listed as our planning board approval required, but the is actually not met as currently proposed, which is the water view. Could we talk a little bit about that and the nuances of the asterisk and what we're able to even talk about there? Because my understanding is that the proposal would reduce the current amount of water view. Is that accurate? Because of the orientation of the building? That was my... [1:26:31] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, so I mean, this is a little bit of a tough one because there's not really a water view on that side anyway because of the trees. The ordinance refers to structures and you're not allowed to increase the nonconformity. So I would, if we're able to, I mean, this would require that the building be moved 10 feet back, which would affect the traffic and circulation potentially negatively. That is the standard that's in the ordinance. And so I haven't been able to see a way to better strike that balance. [1:27:15] Chair (Planning Board): A better way than? [1:27:17] Speaker G (unidentified): And a better way than moving the building back to fully conform with the water view section. [1:27:23] Chair (Planning Board): And do we understand how much of a move that would have to be? Sorry if I'm missing some numbers here. [1:27:31] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: It looks like it'd be about 10 feet. [1:27:34] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah. We have a 40 foot corridor where a 50 foot corridor previously existed. Right. [1:27:39] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Sorry. And the corridor on that side, most of it is, I mean, you have the view of the, well,, at least right now, of the mobile oil change building and a bunch of trees that are on that side in general, which I guess technically we're pulling down a couple of the Norway, or I'm sorry, the hardwoods against that side. And so I guess we are increasing that a little bit. And that's to do that grading on that northern edge. northeastern edge so [1:28:20] Chair (Planning Board): our I'm hearing myself echo again sorry it's distracting a little bit but this is not this is not a we are able to waive this situation in my understanding correctly yeah nor are we able to say something about how practical it is because it's the increasing the non-conformity to be the [1:28:46] Speaker G (unidentified): ordinance does not allow the new structure to be more non-conforming than it was previously okay [1:28:51] Chair (Planning Board): And it sounds like maybe you have discussed this already in terms of how the traffic would be affected, but from the applicant's point of view, that 10 feet, how does that affect the rest of your, if we're not able to say that the building can sit where it is now, is there a recourse that works for you guys? [1:29:14] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: We are going to lose one row of stacking because it would be basically 20 feet is roughly what you have for a vehicle length. We have four vehicles shown on the south side of the proposed building. If you go to 3.5 because you reduce it by 10 feet, it is not 3.5 because the cars are going to be reduced by that full. [1:29:42] Chair (Planning Board): Oh, so when you say stacking, you mean like queuing to go into the, queuing, correct. Yeah, okay. [1:29:47] Planning Board member: Yeah. And I'm confused. 10 feet in which direction? [1:29:53] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: So, yeah, so basically on the north side, plan north of this, right now we're about, right now that existing single automatic bay car wash is further plan south. [1:30:08] Speaker G (unidentified): You have that dash line, though? [1:30:11] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Yes, the dash line. That's a good point. [1:30:13] Speaker G (unidentified): So we're going back to that dash line. [1:30:15] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Yeah, so this dashed line is the 50 foot and the 50 foot is really from our property line even though the corridor extends into the property north, but we don't control that property, so but the 50 foot on our property would be to this line here. [1:30:34] Planning Board member: Yeah, so and that's pushing the building this way down, yeah, plan south, but it would still be trees that they'd be able to see if it moved down 10 feet, that'd still be trees, that's, I mean, there's. [1:30:55] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Some trees, there's a little bit of water view and I don't know what the intent of the ordinance is, honestly, so it's hard for me to come in into Rockwood and tell people, well, this was the intent or whatever else, I don't, I don't want to do that, but I mean the intent, I'm assuming the intent is not for people driving by because you don't want them stopping and looking, so it's either bicyclists or pedestrians, I mean I shouldn't say that, it could be adjacent owners as well, that's the third we've had. A lot of conversations about the. [1:31:28] Speaker G (unidentified): Camden Street overlay because there's several sort of design based regulations including the second story piece that are don't perfectly map on to certain types of projects that want to happen in that area and a lot of the original considerations around the Camden Street overlay were around walkability, around aesthetic quality, sort of improving the strip type of development in area, so I. [1:31:57] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: think Eric's probably exactly right I think part of it is the fact that working with the Harbor Trail people we're trying to actually give a viewpoint out and back of all this building instead of on the route one [1:32:11] Speaker G (unidentified): One side, yeah, and certainly, I mean, given that it would be that, I think a lot of those regulations could use a little bit more flexibility in terms of how they're, how they're applied. I think, for example, if a harbor trail were provided, perhaps there would be some ability to be more lenient in other regards, but [1:32:31] Chair (Planning Board): in my understanding correctly, that we actually are not able to be lenient in this moment ourselves, even if we disagree with, even if we can guess at the spirit [1:32:40] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: spirit of the ordinance, correct. I don't know exactly how it's written. I mean, it does, there have to be an established view corridor right now, or just in general? So if you, for instance, if you're looking at trees, do you, is that, is the ordinance still worded in the same way? [1:33:00] Speaker G (unidentified): I mean so it's right in the we have this is actually verbatim from the languages parcels of 150 feet or more of street frontage that proposing new development subject to site plan review shall provide a view to the water that is no less than 50 feet wide and is unobstructed by [1:33:15] Alvin Chase, president of ownership group (car wash): any structures. Got it, so it's a view to the water. So the ordinance reads that a third of your frontage needs to have a view of the water, assuming you add 150 square feet. Yeah, I guess [1:33:29] Speaker J (unidentified): that is what that says. It really doesn't make sense to add that ordinance at this point. What the city is trying to accomplish would have to have been done a long time ago. [1:33:44] Chair (Planning Board): Well, that's, that's part of what we're saying, is that currently this site, the 50 feet is met because of the orientation of the building, right? If it were not, that, the problem is that this new development makes the current condition more non-conforming, correct? And that's the issue. Yeah, if it were not currently 10 feet, sorry, I think Claire [1:34:19] Speaker G (unidentified): is exactly right, that if the existing condition was such that it wasn't conforming, we'd be talking about the same sort of analysis we did for the other pieces, where it can be as conforming as practically possible. Where it's fully conforming right now, you can't take something that's fully conforming and make it non-conforming. [1:34:38] Speaker J (unidentified): Is it fully conforming right now to that, to that standard, to that particular standard? But the whole structure itself is really not conforming to what the city is looking for today, but [1:34:51] Chair (Planning Board): There you are. Yeah, but we need to take each the way it's written, we need to take each of them. We need to take each standard as its own individual thing. [1:35:02] Speaker I (unidentified): Can I ask you a question from the actual construction side of this? The bays got longer, assuming for equipment, things of that nature. You guys know the design better than we do. Is there any universe in which those bays shorten by five feet, and then the building goes five feet plant south, and there you go. You got your tent, or are you maxed out in terms of your footprint? [1:35:23] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: No, the 62 feet. So the actual bays are 60 feet and then you have to put in essentially the one foot for the walls themselves at the ends. [1:35:32] Speaker I (unidentified): That's why we're at 62. So you have no tolerance from a construction standpoint? [1:35:36] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Not on the building, unfortunately. I [1:35:43] Speaker J (unidentified): understand we have to vote on each. Are we voting on this? We're voting on the entire [1:35:50] Chair (Planning Board): dimensional review, right? The issue is that we have nothing to vote on here. As we're talking about, it's a black and white requirement that we have. Even if we agree that practically, like we as individuals might agree that it's impractical, we don't have a mechanism as a planning board to say that it's okay. [1:36:15] Speaker J (unidentified): So when you say not met, that's definitive? [Speaker G (unidentified): That is definitive.] And what is the consequence of that? [1:36:24] Speaker G (unidentified): The consequence in this case would be that I'd probably put in a condition that the project has to, I'd probably write a condition that said before a building permit is issued, the project must demonstrate full compliance with the zoning regulations, and we'd engage in the analysis as staff as to whether that particular regulation was met. [1:36:54] Chair (Planning Board): It sounds like it might be the only way that we're able to engage on this particular topic with you all, unfortunately. I think we're all... I'm hearing everyone say that we wish it wasn't true, but that it is true. And from your point of view, not ideal, obviously, I hear about the stacking, but does that change affect your application in other ways that, you know, we should address? Or does that condition sound like something that's workable for you? I mean, the biggest area that affects us is [1:37:30] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: essentially the queuing or the stacking, you know, and trying to get maximum queuing so that people aren't coming in and then creating some sort of traffic safety issue. I'm not saying it will. I'm just saying that we're trying to do that as much as possible. Yeah. Can your curb cut come [1:37:46] Speaker I (unidentified): Come plan south any further to so you still maintain that queuing length you've got distance from the property line. I mean it's up to you. I don't know why I'm trying it's up to you guys design it I guess. I'm just trying to understand better how to get past we [1:38:05] Planning Board member: Could play around with that a little bit. I'm curious about the oil change facility and if that was part of the plan you know the way it's oriented it's taking up some of that view so is there any plan to change that buildings orientation no [1:38:29] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: No we're just I think and that's not in a view it's not in the way of the 50 foot on the north side or plan north and [1:38:43] Alvin Chase, president of ownership group (car wash): I assume it's in this in this 50 foot thing I apologize isn't new to me today it is it is 50 running feet it's not 50 cumulative feet it's not 30 feet here in a 20 feet here it's a possibility let's talk about it yeah it would well again I have I shared with you my experience in the public administration, it would seem to me that if we wanted a third of somebody's ownership of a lot to be dedicated to viewshed, okay, that seems excessive initially, but if it could be accommodated by not shoving Whatever it was that you were building all to one side to get that 50 feet, and if you could say, hey, I've got 30 here and 20 here, That passes the gram of the test, but I don't know how it's written. Once again, it's new to me. [1:39:50] Speaker G (unidentified): So let's do this. We can put in a condition that says the project must demonstrate full compliance with the zoning before a billing permit is received, and then we can, because this is a staff determination anyway, right? The board doesn't get to say whether this is met or not. We can reengage, you know, at that time and make sure everything's in compliance and then move forward that way. Okay. so [1:40:16] Chair (Planning Board): We'll make a note to add that as that language as a condition okay all right so we've talked about front setback minimum building height and then the building design so we've touched on this a little bit but just so we're to keep going the proposal to have something that is not fully conforming is practical because [1:40:50] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: I'm sorry we're talking about the view corridor that sorry the building design now [1:40:58] Chair (Planning Board): The actual standards of the facing of this I think this is also from the Camden overlay and I think you had addressed this as part of your narrative but I'm just hoping to restate it as we're talking through it but this is about the architectural standards for the side of that building that faces the street and why the design choices are practical for your [1:41:25] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: Application. Yeah, so the design choices for the building are practical because of the, again, the CMU or concrete masonry units blocks are going to be used for this because of the nature of the actual car wash building itself. Are they paintable on the street facing side? Are they what, paintable? Usually with CMU nowadays you're not necessarily painting them, you might paint existing stuff, but you can get them in color choice. Yeah, if [1:42:04] Chair (Planning Board): I ever see you outside of a public meeting we'll talk about. So right, and we do have this Western elevation that Pat was referencing earlier, some windows along the side, and the proportions of this building are actually very similar to ones that are around it, and from that point of view it seems [1:42:37] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, I want to revise my earlier suggestion that you take all three together. Actually the first, the front setback standard should be voted on separately. It's a separate standard that's part of the Camden Street overlay relay, whereas the other two are part of the non-conformity analysis. Okay, great, okay. [1:42:56] Chair (Planning Board): In that case I move that we accept the proposed setback, we accept the proposed setback because of the addition of green space as a buffer there and because of the traffic flow realities that make sense for that building to be step back further than the standard. Second. Any discussion? Okay, all those in favor? Great, so that passes unanimously, and then we can do that. I also move that we accept the continuing non-conformity for minimum building height and building design based off of a demonstration of what is practically possible for this application. Any discussion? All those in favor? Great, that passes unanimously. We discussed the water view as part of a condition, so let's move on to the other parts of just our standards. Wait, do we just skip building design I for voting or discussion for, sorry, I put the minimum building height and building design. Okay, so now let's talk through our classic standards starting with traffic and circulation. We have discussed this a fair amount. We don't anticipate that the traffic would increase, but we have a good understanding of the flow of traffic. I think the chip generation, we've already talked about that reconstruction. Does anyone have questions about the this standard for traffic and circulation? These will, unless we have changes, I'm not going to have us vote individually on the standards. I think we'll just mark them as we go and then vote in a block. This one doesn't, just Elias, for the actual document, doesn't have a finding in fact at the end of it written out. [1:45:42] Speaker G (unidentified): It's on the next. Oh. I think those should be, I think, probably part of the same. I think parking and traffic and circulation. Are together, but the heading might be messed up. Yeah, everything else has the okay, has a finding effect. The finding effect under parking is referring to both parking and traffic and circulation, and I did want to propose a revision that instead of determining whether the applicant shall or shall not be required to construct sidewalk, sidewalks, the board finds that the applicant's proposed construction of sidewalks is satisfactory. Yeah, I think, yeah, we [1:46:25] Chair (Planning Board): have a pretty good plan, and there is an existing sidewalk there that you're just expanding, so yeah, that seems like a good edit. Okay, and yeah, so we didn't just discuss parking, but does anyone have questions about the proposed parking? I think we have one ADA and a bike rack, snow storage, etc. Okay, significant natural features protection. There are no known significant natural features, so by basically omission, do we find the standard to be met? Okay, landscaping and screening, greening. So this is both the buffer on Camden Street and some requirements for the new parking lot. Or no, sorry, there's no new parking lot, so this is not applicable. Any additional questions from folks about the landscaping standard and whether it is being met or not? Stormwater management. The applicant has requested a waiver, which we've already discussed and approved. The waiver is fine. The conversation we've had so far about stormwater and drainage is, was kind of clarifying questions from a standards point of view. Does anyone want to discuss this more? You just perked up in such a way. No,, no. I just want to double check that I had something. Sorry. I know this is a long meeting. We're trying to move. [1:48:20] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: No apology necessary. I [1:48:26] Chair (Planning Board): have these documents in like three places. No, I didn't. Do we have any edits to this after our conversations, though? I feel like we've had a lot of plantings satisfied the right-of-way perimeter for the findings of fact. I wonder if it's useful to put in we talked about the landscaping in relationship to removing trees and the way that the snow retention area was being adjusted a little bit. I know it's kind of additional, but if we could add some information about that to the finding of back, I think it would be useful. [1:49:24] Speaker G (unidentified): Reference the trees on both sides of the property, the Norway maples as well as those pines. Yeah, yes, those are pines, okay. [1:49:43] Chair (Planning Board): Stormwater management, I think this is another place where we can insert some information from our conversation about this, so projects description of the commons related drainage. I mean, maybe it's being too detailed, but we did have a pretty extensive conversation about how we were assessing that standard based off of a combination of the existing infrastructure and the flow changes that had to do with grading and determined that our standard based on our understanding of, based on our combination of the reduction of impervious surface and the new contours satisfied the standard. And I heard in our conversation that we found all of that satisfactory. Factory. Anything more? Sediment and erosion control. So we do have a proposal or we do have information about the construction process and plans for managing erosion. The portion of the property that is most concerning from this point of view is pretty far away from the development area, but we should discuss and probably specifically vote on whether we would like to have a security deposit as part of approval for this application to help manage that. Do people have to, my understanding is to cover the construction portion to deal with erosion control as they're constructing, is [1:51:46] Speaker G (unidentified): that correct? Yeah, so the performance guarantee for sedimentation and erosion control, the intent is that for sites that have a high risk of instability where construction or development could cause damage to the site, that the city retains a certain amount of a security guarantee to, you know, it's a deposit that is a security, is it? Yeah, we say [1:52:18] Speaker J (unidentified): that we want them to do certain improvements as part of this project or that if it becomes clear in the future that these improvements need to be done, we want [1:52:35] Speaker G (unidentified): So typically, like, if you were developing on a site that was at risk of, you know, subsidence or collapse, the city would then have to take steps to remediate that damage, and that security deposit or performance guarantee would ensure that, one, either the proposed improvements are made by the developer, or, two, that the city has recourse to remediate their condition. My [1:53:08] Chair (Planning Board): take on this is that the location of the actual work compared with the plan that has been provided to us to help mitigate this makes me say it would be okay to not receive a security deposit on that. It [1:53:25] Speaker J (unidentified): is, it is quite far. [1:53:34] Chair (Planning Board): Away, yeah, the tree removal is closer to the water, but even that is far away from the tree removal near the catchment basin. So any objections to that? Okay, then I move that we will not require a security deposit for a sediment and erosion control. Any discussion? All those in favor? Okay, that passes unanimously. And related, I also think that we have found that this condition has been met. Okay, so public utility infrastructure, not only is there no expectation of increased demand, everything is basically staying the same, if not just being reconfigured a little bit. But so I think we've discussed this to the extent that I feel comfortable saying that we've also found this to be met. Okay. Community safety. So we've talked about fire hydrants. I think this is another place where our conversations could add something to the findings of fact. So if we could insert the conversation about the reduction of curb cuts and the way that affects traffic in and out of the site, that would be great. And maybe another place to throw in the sidewalks as well, the new continuous sidewalk. All right, exterior lighting, which we've touched a bunch in different places. Elias has already gone over the analysis that staff did about the foot candles. Did we confirm about the fixture types? If that was a typo for we are missing some information? [1:55:34] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: No, so there's just one fixture type, which is an XW2, which is at the south end of the proposed building where the vacuums are. So I think it's just, it's the same description. I think it's just got a different head type, it's probably a little bit longer. I can confirm that, but it's basically the same fixture, just and but the foot [1:55:57] Chair (Planning Board): candles are shown here. Okay, Eliza, do I need to speak edits to this, or did you [1:56:06] Speaker G (unidentified): get that information for? I'm just gonna correct it with one picture with potentially a different Heather. Wonderful, okay, that makes sense. [1:56:15] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: it's the same head style probably just a different width and that would not that [1:56:23] Chair (Planning Board): would not affect the calculations about how it actually meets the standard so I think based on the other parts of our conversation we have found the standard to be met okay noise and vibration is the next standard so I think the thing that I would propose we add to this findings of fact narrative is about the new orientation of the building being a part of our discussion to help manage the sound. I think basically I'd like to capture the narrative about ways that sounds actually hopefully going to be improved despite the same use. So I think the list that we had talked about was the orientation of the building, the grade of the vacuums and their relationship to a new retaining wall, and then a note, I know you haven't finalized your hours of operation, but I think would you be comfortable with the findings of fact capturing operational change away from 24-hour service? Yeah, okay. Any [1:57:49] Planning Board member: other questions on this? I think we also said the length of the car wash bays, totally new [1:57:57] Chair (Planning Board): orientation and extension of bays, okay. And then architectural and visual appearance, which we've, well, we discussed the, we discussed the non-conformance and agreed that the non-conformance was okay, and so I think we did implicitly accept this as a standard that we accept it may not increase non-conformity. Great. [Planning Board member: And] then so the performance guarantee would be not would be similar in concept to what we just talked about but is specifically about the kind of public infrastructure here so the main thing is the sidewalk instruction i think i'm trying to remember how historically we 've thought about the performance guarantee on this i think there is a an existing sidewalk that will be theoretically demolished as part of the plan [1:59:15] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, this is a little bit duplicative of the earlier references, so I think we've probably covered most of the rationale behind why or why not the board would require such a performance guarantee. Okay. [1:59:28] Chair (Planning Board): Since we have been voting specifically on these things, I'm going to move specifically on this one that we, I move that we don't require a performance guarantee for sidewalk construction on this site. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Okay. That passes unanimously. Same with the erosion control. I think we just voted on that in a separate place, so I'll leave that as is. Sorry? Yep, we had a public hearing, which no one was here for, but we did receive an email. Okay. So that, sorry, just before I move to public comment and feedback, we'll just strike that portion of the findings of fact for the performance guarantee and say, we're not requiring one for either. Does that work? Okay. Board received written comments from abutters to the proposed property regarding drainage, noise and lighting concerns. These comments were provided to the developer and the planning board. That captures, I think the substance of what we received and no new comments from tonight. So I think we can leave that as is. Let's talk about conditions. I think we, so we have the water view one. Should we talk at all about language for that, or it feels pretty straightforward? So the [2:01:07] Speaker G (unidentified): two, I had two draft conditions. One is that the applicant shall obtain all required state and federal permitting in addition to local permanent requirements. The applicant shall verify whether D period permits are required for the new car wash and whether a driveway opening permit will be required for from Main DOT. That's condition one. And then condition two would be that before building permit is issued, the project will be in full compliance with all zoning and dimensional standards in particular the 50-foot view corridor. Okay. [2:01:38] Chair (Planning Board): Any other edits or additions that are on folks mind from our conversations here? Okay, in that case, on the basis of the application, I move that on the basis of the application plans, reports, and other information submitted by the applicant, findings and recommendations contained in the planning board report for the public hearing on October 6, 2026, relevant to the site plan standards for chapter 16 of the city of Rockland, sorry, the Rockland city code, and the testimony presented at the planning board hearing, the planning board finds that the plan, that this plan is in conformance with our site plan standards of Chapter 16, subject to the following conditions, which we just read aloud. It was. Any conversation? Okay, all those in favor? Wonderful. Okay. So now we need to sign some plans. Appreciate it. Because you voted on it. Okay, yeah. Yeah, and we've been doing, because Dan, it used to be that the ultimate could only be a full voting number if we didn't have a form, like if they were needed, but what we've been doing is now that if someone is absent, we can vote. I'm going to call a quick bio break for about five minutes and then we'll reconvene to continue our agenda. We're just going. Thank you. It's out of our hands. It is 7.23, so [Speaker H (unidentified): we'll] see where we're at. I think we need to hold the public hearing for 08-28, yeah. But I do know, and we can let Elias get into this with us, but I do know that there have been some changes to 08-27, and I think it's being postponed, so we could even consider having that discussion at our next meeting. Wait till everyone gets back. This is also maybe your first really long planning board meeting, huh? Maybe. [2:08:26] Planning Board member: I feel like the first one was pretty long, possibly, because we also had a site visit, and then we're finalizing, but I just didn't vote on it or sign anything. [2:08:35] Chair (Planning Board): I see. These meetings used to be like three hours long. Oof, marathon. Consistently. Okay, once we get Pat back, and is Zachary still around? He's gone. Okay. Yeah, no, I mean, I like him. Do you have space? [2:08:55] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm in space, right? Oh, yeah, go for it. Is it going to trip you? Sense like there's a general but there's just a little yeah clearly that's warm should [2:09:11] Chair (Planning Board): We wait for Zachary feedback. Okay, all right, we are going to continue with our agenda, but first I'm going to propose that we take an item out of order because we do have someone from the public here, so I'd like to propose that we move our public comment up to the next agenda item. Any objections? No. Okay, so I'll open a public comment. If you'd like to address the board, please come to the podium and say your name and address for the record. We typically have a piece of paper up there for you to write it down. Is it there? No pencil, no paper. Okay, well then maybe we can just make sure we capture [2:09:57] Speaker F (unidentified): your name at the end. Philip Kendrick. Philip Kendrick, K E N D R I C K, 35 Granite Street, Rockland, retired architect and about town. I just say this [2:10:17] Chair (Planning Board): every time we will limit, we limit public comment to five minutes, city council [2:10:22] Speaker F (unidentified): right, got that. Just wondering if any thought being given to what might happen to the Quirk auto dealership that is departing its current location. She's [2:10:41] Chair (Planning Board): asking you to repeat the question loud. I thought I was. It's right here. [Speaker J (unidentified): I think] it's just a little soft, but if you could repeat the question, just I'm wondering [2:10:54] Speaker F (unidentified): WONDERING IF THE PLANNING BOARD HAS CONSIDERED WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE QUIRK AUTO DEALERSHIP PROPERTY THAT'S GOING TO BE VACATED, ACTUALLY ADJACENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT ON CAMPTON STREET. [2:11:19] Chair (Planning Board): I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT A PROPOSAL FOR THAT SITE, WHICH WOULD BE THE main mechanism that we would be engaging in it. I think you could also inquire with city staff if there has been an application put in, but we have not seen anything. [2:11:36] Speaker F (unidentified): Well, I was just, thought occurred to me that it might be worth inviting the current owner in and asking them if they have any developers in mind or suggesting to them that they might want to offer a pre -design concept get some initial preliminary approvals from the planning board that could then be sold along with the property that then would make it smoother transition for somebody coming in the town needs housing yes wouldn't be grand to take a piece of property like that and have it redeveloped for a multi-story mixed-use housing, commercial on the first floor, two or three floors of rental, potentially condos on the upper floor, which would presumably have ocean views, which would get a premium price. I think it would be to the town's interest to engage the existing owner in finding some direction like that, as opposed to letting it come in some other form that would be tougher to deal with. If a developer comes in with a proposal, the city already knows that they are encouraging and want, it's going to be easier for you, it's gonna make it easier for the developer. Just a thought. [2:13:39] Chair (Planning Board): Thank you so much. We do have a mechanism to be communicating with city council who I think thinks about this, that type of relationship and conversation ahead of development plans, and I'll definitely pass the concept along to them. I think we also have mechanisms for meeting with people to go through ideas and to understand our ordinances and things like that, so note taken for sure, and all I'll pass along. Thank you. Okay, so public comment, anyone else like to speak? I will close for the evening. The rest of our agenda tonight, a quick time check, it is 730 now. We still have two ordinance amendments and memo discussions to get through, and a couple of previous meeting minutes. I actually, Elias, would you join us up at the table to talk about the ordinance amendments? We will, we should hold a public hearing for OA 28, but would it be possible to maybe propose postponing our conversation of OA 27 to another meeting? Would that work with council's timeline? Yes, it would be the only one that's in [2:15:07] Speaker G (unidentified): second reading that's going to move forward, is it's gonna move forward this month, is the one that you referenced. Actually, the other two we're not even [2:15:19] Chair (Planning Board): required to hold public hearings for. We only have two on our agenda right now. [2:15:22] Speaker G (unidentified): The other one we're not even required to hold a public hearing for 27, you're not. [2:15:26] Chair (Planning Board): But in terms of us being able to have, I think we want to have that conversation and would maybe want to do some research ahead of it and get comment back to council in time. Would that still be possible if we had that conversation at a different meeting? [2:15:43] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, I would say it's unlikely that we have a meeting, the second meeting of October, because we haven't received any applications for that. Okay, however the applicant who's here for the pre-application did reference the fact that they want to come back for the first meeting in November, which would be adequate to provide feedback before second reading. Okay, and there [2:16:05] Chair (Planning Board): have been edits to OA 27 since the copy that we have. Is that correct? Is that why it's back in first reading? Sorry, 27, the vacant building one. Yes. Yeah, that [2:16:17] Speaker G (unidentified): That is not going back to first reading, but the second reading is postponed, or will be postponed. Okay. [2:16:22] Chair (Planning Board): Is that something where we should work on getting, for that conversation, if we defer it, should we get a different copy of the proposal? [2:16:33] Speaker G (unidentified): I can provide you with updated copies. Okay, great. [2:16:39] Chair (Planning Board): As always, I was wondering if we could also have, unless I missed it, a statement of purpose. [2:16:45] Speaker I (unidentified): No, you did not miss it. [2:16:48] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, is it, I wonder if it was in the original agenda because I do feel like I [2:16:56] Chair (Planning Board): saw that, but I mean, the council agenda, sorry. Yeah, I think we, maybe we just didn't receive it for that one. We do have one for the dog care, yes, but not for the pet care. Excuse me, I'm so, I'm so sorry. There are other paths you're taking. [2:17:16] Speaker E (unidentified): The vacant one, it has, you know, number one is purpose. Is that not sufficient enough? Or do you need something different? [2:17:26] Chair (Planning Board): I'm referencing kind of the meta document that council has written about why the change is being proposed as it is and kind of history and things like that. Which I agree. I feel like I have seen that, but we don't have it in our packet. If we could get a copy. Be, do folks, in the interest of balancing time and also our ability to engage in this, do people have questions or things that would be useful to look into about the vacant buildings amendment to bring into next meeting? Yes, so along with the [2:18:08] Speaker I (unidentified): statement of purpose, I would ask a targeted question to counselors York and Callahan with that statement of purpose, and that question is, please explain the 50 percent floor area determination that's, that's driving a huge portion of this OA. Yeah, that's one of the things that's [2:18:28] Speaker G (unidentified): changed in the newer version. Okay, yeah, so out of curiosity, what is it now? Let's see. [2:18:35] Speaker I (unidentified): never mind doesn't it doesn't matter we I'll wait to see it and then I'll read it then but yeah that is so if that's changed that's good to know and then also again maybe this could be enlightened in that statement of purpose but multifamily buildings are only casually adjacently talked about in here under the exceptions like for example it does it doesn't give a carve out for if you're actively trying to lease those buildings however from the standpoint of running a multi being a landlord of the multi-family development, you could foreseeably go through multiple periods of time where you are down, you know, units, and you could be technically speaking a vacant building for duration. So although there seem to be some mechanisms in here for, you know, moving that around, like, I would just, I really want to know what the thought process is around, like, multifamily, because it seems to be, like, a big gap. Are those questions something that [2:19:35] Chair (Planning Board): you're able to pass along for us, Elias, or should we put that in a memo ourselves? I would suggest [2:19:42] Speaker G (unidentified): that you put it in a memo from the board. I'm happy to ask those questions, but probably a formal [2:19:47] Chair (Planning Board): memo from the board. Okay, so I move that we send a memo to city council stating that we have postponed our full conversation of this, of Ordinance Amendment number 27, in order to receive the most up-to-date draft and in hopes of receiving a statement of purpose for the amendment. Specifically, we are interested in understanding the strategy behind multifamily developments and their place in this ordinance. [2:20:30] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, I think that's generally well said. Great. [2:20:33] Speaker J (unidentified): And for them to clarify the 50%... [2:20:38] Speaker I (unidentified): Which, if I heard Elias correctly, is now changed, so it might be completely different at this point. [2:20:43] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, it is completely different. The percents are taken out of it entirely. Okay. [2:20:48] Speaker J (unidentified): Okay. They just say floor area on page two, three, they don't say leaseable area. That needs to be [2:21:04] Speaker I (unidentified): right for a certain point in time. The Rockland where Hannaford was would have technically been a vacant property because it had three tenant, you know, it's just, it doesn't, yeah, anyway, so if that's changed, then this becomes moot. [2:21:18] Chair (Planning Board): Great, so I'll send that memo and request response from them before our November meeting. Okay, that was a motion that I sent that memo. Does anyone any discussion? Okay, all those in favor. Okay, great. Oh, I started writing something and I just put the letter R. Ah, reply. Reply requested. Okay. OA number 28, which is an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance to establish definitions and performance standards for commercial pet daycare facilities and pet grooming establishments. We do have a statement of purpose for this one. Have we already had this conversation or did I just go to city council meeting? day we haven't talked about this as a board no okay do we want to go through its details very much i think elias you 're so good at overviewing things if you wouldn't mind yeah i [2:22:31] Speaker G (unidentified): mean essentially it's, you know, it's like daytime pet services and pet care mostly indoor with some larger, I think parcels one acre or more can have some outdoor pet activities related to the services, and then there are specific performance standards related to noise, cleanliness, and other matters that would concern abutters. Yep. [2:22:59] Speaker J (unidentified): Is this a new definition that, it always sounded like they were writing a definition of pet daycare facility, so we didn't have one already? [2:23:09] Speaker G (unidentified): Correct. Okay. Completely prohibited currently. Oh, what? Yeah, not allowed anywhere. [2:23:17] Speaker J (unidentified): Not allowed anywhere. Until [2:23:22] Planning Board member: now. Until now. [2:23:24] Speaker I (unidentified): We're so close. [2:23:29] Chair (Planning Board): I'm sorry if I missed this, but has there been a, is there indicating somewhere which, so this is a definition of a land use, but is there any proposal about which zones this would be [2:23:42] Speaker G (unidentified): yes, so I provided, I provided a memo which didn't make it into this packet, but I can pass along to you. The zones would be the industrial, the business park, the commercial three zone which is Route 90, you know, far outside of town, and then Plaza Commercial. Okay. So the two large plazas and then the industrial business areas and then the, you know, heavily commercial area on Route 90. [2:24:11] Speaker J (unidentified): So what is the zoning for the car wash we just approved? C1? TB2. It was TB, actually. Transition? Mm-hmm. [2:24:30] Chair (Planning Board): Okay. Thank you, I'm gonna open a public hearing for this as is required. If you'd like to speak to this ordinance amendment, please come to the podium. And seeing no one, I will close our public hearing. Our requirement is to pass along information from our public hearing and notes and recommendations from our board. Or do we have any thoughts on this to send back to city council? Okay, then. [2:25:08] Speaker J (unidentified): Go ahead, Pat. I do. Pet daycare is one thing, but in other cities, pet grooming facilities, they're like in the middle of Georgetown or Washington. I mean, you can have a pet grooming facility pretty much any place, certainly if it's on commercial. Commercial. Like, we just approved a car wash right on Route 1, Canton Street. Why wouldn't we have either a pet food or a pet boarding facility on that site? Things were different. At least the dogs would have a good view. [2:25:53] Chair (Planning Board): They probably would love that field down there. [2:25:56] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: A budding residential use of noise ordinances is going to be a real problem for the code office. [2:26:03] Speaker E (unidentified): We get innumerable, you [2:26:07] Speaker J (unidentified): know, things somewhere in the world. [2:26:09] Speaker E (unidentified): Like a rooster, for example. A rooster. [2:26:12] Speaker G (unidentified): So noise in residential neighborhoods, people [2:26:17] Eric Duby, Trillium Engineering: are very sensitive. [2:26:20] Speaker J (unidentified): So is that considered a residential? Yeah, is that considered residential? We would just put the car wash. [2:26:27] Speaker E (unidentified): It abuts a residential neighborhood. [2:26:29] Speaker J (unidentified): It abuts a residential neighborhood. [2:26:40] Speaker G (unidentified): It certainly has the potential to be expanded to other zones if there's demand. I think these initial lots seemed like there was plenty that were available and also had the lowest potential to impact of others. Any [2:26:59] Chair (Planning Board): other thoughts on this from the board to pass on to council then I move that we send a memo to council relaying that we heard no public comment that we held a public hearing and heard no comments and based on our conversations we recommend council move forward with the ordinance as written [Speaker J (unidentified): Any] any conversation all those in favor great okay 28 go ahead no comments all right gut check folks it's okay by me it's okay by you yeah okay then i propose Okay, so perhaps when we talk about 0827, we'll discuss meeting minutes from June 16th and July 7th. Okay, so we'll postpone those. In that case, I move that we adjourn. [Speaker J (unidentified): I second. Okay.] All those in favor? Aye. We are adjourned. Okay, we're done.