Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Um, I'm going to call this planning board meeting to order at 700 p.m. on November 17th, 2025. Uh, this meeting is being conducted via Zoom. Uh, per usual. Um, you can, um, access this meeting v via our, um, our planning board agenda. Um, and the agenda has also a simple call-in number too if you'd like to use it via phone uh, and not accessing it via um, computer. Um, so I know that we have a quorum right now. Uh, I think we are still waiting on another member. Um, but uh, just as I see you, I'll take roll call. Rich Gazardi is already present.

Thank you. Chris Dowy present. I think I just saw Cindy join. And I just saw Cindy pop in. Cindy Marowitz. Cindy Marowitz. Oh, I saw a thumbs up. There you go. Hi, Cindy. Yeah. Sorry, I didn't have any audio. Sorry. Thank you. No worries. And present.

Um, terrific. Okay, so it's 7 o'1 right now. So, um I'm going to invite the public to um raise their hands if they'd like to make any comments on items that are not listed on the agenda currently. So, if you have a comment not related to any of the agenda topics, um please raise your hand and I'll call upon you. Uh if you can't um raise your hand via the function on the computer, then on on Zoom, then you can uh star nine on your phone too. Um Kathy Vorce, if you could um unmute Kathy and um please give your name and address.

Kathleen Wars, 555 Liberty Square Road. Um I wanted to uh address the board. I was at the town hall as I've been back and forth meeting with Jim Greery about the ADU business and details of getting that to happen. and I bumped into Alec and just in a brief conversation did we didn't have time either of us to pursue it he had mentioned that he was aware that um towns have been able to or at least one town of his knowledge uh was able to modify their ADU so that it was not in strict compliance with the state and I will tell you that that uh wording of lesser of 900 ft or 1/2 the uh dwelling is problematic for me. Um I would love to know whether we would be able to revive our own uh version of the bylaw which we had worked on. Um I don't know whether it would necessitate a special permit or we could just make that a substitute. But I would certainly like to see the town of Boxboro liberalize um it from what the state has done. Now in support of that I would also say that uh one of the things Jim Guffy mentioned to me was that even on the board of health they have been given greater liberality. Um Boxboro made a bold statement and has adhered to it for years. We will not accept restrictive agreements as substitutes for compliance. Jim said they are now being told to accept restrictive agreements, which is to say

if you if the property owner signs an agreement, has a recorded at the registry of deeds that they will not increase the number of bedrooms, then they can proceed. under the previous most recent previous uh regulations based on a formula. They might be telling you you had to enlarge your field to admit the possibility of total buildout of the number of rooms that your square footage would permit. So, the trend seems to be going in being more liberal in order to encourage more housing possibilities, and I wanted to bring it up to the board to see if we could do that. Poor voters will feel like they're going through whiplash with the number of changes on this specific topic, but um that's my request.

Thank you, Kathy. Um, Alec, I saw your hand up for a bit there.

Yeah, thanks, Rebecca. Um, I just wanted to help add some character there. So, as you heard Kathy mention, um, I'm aware because I assisted in drafting it of at least one town. Um, uh, but it's my understanding multiple towns have now passed ADU bylaws that are in excess of 900 square ft by right. Um, the case that's been made to the attorney general successfully is that in this instance, increasing the threshold above 900 square f feet is actually being less restrictive than the state standard, which as we're all aware from other bylaws we passed, you can always be less restrictive, but you can't be more restrictive, or at least that's often the case. Um, the attorney general has accepted that case in some instances, noting that there might be conflicts with building code if you go over 1,000 square ft. So, for example, those additions might be subject to the newest form of building code um including energy code uh just given the size of the renovation remodel or addition. Um but that's for the the buyer or the renovator to be aware in that instance. Um what I'll also note is that on at least three separate occasions um our building commissioner has communicated with individuals who are interested in accessory dwelling units on their property. Ultimately, in each of those three instances, uh those individuals chose not to pursue the project because the 900 ft² was a prohibitive threshold for them. In cases where they were looking to rent, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. In cases where they were looking to renovate their home potentially for a loved one, it just really wasn't practical. They'd really have to carve up some rooms. It would potentially make the the remodel more costly. And so, we have some instances where the 900 ft threshold has been challenging to overcome. I've asked the building department um ant in anticipation of this and Kathy has separately communicated with me that this is something of interest to her. I've asked the building department to start documenting in detail each of these proposals and instances as we get roughly one a month. Um so we'll start collecting the data. We'll be prepared

to report back on those instances should the board wish to pursue this further. Thanks Alec. Uh Rich, go ahead.

Yeah, just real quickly. Uh thank you Rebecca. So Kathy, you've been pretty um this has pretty much been your project, right, for a couple of years on the planning board, maybe three years. So, and maybe Alec just commented on it, but from your perspective, what would the right recommendation be? It's something more than 900 ft. Is it a,000 square feet? Is it because I Alec, what you just said kind of helps me, right? Because I was thinking it originally when we were doing this, we were going down the path of well, we could do one part by right and then we could do an additive element by special permit, but it sounds like that wouldn't even be needed when it comes to square footage. So, I guess my question is what would be a a good compromise there if you

Yeah. So, I've seen it um I've seen it a couple different ways. the state threshold or the state statute has always envisioned potentially a special permit as a component of this, whether that's to allow additional units um or in some cases I'd imagine a town could allow a greater size by a special permit. Um and as I said in my own instance that I'm that I'm personally aware of, the threshold was 1,000 square ft by right. Uh but I think the town has a lot of discretion if they want to explore that threshold by right. the special permit certainly gives you um some extra layer of protection or assurance if if you're considering how to sell this to the voters and taxpayers, but um I I think there's in my opinion there feels it feels like there's a little more wiggle room by right and then if you wanted to go further you could go with a special permit option or if you wanted to allow a second or additional ADU you could do that by special permit. Um, we have yet to see, or at least in in my experience, I've yet to see the attorney general strike down a bylaw because of too large a threshold, though I imagine you could find a number that they might say it's not in keeping with the spirit of the law.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, it I know this it's not on the agenda. It's a good good comment. Um, but given that there were multiple residents knocking on the door and finding that the current bylaw is too prohibitive, it's something we should address personally. But anyway, I know it's not Oh, no. It's okay, Rich. I I mean, it's a great topic and it sounds like we need to revisit it at some point. Um, but I would like to probably shift gears at this point. Um, I would um love Kathy and um to kind of make a suggestion. If you want to write something to the board about a suggested u square footage or or some input, that'd be fantastic. And um Alec, it's great that you guys are collecting added info from other residents of the town, too. I think we can use that um when the time comes to just discuss this further. Does that make sense? All right. Awesome. Any other public comment at this time? Okay. I'm hearing none. Uh so it's 7:09. Um, so we're going to open the reopen the public hearing for 984 and 996 um, Massachusetts Avenue and 38 Sarah's Way site uh, plan review and storm water management plan uh, permit. Uh, in accordance with MGL chapter 4A and Boxboro zoning bylaw 2.5 site plan approval and the Boxboro stormwater bylaw, uh, the Boxboro Planning Board will hold a public hearing to review the application submitted by Level Design Group LLC on behalf of the applicant 894 Massachusetts Avenue LLC for a proposed landscape contractor yard. Um, Nick, I think I saw you. Um, I'm just looking for Okay. And Attorney Rob Robertson, I see you as well. Um, does somebody want to make a small presentation to the board? Uh, looks like Paul Robinson is is uh trying to speak

and muting him there.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Uh, it's a pleasure to be here tonight. Um, and thank you very much to the planning board as well for the site visit. Um, we hope that that was um, uh, constructive in being able to answer some of the questions. I I will let Nick uh speak in a moment. Uh he's eager to do so and my client is also here as well. Um I I did need to comment on uh a couple of things. um you know at the same time uh that we're proceeding here um with the um the planning board applications uh there's also a lawsuit going on and um there were uh some affidavit that have been filed in that case just last week concerning some aspects of the property that I thought it was very important uh that the client uh respond to those. Um there's one statement in one of the affidavit that uh when one of the abutters purchased their property in uh 2020 uh that it was uh dormant and overgrown with no signs of any active business. But yet there's another affidavit from the town planner himself with photographs from that March of 2020 which shows logs stored in the site uh some 15 different vehicles there uh as well as the neighboring property also had more than 30 vehicles. So it was clear that uh this particular purchaser the closest to Butter purchased with knowledge that this was an ongoing commercial site industrial site. In fact, it had been used for some 40 years without interruption by um the the previous owner for for that use. Um there was a um a second statement um uh that the the chipper is so loud that it's not possible to have a conversation on the abuing property. Um and I hope the planning board saw from from this week that that's simply not accurate. that you know the the chipper that's been used here and we now have the sound

records. The loudest sound uh from uh the the the um the industrial chipper that the client has purchased was actually less than the highest wind speed. Uh the wind uh sound that was recording that was 81 dB and the highest recording I have for the uh um uh the um um the industrial chipper was uh was 80 um excuse me 84. So, it was about close to what the highest wind speed was, but it's simply not accurate. You know, some of the hyperbole here to say it's not possible to have a conversation um is not accurate. But finally,

just just a moment. I'm so sorry. Um is this in regard to the the the the permit in hand, the application in hand, or this sounds like this is uh regarding a litigation that is not this hearing that we're here to listen to at this point. So,

thank thank you very much, Madam Chair. I I'll just finish up quickly because the the request uh is that the the planning board impose limited hours of operation uh in specifically designated days and hours during which uh the the applicant's grinder uh can be operated. And I and I just wanted to open by saying that um uh the applicant has repeatedly tried to stay in touch with those neighbors concerned uh to do so. So, one of the issues here was uh the level of noise and the limitations and and because uh the litigation is seeking to impose uh these limitations and making requests to the planning board again I it was important to have these addressed you know prior to the start.

I think moving forward I' I'd love to keep our focus on this this application before us. Um I I think the planning board is keeping that as a very separate matter altogether. So, um I just want to stay on topic with with this permit before us. Okay. The application before us. Um uh Nick, did you want to present to the board?

Sure. So, for the record, Nick Fasendola, Level Design Group. Um we recently submitted some revised site plans, revised storm water management report, uh detailed comment response letter to the comments provided by places engineering and a um associated request for a few waiverss that were recommended that we apply for uh through the places review. Um, I can go through some of the site plan changes that have occurred. I know they were submitted a little bit late in the game and I apologize for that. So, I understand if uh the board hasn't had a full chance to review the plans and if uh Sue hasn't had a chance to go through the full comment response, but I'll go through and just highlight a few of the major changes that were made um in addressing some of the initial comments that were raised.

That's great. Nick, go ahead and feel free to share your screen and hopefully he can be made host so he can do that. Yeah. Um Dave, real quick, if you could promote Nick Fascinola, Paul Robertson, Adam J. Costa, and Sue Carter to co-host, that'd be great. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. What was the What was the last one? Go throw those in. Uh Nick Fascinola, Adam Costa, Paul Robertson, and Sue Carter.

Okay, I think I am sharing my screen. Can everybody see that? Not quite yet. Not quite yet. You are co-host though, so you should be able to do so at your discretion.

There you go. Okay. All right. So, kind of moving through some of the uh major changes. I'm not I won't step through the letter item by item because I know um you know there hasn't been enough time for proper review of our full comment responses. So, I'll just highlight some of the major um items that we addressed in this recent modification to the submitted site plans. Um so, updated cover. So locus map is now at two a scale of 1 in equals 200 which is uh one of the standard uh site plan requirements. Um our layout plan. So based on site meetings had and discussions with the fire department, we've made some modifications to our site layout plan. Um, some of those being providing a dedicated access driveway around the backside of what we're calling the log pile, which is located here. So, um, we have a note which references the applicable um, NFPA fire code when it comes to storing uh, logs. and we're detailing a minimum of 20 ft wide uh access driveway that could be wider uh but it has to be a minimum of at least 20 ft. Um we're showing a 25 foot wide plus or minus uh length for the log pile. It was shown to be wider than that before, but in discussions with the um site operator and making some measurements at the property, you know, the average length of log is no, it's not greater than 20 ft. So, we feel that uh providing a a width on the site plan of 25 ft um is appropriate for uh you know

kind of showing where the log stock pile will be. Um we modified the chipper pile location. Now all these things are you know subject to be minorly tweaked in the site as the chipping pile and the log piles do move and they um are worked and they're um restocked and the logs are chipped. But you know we wanted to make sure we noted that uh a required 30 foot wide access around the chip pile that is required. And we also uh cited the applicable uh NFPA requirement for chip pile storage. Um in this area here um we identified an area for storing uh containers. So these are essentially dumpsters which they're not used for trash. They're used for the um site operator to, you know, move chips or uh other wood products in from smaller residential properties where they can't get larger um equipment into the yard. So, they'll drop a 15yard dumpster uh that's only used for uh moving of wood or chips from from those certain jobs. And when those um containers are in use, we're designating an area here uh for those containers to be stored in. Um other than that, the site plan is primarily the same. We identified the concrete pad here for uh fueling of equipment. Uh we showed a location for a portable toilet, which we're going to keep near the barn. It's currently over in this area here, but we figure having it closer to the barn uh on the concrete pad is a better location

for the uh portable toilet. Um that pretty much, you know, details the modifications to the general site layout. Um now with regard oh to oh we also added at Rebecca's request a limit of disturbance line and you know added that to the legend too. So this is the limit of disturbance associated with the entire project. It' be this line here. It's noted in a few different places on the proposed site plan. Um grading and utilities. There's really no major changes to our proposed storm water management system. Um, generally the same few small tweaks um engineering wise uh that were detailed in the storm water management report but everything is still working generally the same. This area up here drains towards this catch basin um which drains to this infiltration uh basin here with an outflow and overflow going in this direction. The remainder of the site uh drains over land to uh swale which then drains into a separate catch basin which works its way down to a sediment forbay and then that forbay goes into the infiltration basin. Um not much as far as notable modifications here. There were uh changes to the storm water management report and supporting calculations to address some of uh places um comments and um you know I know Sue will comment on those but I don't know if she's had a enough time to properly review that so we can address any of those questions uh later. Um erosion and sediment controls primarily the same as originally

proposed perimeter controls. Um a few additional notes with regards to uh limit of disturbance line. You know, we noted on here to extend uh erosion controls up to this existing tree line uh as was shown with the permission of the existing property owner over here just to make sure that we can capture any uh runoff or um pollutants during the construction process cuz this is a generally uh open area that's freely draining down to here. So we feel felt it was best to provide some additional protections uh during the construction. So we extended that line along the bottom to catch any um runoff from this area right through here. Previously that line ran up against the the property line which runs up through this area here. Um landscape plan. So landscape plan sign is significantly different from what was originally proposed. Um we have a number of new plantings. Uh we had this prepared by a registered landscape architect to address uh a lot of the comments that were provided. Um you know we can get into some detail but substantial amount of shrubs and additional plantings to um really fill in that understory uh area right around through here. in this area were looking to restore uh that was previously cleared and graded and it was uh uh disturbed by the previous owner when they were looking to create a driveway out to Massachusetts Avenue. So substantial new plantings around the existing dwelling at the corner of the site by the proposed storm water basin where it's a little bit open. So looking to provide some additional screening from Massav through that area. Um, a new little

cluster of plantings up in this corner here, uh, as requested and new plantings within this previously graded and, uh, disturbed driveway that was uh, cut in by the the current owner. So, we have we still have the rip wrap slope, but we're providing uh you know, a lot of evergreen plantings to kind of break up that uh rip wrap slope that'll be planted at the bottom of the uh rip wrap area. And we have plantings as detailed previously in this area where we're looking to close out um that existing uh driveway off of Sarah's Way. So, uh, as you guys recall, being on site, there's three driveways onto Sarah's Way right here. This was one that provided access to the existing dwelling. That's going to be u removed and landscaped and cleaned up in this area. We're going to maintain this existing driveway here, provide some improvements to that driveway, and then we're going to close this third driveway here and provide additional plantings. Um in this area um we prepared a small phototric plan with details of the uh proposed fixtures as previously discussed just some wall mounted fixtures on the existing barn you know security lighting. Um you know we're not looking to light up the whole site as as previously discussed. Um, so we can see here what we're we're proposing for minor sight lighting. And that pretty much details the changes to the proposed site plans. Um, as um Paul had

discussed, we did meet on site with the planning board and we um went over the areas of improvements at the property and uh the prop the site operator did run uh the chipper um and we did have some sound readings taken by uh Mr. Jim Griffy from the SHA Associated Boards of Health. Um he had the use of a state um sound meter and took some readings at the property of the residential butter um Miss Dorfman. Um and um that's essentially what has occurred from uh our previous hearing to today. So, um I know the board would like to like likely like to discuss the um site visit and the um chipping demonstration that was that occurred. But first, I will open up to just general comments or questions about the revised site plans.

Thank you so much, Nick. I appreciate it. Um I know that Sue is here from places. Um maybe it makes sense to hear from you Sue about your extensive letter um that that was written. Can you

um Sure. I didn't realize the plans had come in last week until I looked at the package for tonight's meeting. So I apologize for that. Um however, Bill and I did look it over this afternoon um briefly. It looks like a lot of my drainage concerns were addressed and a lot of the other issues uh with this revised plants have been addressed. Um Bill gave me a quick rundown of his landscape comments. He said uh the plantings approach uh appear to be sufficiently dense with a variety of plant types to provide screening and some yearround interest flowering etc. Uh he said some of the proposed trees are not native species. the use of non-native non-native plants will provide variety to the screening but are not necessary as the goal in the screening is not landscape aesthetics. Um he also made a side comment that this is probably going to be a very expensive uh landscape plan. Um so you may want to look at that. Um, but one of the things that I know is near and dear to especially Rebecca's heart on this site was uh the tree protection detail has been added to the plans, but none of the plant plants include or none of the plants including the landscape plan depict trees to be protected. I know in previous plans we were really concerned about the large trees along the frontage of Massav and on previous plans we had actually wanted them specifically called out with a protection plan and I think we had um fencing around them to protect them from a piece of equipment backing into them. Uh so Bill reiterated that concern. Um, and then we have five or six other comments that are more related to details that aren't really a big deal for the board's sake. Um, the one comment I have is on the lighting plan. It didn't reflect the lighting on the existing house and that's what flagged out that we needed to show lighting on

the building. There's a light that you can see from Google Streets on the front of the house over the door. So, um, I think that needs to be done. And one other comment that I'll be bringing up that I haven't gone through the regs to see what's required is um when I reviewed the plans initially, we still had that burm along the tree line uh which provide it was a burm of um I believe it was material with wood chips over the top that has since been removed and when we were out on the site I noted that it makes that whole site very visible from the abuing property. So, I need to go back through and see specifically what the requirements are for a business use in this business district for screening from an adjacent residential property. Um, I did not have time to do that this afternoon, but that is the direction I am heading on one of my concerns to see. I I realized that the pile had to be removed because of the potential for a fire hazard and to meet the fire department fire code requirements. Um, but it now has removed an important piece of screening. So, I need to backtrack from that and make my comments relative to that. Um, but otherwise, I read through Nick's letter and the waiverss and it seems to be in keeping with what I had flagged out. As far as I got on the drainage, it looks like it it looks like it's in good shape. Um, I have not gone through the specifics. So, that'll be um after this meeting and to see if there are any other concerns.

That's great. Thank you very much, Sue. I appreciate your your immediate feedback from that. Um, all right. Um, shall we get some comments from board members at this moment? Alec, go ahead. Sorry, madam chairperson to cut in front of board member comments. I did just want to note um the board did receive a piece of public comment via email through the planning board reporting form that came in over the weekend. So, it was only uploaded to your packet today. However, as written comment and as uploaded, it has been entered into the record.

Thank you, Alec. I saw that. Um, okay. Board members comment. I've got a handful. So, who wants to go first? Go ahead, Cindy. Uh yeah, I guess first I think Sue, you are going to formalize your comments that you just gave us in in writing. Okay. I just want to make sure we get those on record. Um and in regard to uh so I'll lower my hand. The um the public comment letter, we also received I believe a verbal comment statement from the butter and I don't believe that we saw the written letter in our packet. So I thought uh that was going to be in our packet as well. So I assume I like your unless it's there in a earlier um version, but I didn't see it as part of the correspondence. So that was just a couple of general comments. I did go through some of the sheets. I didn't get through everything. Um so I I'm happy to kind of go through my review. Is that okay to do that now, Rebecca?

I think so. Yeah, go ahead. I'm sure they welcome hearing comments earlier than later.

Okay. Um, so a couple of it, well, one really, really minor thing, um, on sheet C1. I tried to do these in order, but I have a hard copy of the older version, but not a hard copy of the new version. So, I just did what I could, but it's I don't think I I I don't think these are com comprehensive, so I may have to go back. Um, so there the commercial building. I know they added labels to uh some of the things on sheet C1, but the the label for the adjacent property owner. I think the addresses should be 972, not 974 Massav. Um, that was on the building, I think, on Sarah's way there. Um, Nick just spoke about the limited disturbance. Um, I guess I'd like to again see that on screen and understand. um is that into the adjoining um property owner's property and if so you know would it I I think it would make sense or I would certainly ask for um some sort of easement agreement. I know there was discussion of a gentleman's agreement but um you know I think for this application there ought be a an easement agreement if the uh applicant intends to use um any property beyond its own um property boundaries. So, that's just something I'm I'll raise now and we can certainly follow up. Um, sheet C2, um, this is kind of a big question for me. I looked at the zoning table and, um, maybe you can bring that up. The max coverage percentage number on that, maybe you can zoom in on that number. The max lot coverage um, the applicant is showing uh, 4.2% and proposed 9%. Um my understanding is that the gravel yard area ought to be included as part of the imperous surface calculation and you've got different numbers in your storm water application and your storm water report. But my by my calculations currently including the gravel yard

area. Um as proposed you're going to have 60.8% lot coverage. So that appears to be an exceedence of what's allowed not 9%. Um, so I'm happy to discuss that further, but that is certainly a concern of mine that exceeds the uh the required 50%. Um, let's see. Let's uh Nick just reviewed the landscape plan. And I really haven't studied this plan extensively, but I guess my question from the site visit, I thought there was going to be some sort of strip remaining for access, but it looked like from the landscape plan that that hole up to the property line was going to be planted. So, I just wanted clarification. Yeah, that that stroll strip there. Is there supposed to be room for access towards the back or it's fully planted right below the rip where the rip wrap ends and and between that and the property? Right. Right there. Um, is that going to be fully planted or is there supposed to be a script for access? Um, let's see. We'll keep going. Uh, you mentioned the sheet C6, the phototric lighting plan. I just prompted me to ask what happens during operations after dark this time of year. Um, is the site going to have lighting? um beyond what you're proposing on the buildings there. Is the site going to be is it operational? I guess um if there's just you know uh dark sky lighting on the buildings because it's pretty big site. So I guess I'd like to understand that better. Um I'll keep going. Let's see. I started to look at the response letter to places. Um this question on uh our environmental standards. I know the applicant's discussing the uh uh mitigation of dust with um potential um

watering. Um I did briefly take a quick look at the noise notes from uh um Jim Griffy, but uh I think it would behoove the applicant to have a formal noise impact assessment prepared. Um I was having trouble even interpreting u Mr. graphy's notes and again I didn't study it at length but um I think it's going to be one of the very most important issues related to the site so I would encourage the applicant to hire a certified noise consultant and have them prepare a formal noise impact study um let's see I did have questions for Sue uh in the storm water report I didn't understand the discrepancy between the soil testing and the response items that was on page seven of the letter response to places. Um I also had questions for Sue about their response on item 10D of the catch basin on Massav and Sarah's Way. They've indicated that's not under the planning board's purview. I wanted Sue's um response on that because again it's coming down the water's flowing down Sarah's way. So if we don't have perview, you know, how does that get accounted for if there's uh impact to to Route 111? Um, let's see what else. There's some some other uh things in the storm water report. Um, there's I think a miss uh or maybe I didn't read it properly, but it looks like the references on page four. Um, approximate properties. This is just under existing conditions that contain wetlands beyond 100 ft. I think the the reference numbers for the properties were incorrect. Um, one of them was 13-030, which I believe is correct. The other one was 13-06, which did not be appear to be correct. So, that might be just some an error in the in the text. You might want to go back and fix that. Um, page seven of storm water standard

one only identified one infiltration basin in the description. I thought there were supposed to be two basins, so that was another question. Um I did look back um at the prior um we did have design point flow for the prior design on this and there were big differences there. That's a question for Sue I guess. Um but I know she's she's handling the uh the drainage calculations. So I'll just let her uh review those and approve those as necessary. Uh page eight is where I also found the discrepancy on the impervious uh post development impervious area. Here it's described as 92,651 square ft. That comes out to 2.12 acres. Whereas above in the storm water application um the amount of impervious uh gravel yard plus proposed impervious comes up to 2.56 acres. So there's about a half an or 4.44 acre discrepancy there. Um, I know I think Sue had already mentioned this, um, that this is not a higher potential pollution load, but I wanted confirmation of that given the type of, uh, um, refueling that's going to be occurring on site. I know they're not storing fuel on site, but I was a little bit concerned about that and whether that might trigger this being uh, reviewed as uh, having higher potential pollutant load in the storm water calculations. Um, there was also a lot area disturbance sketch on page 49 of the storm water report, which I kind of would like to see up close. It looked odd to me and I just wanted to see that more specifically. Um, that's as far as I think I got at this point. Um, there might be some other items as we go through, but that was my first round of first round of comments.

Thanks, Cindy. Uh Rich, go ahead. You're muted. There you go. Thank you. Thank you, Rebecca. Um so a couple things. So the log pile u that was on the plan that I think was uh requested by the fire chief to have that set back so there could be a safety access behind it. Did Did I understand and maybe Sue what you said that that has occurred? Has that change been made? Rich, what I was referring to is there had been a large pile that uh it looked like it was wood chips all along along the tree line down to uh on the southerntherly side of the property.

Okay. And that burm was there the last the previous time I'd been there and it has since been removed. That was one of the comments that the fire department made uh the first time we were there and then when we walked it with the board members, it had been removed. It had been. Okay. So that but that's unrelated to the location of the log pile. Is that right? Right. It's just when we were there with the fire department, he pointed out multiple areas where he has to have access entirely around any materials that could uh potentially be combustible.

Right. Okay. And I apologize. I I could not make the the sitewalk. I had a a work commitment that I couldn't couldn't extract myself from. So I apologize for that. So I'll have to take from you Sue or others who were there. If I need to arrange a separate visit, we can talk about that. But I guess the location of that pile. So we're doing a site plan now, but the fire chief has sort of provided input on a safety concern or hazard is that condition. So is that condition getting changed or is it going to exist until this site plan? We go through this site plan. And maybe that's a question for Alec, like I I heard there was a a fire chief concern over the safety of the site and yes, we should reflect that in a site plan, but is that does that condition exist today?

So, uh, the fire prevention officer has since gone back out to the site from the initial site visit that was conducted by myself, Sue, and other town officials. Um he noted at that time that a majority of the of their uh potential violations, if not all, had been corrected. Uh however, the fire chief and the fire prevention officer have not seen this revision as of yet. So we'll be providing them this revision, asking them to double check it. It's my understanding that the site, if not entirely corrected, is in a significantly safer state than it was at the time of that site visit. Um, but I have asked them to confirm incrementally and they'll continue taking trips out from time to time to confirm that everything is in fact safe.

Okay. Yeah. So, from my perspective as a planning board member, I I kind of jotted down here and I've read gone through all the material and the updates. I'm kind of focused on four things. safety, which Alec you just kind of addressed at least from a fire perspective, noise, uh, environmental slashdust and aesthetics. Um, and that can tie into screening, yard layout, etc. So, Alec, you addressed the safety on the noise. Can someone summarize for me where we are? I know Cindy, you talked about having an assessment done. I guess Jim Guffy was out there. Where are we on noise? Did do do we have and and I think there was the the applicant stated that we were or maybe their attorney stated that they were at 85 on the on the large machine or the quiet machine. I don't know which machine, but like what's the requirement and where are we on noise?

Uh madam chairperson, would you like me to to answer that item? That's fine. Um I I did not see um any findings come in yet. Is that part of our packet?

So, the the extent to what the board's been provided as of yet is the field notes that Jim took the day of. Um, Cindy did provide to us the standard format that she would look for a report to be provided in, and I'm communicating with Jim to get a more robust summary of findings and materials. So, the only thing in your in your packet as of now, and I believe it was added earlier today, and then an email was blasted out to the board is just a copy of those field notes. Um, as you'll see, they're in handwriting, so they're not thorough. They don't provide summary or narrative to them. Um, they just require they just have the required details that Jim then needs to be able to report back, which his intent is to do. So, um, the the conditions on the site the day of were variable due to wind. Um we were having some whipping and winds at the day of so that did provide unfortunately a range not exact measurements. Um Jim was very thorough though and he took several measurements throughout the course of the activity. Um however it was noted to me by at least one attendee. Um there might be some interest in seeing a sound study. Um, so I would I would request that the board discuss that in depth tonight as to whether or not you feel that a full and thorough sound study is required or if you'd prefer to just wait until Jim's report comes back in. Yeah. My question is Jim took some readings. The the applicant cited uh 84 dB. I'm just trying to understand what what do we know? What facts do we have today from the Jim Gerffy summary and and what is the what's the threshold?

Yeah, so um that question it really varies based on the uh the resting sound level on the site. So that's a comparative question. The the sound at the time of activity compared to what the baseline sound is. Um Jim has taken a couple other measurements on other t at other days and times um to establish a baseline when the conditions were better. Um unfortunately the baseline at the day of the conditions was a varying rate of 20 dB in and of itself. Um so it did obstruct the the results as a whole which is why they were taken as ranges. Um but to answer that question more directly it's not that it's a precise number. It's based on a baseline analysis, which just off of his field notes, I can't speak to whether or not it's in compliance.

So, the field notes are useless. Is that a fair assessment? I would not say they're useless. I would say they establish that there is a variable rate and change. Uh, but I can't speak to exactly what that level is, what that threshold is, and whether or not it constitutes a violation. What What is the threshold? Do we have a Do we at least know what that is?

Not off the top of my head. No. Okay. So, so that's going to be a major major thing. We got to get to the bottom of sound. And I, you know, I I got I'm sorry. I'm a little frustrated, but like we have these notes from Jim and I actually went and read them and I thought we had something and now I'm like hearing we don't really have anything. So, okay. So, that's a little frustrating. Uh, let's talk about um Yeah. So I guess and then my only other comment I don't have a question but on on dust you know so that was a windy day um you know there yes I understand there's you know the chipping happens on days when it's you know maybe after rain or the conditions are better but there is an active pile that's there and when it was and I wasn't there okay it was windy were was there debris in the Anybody? Who was there?

Yes, there was dust flying in the air. Was there debris? Um I don't think there were only during grinding. When there was wind during grinding, there was like little like you Yeah, you don't get splinter in your eye. Uh but he but he did stress that a day like then they would not be doing grinding because of the wind knowing that everywhere.

All right. So yeah, so you can control the day, right? You can control the days you do the grinding based on the weather conditions. But I guess my other question or or query is really is there is there the potential with the exposed uh pile of chips that in a in a wind event or dry wind event that you'd have dust in you know that'd be airborne irrespective of whether you're chipping or not. So I think that that's something that we just have to understand and make sure that we've we we um is mitigated and and then you have the screening aspect and I mean I think the bylaw and the and the um rules and regs on site plan are pretty clear about you know the importance of screening and ensuring that uh environmental conditions noise sound that the butters are protected from all that and so I'm going to be looking to see a pretty robust plan to make sure that that's the case. So anyway, I appreciate the updated drawing that I think that um helps me understand the site better and addresses some of the safety concerns. Thank you.

Thanks, Rich. Um just because the question is on the table for the board right now as far as a noise um study. Um I have worked with some of these consultants before in my past and you know they just know so much more about it than I could ever hope to. So um I would you know I know that sound kind of moves around depending on if there's a backdrop or whatnot. So, I I feel like maybe just being on site might not be the only place that someone might be interested in testing. So, um I would be in support of uh an actual um noise study out here on this and I'd like to hear how other board members might feel about that. Go ahead, Chris.

Yeah, that's something I wanted to to speak to. So, I wish it was a calm day when we were there, cuz then it would make it more obvious whether this was really necessary or not, but with the with the gusting wind, it really does make it hard to tell. There's clearly, just from Jim's notes, there is a, you know, when it's calm versus when the loud the louder grinder is going, there's a good 20-ish decel swing. Um, but it' be better to have it officially done, you know, on a nice calm day when you have a clear differential from like I think I think that's probably necessary uh to have a clear answer. Uh it it does help in a sense that the because there were two pieces of equipment the the newer the the green um machine was definitely quieter than the the big older blue one. So, I don't know how we would necessarily do that or or uh make a condition around. I don't know if we can specify certain classes of equipment or if it's just based off the noise rating and we just kind of I don't know. I don't know exact how we condition that. But I think the um um the applicant was was amendable to like we're going to use this one, that other one. We get it, it's loud, we bring that out to where we're uh to locations that we're using. we're not going to use that when there's residences nearby, etc. So, to answer the question, a sound study, I think, makes sense.

Thanks, Chris. Uh, Cindy, I believe you're amendable to that, but I'd like to hear Rich's thoughts on that as well. Yeah, I I mean, to me, loud is loud. Like, I I you know, I this is a loud operation. I think we have an a butter that has said it's loud. We could debate what loud is. You know, I I think I was hopeful that the the field study by Jim Greffi would have settled uh the matter. I mean, I So, if if we need to do a study to figure it out or if the applicant needs to do a study to figure out I don't know how all that happens, then so be it. It's one of my top concerns. I think

but I'm I'm a little frustrated that we don't know more about this sound at this site. would say like subjectively from being there it's loud. The green one is loud but manageable. The blue one is uh loud enough that standing in the auter doing doing that it it was relatable to like ride on lawn mower you being on. So

my fear, Rebecca, is you know I like I to me it gets to a point where do we need to do a scientific study or are we better off having an applicant spend their energy resources mitigating? But you know I mean I'm not I mean if the majority of the board thinks we need a study, okay, like I'm not going to argue that. But I to me it's like it becomes very scientific when this stuff should be relatively straightforward.

Rich, you know, it's a great point. I mean, should we get someone to prepare an attenuation like plan, right? Like how to mitigate this sound issue that we know we have. Um, you know, whether it's um uh attenuation fencing, if it's like more plant material or or whatnot to help out with this. But um Cindy, you're being patient. Raise your hand your hands up what you do have to say.

Yeah, I gave Alec sort of a quick rundown of what my um experiences, what that goes into a noise impact study and and to your point, Rebecca, it also includes proposed mitigation. Um this has to, you know, this has to be done in a science-based um the importance of this project and the impact to not just the the residential abuter but to all the abuters. um in all directions. Um it would, as I mentioned before, I think it would behoove the applicant given the importance of this issue to have a formal certified noise uh acoustic engineer performance noise study. Um that study will provide the existing regulations. It'll provide the variance. It'll strip out the wind. It'll it'll do, you know, show us um sort of the radiant noise um different um you know, sound levels based on topography. There's a whole lot that this impact study is going to do and and again including mitigation and the mitigation should be to a point where it's going to show you whether or not they can mitigate it to meet the the guidelines. Um my other question or comment is that this is a um project that's in the business zone district and also in an industrial commercial district. We do have noise regulation uh limits in the IC district. Um, and I think we may need to get a legal interpretation as to which uh my my guess is we're going to go for the more stringent regulations. We don't have um uh actual numerical data for what the business district um limits would be. I know it's 10 dBA at the property line and there's some other D noise uh policy limits, but we need again a formal acoustic study that the applicant prepares, you know, um I think is the best uh way. I don't you know I appreciate that uh the town uh board of health agent was able to take measurements and we can compare those results but um I really strongly recommend that the applicant prepare a

formal acoustic study including mitigation and uh you know make it a robust study so that we have understand the whole impact of this. Thanks Cindy. Um attorney Robinson

thank you very much. I I I just wanted to make um um a response on on the comment that uh it was allowed and and I think that that you know if we take it from there um I I think it would be helpful to have um Jim um you know formalize his notes but but I think that one of the uh points that um we've tried to continuously make is that the the way that we seek to mitigate this is to putting reasonable limitations uh on the time and length of use uh that we can come back with a noise study but um without finding out what it is right now let's just assume that it's loud right we'll accept uh Mr. Dowy's comment that it that it's loud. The proposal here is to mitigate and that's the the closest to butter is is Miss Dorfman and she asked that it be limited in the the time of day and the amount of use and and so what the the client would propose is to say um given that that closest to battery that's her request is to say something reasonable such as uh between uh only use the chipper between 10:00 in the morning and 4:00 in the afternoon, no more than so many hours every 2 weeks, five or 6 hours or such. And um I think it's relevant too that um with respect to the other abutters, I personally canvased uh the remaining list of abutters mostly on uh use lane and uh uh to a person they did not have a complaint. They did not notice a noise. They they didn't have a problem with this. That isn't to say that that there isn't a um necessity of addressing Miss Dorfman's concerns, but the thought is to try to mitigate that by by limited use. Uh speaking with the design

engineer with Nick, one of his comments is because of the slope of the land, it' be extremely difficult to create a sort of cone of silence to be able to uh stop this noise completely whether you you know built a a 50 ft fence or such. So the the proposal would be that um we we get back uh Mr. Graph's uh you know readings but also accept okay that that if it's loud isn't it isn't a reasonable means to mitigate this uh to limit as the closest to body requests uh to reasonable uh number of hours uh and limit the the uh the the time of data that it would be used.

Thank you uh Paul. Thank you. Um to to that point, um I just Cindy, pardon, I'm going to jump in here. I'm, you know, I'm looking at the uses um and I'm seeing them all um snugged right up against that property line as close as they can possibly be. Um and I'm not seeing any kind of physical mitigation that is being offered here for that neighbor. Um, it looks to me that there's flexibility to shift all of this program up towards the road and perhaps the the applicant has kept it back to keep it less visible from the street. Um, but there does look like there's at least 25 ft that this this whole activity could be moved forward towards 111 um to maybe allow for some screening and mitigation that could happen along that property line. Um, I'll get into my landscape comments when I get my chance, but um, you know, there's nothing being offered here as a a a evergreen screen even or any kind of fencing to offset any of this um, impact on that neighbor um, in particular. So, um, Cindy, go ahead. I have a lot of comments, but I'll

Yeah, thanks. I'll be quick on this one. Um, yeah. Um a formal acoustic study should also include compliance testing to demonstrate that the mitigation that has been you know assuming that there is mitigation proposed that the mitigation meets the uh the limitations and there are should be formal limitations. Again D has a noise limit of no more increase in 10 dBA at the property line. Um I think there's another requirement on on pure tones and and such. So um I again encourage not only the study but then some compliance requirements um to ensure because it's a long going to be a longtime operation um and noise li you know noise uh sources could change over time. So I'm going to uh you know again emphasize the importance of having the study done and also encouraging that there'll be ongoing mitig uh compliance testing to ensure that the the limits that are agreed upon are are met over time. Thanks.

Thanks Cindy. Uh go ahead Rich. Yeah, I think just to to the comment um by uh attorney Robertson and the and the suggestion on the time. So I think that's a that's a very um collegial and and um you know neighbor friendly thing to do to agree to certain hours of operation. Um, I don't think that's a substitute though for you know true sound mitigation because when that unit is running and and I get it there may be talk to other abutters but like we're approving a site plan that lives on in infamy here right this you know property owners change new properties get developed like you know we it needs to be in conformance with what we believe is the appropriate amount of environmental noise etc. screening. Um, and yes, I do think hours of operation and reaching agreement with neighbors is a is a really it's a best practice, but it's doesn't it doesn't replace the need to ensure there's true sound mitigation, my opinion.

Thanks, Rich. Um, any other comments before I dig into mine board members? Okay. Um uh Nick, your um drainage plan um showing the outflow up front. Yes. The overflow is that overflow to be flowing onto 111 like I I hadn't noticed that before until you were describing it a little bit, but um sorry. Left of your plan um down in that Yeah. Yep. Right here.

Yeah. So that's a that's a discharge pipe. Um, and I think we discussed this a little bit with Sue uh the last meeting. That's that's where the natural flow is going today and water will leave the basin through this pipe and work its way into a uh there's an existing catch basin. It's uh there's a little text over it, but it's essentially right here. Um you know, that's the natural flow pattern. So, there's a large portion of water which is already leaving the site primarily in this corner here. And what we're doing is mimicking that. We're also actually reducing it substantially from what it's uh releasing today. But yes, there will be some water which um leaves that pipe. It'll flow overland and then make its way into the catch basin right here because that's where the currently the water flows from the site today.

Thanks, Nick. Um I just I'm looking at the proximity of that driveway that's directly across the street from it. Um Sue, I know you'll delve into that more. I'm just um pointing out, you know, just my questions. So, thank you. Um, I'm still concerned about the asphalt tailings um from a um contaminants, leeching contaminants and um particulate matter um standpoint. Um we talked about the program being up against the neighbors and the need for screening. Um, I know this is really picky, Nick, but um, you're you I know you noted the 2x twox4 wall. Can you please put a top and bottom of wall on that? And it's purely because it I'm still not clear if it's stacked up or not. I know it's a single row.

It's not It's not a wall. It's a block, a gap, a block, a gap. It's a I want to just make sure it's not block and a block on top of it. No, it's just a block with a gap and a block with a gap. So, it's it's not called a wall because it's not a wall. It's just something to denote a break. They could be boulders. They could be anything. It's just so maybe just label it as a single stack or something. However you want to get around it. I just I want to make sure that it's very clear that those will not be stackable.

Okay. Not a problem. Um, okay. Oops. One more comment here. Uh, so you've heard our comments about dust sound visual mitigation for the neighbors. Um, I'm going to move to the landscape plan. Um, I do want to point out that uh the proposal from your landscape architect is a significant one and and I'm I'm acknowledging that from you guys. So, there's a very substantial planting that's being proposed. Uh, a number of Sue's comments are going to apply here um to mine um with the use of native I'm sorry, not Sue, but Belle's um that she shared um with using native plantings out here would be preference. Um I think that along the street even though we have these roodendrrons and and I am also giving you guys credit for the the um the size of your plantings you this the size is specified where um you know considerable and fair. So um I would like to be able to incorporate maybe a little bit more evergreen material. Uh not just not just um roodendrrons like you've got a lot of evergreen roodendrrons but maybe some more um tree screening along the 111. So maybe something mixed into that layer. Um Sue mentioned that I would want the the trees that are going to be protective to um be shown with the tree um protection limitation. Um you're probably going to get that comment from her again. Um, I think we need to have evergreen screening likely along the top of the slope at the rip wrap side to kind of offset some of the vehicle viewing in there. Um, we've got some, but it could use a bit more along that edge. Um, and then again some screening for the neighbor uh to the south of your

plan here if I have north oriented. Right. Yes. Um, I also wanted to thank you guys for the um phototric plan. That's not something we get across our table very often. So, it's always good to see um what that what that actually is. Um, so thanks for sharing that. Uh, see if I had any more comments. Nope, that's all I have. Uh Rich, go ahead.

You know, one more one more comment. So, and I and maybe Rebecca, you said it or maybe I thought you said it. So, the loca can we go back to I don't know who's sharing if it's Nick or Al. Yeah,

if we can go back to the site the that shows the layout. Nick. Yeah, there we go. the so we're we're in this uh or maybe it was Cindy mentioned that you know we're we're sort of working in this area of the budding property owner and Cindy talked about getting a right away got that but what about setback what is the you know is there like a lot of this work is I mean where that log pile is like right up against that property line um the dust pile looks like I can't read It is that how many feet is that from the edge? Oh, maybe it's not to the edge. It's 30 ft from the wood pile. It's 114 to the looks like to the Is that to the center or

uh that's a that's a property line dimension. So, from here to here cuz the site is three separate properties. So, okay. Oh, I see. For reference, from here to here is 114 feet. From where? I'm sorry. Where was the from this point? From that point to this point. Yeah. All right. So that so that dust that's the uh chip pile. Is that what that is?

Correct. Yeah. I mean and like I said in my response, right, these things are living breathing uh piles, right? They're they're worked. They're um moved around, but these are what we anticipate the largest uh footprint for both piles to be. And where is the chipper generally located? The chipper would typically be parked in the equipment parking area up in this area. And uh the chipper actually it's like a large truck. Uh so it has, you know, four wheels. They drive it down and it takes one person to operate and they would essentially um park it in this area here and there's a claw that is used to grab a log and it feeds it into it. Um and then the chip uh chute can be directed higher, lower, left to right. It's a very versatile machine um and can direct the chips in a variety of directions. But essentially the chipper would sit roughly in this area. And all of these logs are not for chipping. So the logs that are stored in this area, those are the really uh the larger logs that go to woodmills for processing of um you know lumber. So the larger logs that get temporarily stored and then removed from the site to be sold to um woodmills are kept in this area and then the logs for chipping are typically kept um closer to the chip pile in this area. would

the chipper would move down towards this southerntherly part would to pick up the the logs and then process them. Correct. Yeah. And and typically in a you know general operating sense, the wood pile probably wouldn't extend past this area, but we just wanted to show it worst case scenario type of footprint here. Typically the the log pile is going to be living roughly in this area right here. Yeah. And I guess you know that's kind of where I'm going with the setback. I think that's well that's marked as a 30-foot setback. And just looking in the B1 district, the Is that the backyard? Is that the side yard? What setback are we looking at?

Um if that's the rear of the yard, it would be a 40ft setback. Um if it's correct, it's not a structure rich. Yeah. This is just a pile log pile. Okay. So there's no there's no setback on operations. We the log pile can that could literally go on the property line. Can't go on the property line per fire code, but 25 gap. So

there's a requirement for access around the pile which we discussed with the fire department. Um previously we had it shown up against not really up against the property line because the property line is actually here. So, you know, we're plenty far set back in this area here, you know, towards the tail end. Yes, it's shown as 30 ft. And that's only because this is already cleared or this whole area is currently cleared gravel um yard space beyond the property line onto the abuing property. Um so, we're just showing that as Okay. Yeah.

All right. So, it's only it's only a permanent structure that we're going to be talking about setbacks. It's not a it's not a uh an operation or inventory or anything like that. That is no. So, you could have trailers literally parked within 25 ft of a property line, right? Is that what I just heard? Fire code. Yeah. And I bet there's plenty of sites around town that have trailers and dumpsters right up against the property line today. Yeah. Yeah. Bye. Thanks, Rich. Any other comments from the board at this time? Go ahead, Cindy.

Um, yeah, I did have a question about the number of parking spaces. Um, I think I counted 10 and I think there's supposed to be 11. And then and I'm sorry I didn't really give Nick a chance to answer any of my questions so I don't know if now it's appropriate for to go back through those um because uh you know I just sort of ran through them. Um Nick, do you want to respond to Yeah, we can go over a handful of those. Um so with the parking I I'm not getting a requirement of 11. I don't know where

you you're coming up with those numbers. I mean, I think we need two spaces max. I mean, we're we're we're noting three employees max at the site, which would be one parking space required. Um, right. Um, and fleet parking if it's one per vehicle and then one uh for every three employees. So, you had 10 vehicles listed and then three employees would be one parking space. So, that makes 11. Correct. Yeah, we show spaces in this area here for equipment. 10. Yep.

I mean, but we we're not committing to 10 pieces of equipment. We can part I don't think we'll have 10 pieces of equipment there. Um, as far as equipment and then we have Yeah. in this area here. So, your application stated 10 vehicles and three employees. So, that's what I was going off of.

Yeah. up to 10 working vehicles. You were on the site. You saw that he had an extra chipper. He had a a claw grabbing uh land clearing machine. He had a few other machines and those are coming in and out, but we're not anticipating the the whole area to be filled with um vehicles at this point. Okay. I'm just counting the number of spaces you're showing and the number of vehicles you identified. So is that is it not 10 vehicles? I think we said up to 10 up to 10 and then you need employee space. So do you have you have 10? We have the employee space right here. Okay driveway.

Generally speaking is it possible to move the parking back because the size of those um trucks and I don't have a good feel yet. I know you're proposing quite a bit of planting, but um you know, even though it's beyond the the setback, um I'm just curious whether there's an opportunity to relocate the parking further away. Um also because it is still today it's quite visible. I don't know how it'll look with all the plantings, but my guess is it'll still be visible um from the corridor. I would say with the comments this evening about pushing everything further into the site, I don't think we'd be able to move those any further in. We can't move up from the back and further in and then we just have no space to operate. So, I would say that's not possible if we're going to be looking at providing additional screening towards the south of the property for the abuter.

That only takes up like six feet. You could get away with six feet for screening. Sorry. What are you suggesting, Rebecca? I I'm saying screening might only take up six feet if we were to put in some like an evergreen screen through there. Just saying it doesn't need the length of these vehicles.

Well, the the to be honest, the property owner is already losing a lot of usable space with storm water management improvements that are going to be occurring from the parcel he purchased two years ago. So he's trying to utilize this property as much as possible for his operation and you know 10 ft here 15 ft there it really starts to pinch everything in and it makes the site you know um much less unusable. So, you know, we comply with the requirement and uh our inclination is to leave those um truck parking spaces where they are.

Um and and so I had initially mentioned that the uh it looks like the lot coverage exceeds the maximum allowed. Do you want to speak to that now or do you want to go back and reassess your calculations and and give It's my interpretation that the zoning bylaw is for strictly impervious coverage, legitimate pavement, buildings, and uh and that the storm water bylaw considers gravel to be considered impervious when looking at those calculations. I'll let Sue speak to this. I'm sure she's reviewed the plan and has done plenty of these other uh types of reviews in the past.

But if that'll be asphalt tailings instead,

um the asphalt tailings are generally pvious. Um I I think where we had a little bit of a disconnect was uh considering all of those to be D soils, which would be similar to impervious. Um, typically in zoning, uh, something that's gravel is not considered impervious. Uh, when you get on different permits on a state level, some consider even gravel walkways to be per uh, impervious. But in this case, I think zoning wise, it's usually just something that's a solid pavement or concrete or a roof. I I'm I guess I'm really like to hammer on on that point because my understanding well the stormwater bylaw calls it impervious. Our definition under maximum lot coverage is impervious surfaces, buildings and structures. Um so and it's compacted or or you know asphalt tailing sounds like asphalt to me and I understand that's not not to not pvious. So it sounds like it ought to be counted as imperous for zoning purposes as well. But um this is the first I'm hearing that gravel yard area that's going to be re recycled asphalt would be considered pvious. It doesn't sound right to me. And um it sounds like there'll be sheet flow and that's what's being designed from the storm water. So I I don't understand why we would call it not counted as impervious in the zoning. Cindy, the the tailings will compact well together um and have a tendency not to be as dusty, but my experience has been that even with compaction over a hot summer, you still get some infiltration because they're individual particles and not they don't have the asphalt binding it all together like pavement has or the concrete that holds the aggregate together uh for a concrete pad. Um,

well, so water can still go through them. I mean, it's heavily compacted. I agree. But I I've just written myself a note to check that how impervious is categorized on the storm water, the drainage, and the lot coverage. Yeah, I think the stormwater report acknowledges it that it's impervious. So I

So for the record, the storm water report acknowledges what the storm water bylaw calls it to be. The zoning table is based on the town's zoning bylaw and what the lot coverage definitions and requirements are for lot coverage. That's there's a difference. I mean, you guys just created a new storm water bylaw last year and and in that bylaw you said we're going to call gravel impervious, which as an engineer makes sense to me. But for zoning compliance, that's not how it works. Impervious is, as uh Sue said, buildings, pavement, um concrete surfaces versus what the storm water bylaw wants you to uh or how they want you to look at the analysis of those areas. They want you to treat them as if they were impervious for calculation purposes, for basin sizing. That's the disconnect. So, you have one definition for storm water, one for zoning.

I I hear you, Nick. Um, and we do have a definition for imperous. It says that um material on the ground that does not allow surface water to penetrate into the soil directly beneath it. Um, I'm guess I'm not convinced that what you're proposing um doesn't meet that definition. And the recycled asphalt tailings are the same as gravel as your consultant has just reported to you. That's how they're classified. I it sounds like we need to look into this a little bit more versus debating it any further on this right now. So, um understood.

So, you're going to go ahead and and dig into that a little bit more and we can all do our our homework um on the side of that as well, the the bylaws. Um terrific. Um, Cindy, did you have anything else you wanted to get a direct answer from at this point? Um, let me just go quick back through my comments. Uh, I think um I asked about that 10-ft strip. Nick, did you

Sure. So, down in this area, we uh this the the area down below, I mean, the tree symbols show that it's taking up a lot of that area. you know, laborers or workers will still be able to get down there to do general maintenance of that strip, you know, and the the goal of that strip was just in case a piece of rip wrap were to roll down the hill, it wouldn't go over the property line. That was the general intent of providing that, you know, gap at the bottom. Um, you know, I think with the the plantings down there, it's going to enhance um, you know, the visual impact from Massav, it'll also provide additional protections from anything that may slip off that slope. We don't anticipate it happening. 2:1 slopes of rip wrap are, you know, commonly used and are um, quite safe, but it is a, you know, an area that can still be accessed by some laborers down there even with the dense plantings. But if um you know during Sue's additional review of this item, you know, we could minimize some additional access down there, but um you know, we still feel that you can still get access to that area um for general maintenance purposes of that slope.

So I guess if it's going to be when you say provide access, I assume you mean with enough to drive a truck down there. So, I I guess if that is the case, then I'd like to see it labeled accordingly. Um because right now it doesn't look like you'd be have any access there. But if you are going to drive a truck down there, I'd like to have that noted somehow that that's not going to be fully planted that you would have, you know, a width of a strip width, you know, wide enough to bring a vehicle down.

Yeah. I mean, we could maybe look at just making it, you know, we'll have some plantings and then we may have to lose a few of these in this area, but just provide a, you know, you can use a a bobcat, you know, uh 5 foot width to to get up and down uh have a dedicated corridor and still provide the plantings that Rebecca wanted to see through this area. So, I think there's a compromise there. We can take a look at some of the plantings. is I'll talk with my landscape architect to make sure whatever we put in there um you know as it grows and matures would still um leave enough room for you like I said keep a five six foot strip of open area where you could drive a bobcat back and forth through there

I would like to go on record saying I would love to maintain the tree screen here um as it's represented right Right. I just want to make sure that, you know, if we're trying to do both that that's reflected. If if it's not intended to have access, then what's shown makes sense. But if there is intended to have access, I want that to be shown so that we're all in agreement so that there's enough screening there.

And in general, the slope could be maintained from the top with an excavator. So, an excavator with a with, you know, sizable, you know, larger excavator parked here. If some work did need to occur, um, you know, reshaping, moving a few stones around, could reach down the slope, um, and and provide any general maintenance. Like I said, once the rip wrap slopes installed, it shouldn't require any maintenance. So, you know, you may need to pick some weeds out of there from time to time. Uh, but overall, it should be a very lowmaintenance um piece of the site, right? I just want that strip and you're not using that strip to access the detention basin there. Correct.

No, no, no. A basin access would be through this area here. Okay. Well, I just would like that noted on the plan if you are going to have a strip. Um and then I also asked about the lighting at the site during you know late afternoon hours and this time of year. What

Yeah. So the intent is for no operations to occur you know um after dark. So, you know, we understand that there would likely be a condition for working hours and um you know, given that the site's only used for um storing of materials, you know, there's it's not really a fully man uh manned site that's going to be operated by a full crew day in and day out. Um we feel that it's best to not fully light the site. So, um the proposed lighting mounted to the building on, uh sensors, so when somebody if somebody does have to pull up and grab a piece of equipment real quick or grab a truck, there's just enough lighting, say in these types of conditions, you know, November, December, January, where it gets dark at 4:00, if somebody had to, you know, grab something at 4:30 right at the end of the day, there would be enough light there. But we we don't anticipate any operations occurring during nighttime hours um or early early enough where it would be dark out.

Okay. Well, I guess yeah, we want to make sure we have a condition that addresses that sufficiently. Nick, what about emergency like storm events and stuff like that? They would need to be out there 247, right? Well, a lot of the potentially

Yeah, a lot of the equipment here is mostly land clearing equipment that's stored. So, you know, New England Tree Masters, they have their facility at 871 Massav where they keep some of the smaller vehicles. Um, so those vehicles would remain there. Now, if a a load of logs may need to be dropped um at night during an emergency, we can um you know, run through that scenario where an extra truck is there to provide them lighting as they drop the logs in that emergency situation. But, you know, we don't feel it's necessary to provide a large scale lighting operation for this site. Um as you know, we understand that the abutters don't want us to work that late, right? So, um, obviously there'll be a few emergency situations where a load may need to come in after hours, uh, during an ice storm or something of that nature, but few and far between and we think, um, you know, we can accommodate that without lighting up the whole site.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Um I when we were talking about timers I mean um uh uh what do you I can't even get the word right now but lights that just come on with sensors motion motion sensor motion sensor. Thank you. Oh my god it's ardently Monday. Um uh so you said motion s sensors but I was wondering about timers. Um because I um I have a motion sensor light on my house which likely drives my neighbors a little crazy because we have lots of wildlife around here and um they do go off. So um I'm wondering about timers. You had mentioned timers potentially earlier on I think in our discussions.

Yeah. Um, I prefer the motion sensors cuz as you know, sometimes kids like to come on to these sites and or people will come and uh vandalize equipment. You know, we don't see it happen in Boxboro very often, but if somebody were to enter the site, say at 2:00 in the morning, the lights would go on and maybe a police officer driving by would notice, hey, uh, why is why is why are the lights on up there? They're usually pretty quiet. So, um, you know, for that reason, we'd like to keep the motion sensor versus, you know, the timer where it's, you know, it's say it goes off by 10:00 at night or something. Um, you know, we wouldn't want to run them all night long. Um, but if that's something that the board really wants to see, we could we could pivot to that, but we'd probably want to see those lights on for most of the night.

Understood. Um, I think that might be another good argument for um giving some mitigation to the neighbors as well. Um, just from my own personal experience. Uh, thank you. Um, Rich, can I just add also the head the headlights in a situation like that without any without a real barrier to the budding properties, you know, headlights coming out on that property in the middle of night. Um, you know, there might be I don't know what the the height of the screening currently is, but that might be something we need to keep an eye out for. Also, um if there's lights on and off, uh from vehicles that might be spilling over onto the other properties. So, just something to think about. Thanks, Cindy. Uh go ahead, Rich.

Yeah, just um one of the comments I had earlier was on the you know, one of my important points is the screening and since we're talking about screening on the guess it's the west side of the property. So are is there Nick is there any screen like it doesn't look like there's any screening on the south side right but particularly with that a budding neighbor at 71 Sarah's way I know I can see that there's the catch basin and obviously drainage there what is so what what's going on there is there not any screening planned

on right up against the property there is not um in currently the way the property is configured. So you have uh may be better on uh this sheet here. All right. So this is the Sarah's way property line. It's very odd for a right away. Uh it kind of comes up through here as you follow my cursor.

Yeah. So, the frontage for this parcel here, which is 121 Sarah's Way, is right here. And this is the previous uh the previous property owner of this site also owned this prop currently owns this property here. So there's this separate parcel between uh the Dorfman's property who uh is the abutter that we've uh taken the measurement the sound readings at in their driveway. I know you weren't at the site visit, but that's the uh a butter we've been targeting for uh mitigation. So there's all this land in between the Dorfman's property line and our property line that we don't own. We can't do anything with now. We're doing a little bit of grading and we've removed uh a wood chip pile that kind of um was on this property. A little bit spilled over onto uh the rightway over the property line here. All that's been removed, but our property line is here. So this is all open previously graded disturbed area that is not owned by the applicant um and will remain as such is from what my understanding is. I don't know if there's any um current proposals by the current property owner to reveate this area. Um it's my understanding that it's going to remain as it is today. Um so that is there's that gap right there. There is some natural screening which exists down through this area here. We have an existing tree line that kind of comes through this area. Um but as far as

mitigation and plantings we we have not proposed anything as there will be this large void directly behind us.

Yeah. And that I mean that's going to be a problem for me. I mean and I think that's a problem in the in the both the site plan uh rules and regs as well as the zoning bylaw. Um dense screening is going to be a requirement particularly given there's residential property there both parcels 121 and 71. I know 121 is really that's not a there's no residence that sits on that part of that parcel, but that's a that's a to me that's a major issue, right? Not having I mean, we've got tremendous landscape in this plan, but this is a critical area of this parcel to not have any screening. I don't I don't know how I don't know how we get there without that. I don't know how I get there without I can't speak for the other board members.

Yeah. And you know we can look at something you know in lie of plantings. I I think a stockade fence would be appropriate along that section. Um cuz essentially what you would have is if I put plantings here, you'd have yard gravel yard a 6ft gap of some evergreen plantings and then this was all gravel gravel yard space. You know, it's it's an interesting um it would it would look interesting. Um but you know in lie of plantings I would say for mitigation to help with sound a solid fence starting at the existing tree line and then coming around the property line um you know would be would be appropriate for that area as far as um mitigation visual mitigation along this property. Yeah, you're in. So, like it's not it's not my place, right? I mean, these are these are, you know, land owners that have to work out agreements, but you're already in this land this other landowner's area um with some grading. They might be open to potentially helping with the screening. I don't know. I don't know what their plans are with the property. Like, that's not my business, but, you know, it seems like if you know, maybe that's an opportunity. I don't know. We can definitely reach out to the property owner and see if they'd be interested in having us do some plantings in that area. I can't make any promises um you know with regards to that. I can say that we can install a solid fence in lie of these concrete

blocks that I was proposing as a divide between this property and this property. Um, you know, the goal of these blocks was to make sure that all operations only occur within the limits of the property line for which the site plan um is being approved for. So right now there's kind of a you know a gentleman's agreement a little you know gray line right here where you know operations for both you you know both property owners you know they both utilize each other's land maybe um you know as we saw at the site visit there was a storage container that was over the property line that's owned by um you know 121 Sarah's Way. So there's, you know, they they get along just fine and um, you know, but we know moving forward we need to define where the operation is. That's why I had those blocks there. So we can reach out to them and see if that's possible for additional um landscaping mitigation through this area. But, you know, at a minimum we could do a solid fence.

Yeah. And I think I think what you could do, Nick, is take a look at in the um it's in our uh regs rules and rags on site plan, but it's going to come up in 4.4 landscaping and buffers. Item three speaks specifically to this uh use case. Exposed storage areas, machinery, HVAC equipment, service areas, dumpsters, truck loading areas, utility buildings, structures shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and streets by dense evergreen plantings, earthn BMS, walls, or fences complemented by evergreen plantings. So, take a look at that. But I I think, you know, something something's needed there.

No, we'll we'll we'll take a look. Um, like I said, I think we could come up with something that fits in that area. Um, you know, my opinion, a solid fence would probably provide a little bit of sound mitigation as well. So, you know, that's that's where I would be um as far as a recommendation, but we'll talk to the uh a butter and see if there's anything possibly uh we can do on this um parcel to provide additional mitigation, maybe some restoration of this area. Um, and then look at screening and compliance with that section you just noted.

Um, I I just want to restate that I think you're going to need more than just a fence on this. There's a heck of a lot of grade change between this parcel and that neighboring parcel that you can see in your map here. Um, your your topo plan. Um, so they're going to be looking right over a 6ft fence. It's not going to do a whole heck of a lot for them. So, I think um some evergreen plantings along this trees would be way more beneficial, but I'm I'm certain that when we hear back about um the noise mitigation that they will have a list of really great recommendations for us as well. Uh, Attorney Robertson,

I just wanted to revisit um the issue of the the noise mitigation, and I know that you had mentioned at the start of a hearing that that heck, the litigation doesn't really matter. Um, but but the client has an absolute right to a pre-existing non-conforming use here. And part of the playing field of coming forward and submitting uh the uh the planning board uh submission for for site plan review was an understanding that we had that right. and that wasn't going to be surrendered. Uh there was going to be reasonable accommodations on all sides. So, so um you know, the comment that um uh the client hasn't made any accommodations yet. Um of course, the the purchase of the $1.2 million chipper was certainly an accommodation. And I think that the suggestion that uh the client move the chipper to someplace that's that's more reasonable um is also something that can certainly can be considered as can be uh considered planting in a burn here. But it's also relevant that um that um this is one particular neighbor that we're talking about. And as I look back into and this is relevant, the contractual history of the purchase of this property when it was sold to the previous owner, uh the the purchase agreement specifically said and and I'll submit this uh to the planning board. Uh this property being 71 Sarah's Way. This property is located in the residential agricultural zone on land uphill and abuing business and industrial zone land with existing businesses that may produce noise or be visible from the property. So this property 71 has always been known to be located next to this pre-existing non-conforming use. That said, you know, my client Lewis has bent over backwards. uh as you see here, he's giving up an enormous portion of his land to meet the storm water bylawar

requirements and he's also willing to consider additional mitigation efforts. But to the extent the requirement is that he have no noise coming from the site or it completely be mitigated, I don't think that's going to be possible or feasible and I respectfully ask the um the board to reasonably consider the thought of the limited use um because it's going to be extremely perhaps expensive to build enormous fences or enormous trees. Um, but to the extent that this neighbor who purchased with knowledge of the use here anyway, he's only requesting uh limited times of use, uh, I'm not sure what purpose we serve by trying to create a cone of silence over the entire property. I'm not trying to be facitious here. the client is absolutely willing to consider reasonable accommodations, but to the extent that he's going to be required to have, you know, a completely silent operation when his chipper is operating, I don't think that's reasonable or or particularly fair given the the history in his right to a pre-existing non-conforming use.

Thank you, Attorney Robertson. Um, I heard three times that we're trying to enforce a zero sound um operation here, and I don't believe that that is at all where the board is is going. Um but we are trying to be good neighbors with with this proposal um and try to mitigate what is could be a very uncomfortable um situation for for some people around there. And there is one more than one um residential use up there up on that road that I know of. Uh Chris, go ahead. Yeah, I was just kind of weigh in where this is where the I got the might add add work to the process where the sound sound study could be helpful to establish that um you know use of the use of the newer quieter um machinery. it could confirm that that use is actually within um within the reg the current regulations of a 10 decel variance things like that. I think that kind of study would help that way and if it shows that it's close then that's where the accommodations would be helpful. Um yeah it's it's we're not looking for something to be silent. It just has to be within what within the regulations, which is a a differential of 10 dB, which it might certainly be. We just need to actually know. Uh, and that'd be helpful. And it's the the extra recommendations about about things like if since there's also supposed to be some sort of screening if evergreens planted there, especially if you convince the uh the previous owner that you could use some of their stuff to put evergreens there, that might all together work. So, it's worth the

considering.

Thanks, Chris. Any other board comments? I'd like to open it up for public comment. Okay. Um, uh, I'd like to allow the public to weigh in here with any additional comments that they might have. If you want to raise your hands or star nine. Okay. Not seeing anyone raising their hand. Um, any further discussion on this? Sydney, go ahead. Um yeah, I I definitely would like to get in writing something from the fire department about the limitations. One of the other concerns I had um that came up during the sitewalk was about the mobile refueling and my understanding is that it is allowed in in a business district, but you know there were fire um regulations surrounding that. So um Alec, I assume you would be the the liaison with the fire department. We I don't believe we got a written summary yet from them, but um I would definitely like them to address all the items that were discussed tonight, including the refueling and the uh you know, potential um pollutants associated with mobile refueling. Um you know, and a confirmation that that is in fact allowed in our business district. Um I don't know a lot about how it's done, but um you know, my understanding is it's regulated by them. So, um I would like to see some, you know, fairly detailed, uh summary from the fire department about how all these things are going to be regulated.

Uh I'm making notes now and I will provide this back to the fire department in advance of the next public hearing scheduled. Okay. Any more uh deliberation at this point? Uh, Attorney Robertson,

I guess I make the the final request that, you know, we um, Mr. Gafi came out and did his sound recordings. It was a windy day. Uh, he did conduct extensive notes. Um, one of the earlier comments had been that the client is certainly spending a lot of money on uh, his his landscaping. Um, the cost is is getting to be pretty extraordinary for Lewis and so the cost of a a sound study will be uh even more expensive. Um, I'm not sure that we're going to find that it's that it meets a chipper meets a 10 decel differential. I'd respectfully ask that the the board uh consider getting Mr. graphy's results back uh first um before requiring the expensive uh formal sound study and to the extent that the board wants to assume that it exceeds the 10 decel level um and and you know address what mitigation efforts would seek to see um because I think that we're all agreed as Mr. already stated that it's loud uh and to the extent that we need mitigation to address that uh we're willing to certainly consider that. I think that on trying to help the client avoid is spending additional monies uh on on things that can be addressed uh in other ways, especially as we're waiting for Mr. Graphy's results to come in. So, I'd ask the board to to consider getting those results in and having a discussion about mitigation efforts before requiring yet more expense on on Lewis's behalf. Thank you board members. Any comments or thoughts about that?

Yeah, I'm just going to say it again because this is going to be an ongoing operation um a sound study, you know, by a qualified engineer who can actually model what the mitigation um effects will be and how how mitigation will dampen the sound and then then would be demonstrated with you know uh compliance after the mitigation has been installed. I think it protects you, the client, and it protects the town, from further potential litigation to have that kind of documentation. So, I I think it I I understand that there's an expense associated with a noise mitigation, a noise impact study, including mitigation, but it may may be well worth um the applicants uh effort. I think it might be short money spent to prevent future um problems. And uh you know this seems to be enough of a concern that uh again I'm just encourage the applicant to seriously consider it. I think the town's board of health agent is not a certified noise engineer. I appreciate the work that he's doing and I look forward to his report. Um but I do believe uh the client would be well served the applicant would be well served with a professional study done.

Thanks Cindy. Um any more board comment at this time? Okay, Alec, I assume that we are looking for a date to continue to

uh Yes. Um as we will discuss later on as well, um uh the anticipated December town meeting was in fact postponed. Uh we're all already aware of that. However, uh we had held uh that Monday, December 15th in our calendars um as a meeting either in advance of that first night of town meeting or if we needed it further. Um, given the scope of the items that it's necessary to to be addressed, we're still waiting on Sue's response. Uh, we're going to be waiting on a fire department response. It sounds like the applicant has a variety of responses, at least a narrative form that they could be providing, as well as investigation of whether um a STEM study can be conducted. I'd recommend we push this at least one month out, if not into uh your January meeting schedule. Uh, you currently have a meeting which is booked solid for December 1st. You have the potential meeting on December 15th and then you have Monday, January 5th. Um, so I would first ask board members, uh, do we want to go ahead and proceed with the Monday, December 15th meeting? And if so, do we want to schedule this as a public hearing? And, uh, of course that same question, uh, slightly different words, goes back to, uh, Sue, Attorney Costa, um, and the applicant. Please confirm if you'll be available, uh, on the date that the planning board would like to select. I can be flexible. I've made Foxboro my priority. So, whatever the board decides.

Thank you, Sue.

I I'm good with the 15th. Um, are we is there information we need back? Are we doing this study? What are we asking for this study? What I just want to make sure we're being effective with and not just continuing Yeah, it feels like if we're asking for that, it's going to take a bit more time likely to engage somebody and provide reporting to us. So, would we like to instead look forward to the January 5th meeting?

That just my thought, but it it feels like that might give them enough time to be able to pull that together. So, speaking for the applicant, if we are going to go uh and solicit a sound engineer, that's going to take a couple months probably to get somebody signed on. You know, uh I'm sure these guy most uh local or people in the area um are probably at least a month out before they can get to uh the site. So, I would recommend possibly pushing out at least to the 15th and maybe we can continue or have a quick meeting, quick update or target a January meeting. But, I mean, if the board would like to um hear an update on the 15th, you know, I think we could accommodate that as well. Um, let you know where we are with things. Uh, have a quick meeting or we could push out to uh January. I'll let other board members weigh in, but I it seems like we should grab that January 5th date, Nick. And if you want to provide a it's not a scheduled the 15th was not a scheduled meeting for the board. So that's that's why I'm saying that if you wanted to provide a like a written update at any point that could be shared with the board, uh we would most definitely appreciate that. Um does that sound reasonable to other board members? Um, I'm open December 15th for for this or andor other matters because we have enough other things uh that we might want to meet about. Um,

yeah, I'm open the 15th and and the 5th. I mean, if we had to meet the 15th, we it wasn't scheduled. Um, I'm not crazy about it, but um I I guess I'm just trying to circle back on what we're what else we're expecting the applicant to prepare at this point. It sounds like Sue needs to review their letter. Um, and uh, you know, there was many comments made tonight that I assume the applicant's going to respond to. So, um, you know, get that

by the 15th. You know, I'd be willing to to meet, but I I know we didn't have a meeting scheduled and it's a busy time of year for everybody. So, I would be more inclined to wait till January if that's possible. Madam Chair, if I could just get clarity so I can position this to my client to decide, he of course will be the one to decide about the the sound study and the payment for it. Is the is the board encouraging uh the client to do so, the applicant to do so? Is it insisting that he do so as part of his application? I'd like to just clarify that so I can put it to him. Yeah, I believe uh taking a temperature of the board that people are asking for this to take place, but correct me if I'm wrong, board members, Chris, Rich, uh Cindy, I've heard your opinion.

I guess I'm encouraging it. I I think um I I would definitely consider Cindy's point of the it would give a an objective confirmation that you are in compliance or that whatever remediation has been put into place makes you in compliance. So, I think that that would be in the client's interest to have an objective third party say that yes, it's yes, it's louder, but it's fine with everything we've done. Um, and I think they might have, you know, suggestions uh on on things that we might not think of. So, I think it makes sense to to do. Uh but the contrast of the stipulating that it is loud and that we need to you know make some accommodations for that I think

that's also reasonable. Thanks.

I mean this isn't buried in an industrial park somewhere, right? This is uh this is on Massav in the B1 district predominantly which is mixed house. I mean the B1 district allows for housing and businesses. So it there there has to be sound mitigation. Um, I was open to different approaches, but if the board thinks that the best way, and Cindy, you've you've kind of convinced me that you get the the mitigations that come out of it, I'm supportive of it. Am I demanding it? No. I'm recommending it. There's got to be some means of knowing what the level of sound coming out of this is and how it's mitigated, not eliminated, but mitigated for the neighbors.

Um, does that make sense? That's clear, your honor. Your honor, that's clear, madam chair. I appreciate the detail. I understand that and I will convey it to the client. I'm getting my rules mixed up during the course of the day. No worries. Thank you. That was a first for me. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, so again, we're going back to the date now uh on this. I've heard from Nick that they will likely need some time.

January would be best if we could have something by then. I hope we can, you know, within enough time to submit and have reviewed by the town. Um, it's going to be tight just given the time of year and getting somebody on board, but let's let's continue to the to January and if we have to push out, we'll definitely be in contact with with the uh planning department and let you guys know on our uh anticipated schedule. Thank you, Nick. Um, Madam Chairperson, I just want to confirm. Um, attorney Costa, were you will you or a member of your team be available to join us on January 5th? Yes, I'm available. Fantastic. Thanks.

Madam Chairperson, you would seek a motion. Um, well, actually, just for formality sake, um, Attorney Robertson, can you confirm that your client is amendable to an extension of this public hearing to January 5th to be confirmed in writing? You're muted, Paul. Excuse me, Alec. I will confirm with the client, but I believe that's acceptable and I will confirm it in writing by uh by tomorrow. Fantastic. Okay. Um uh Madam Chairperson, you are seeking a motion to continue this public hearing to January 5th at 7:05 p.m. Can I such a motion?

So moved. Um, I'm not even sure who just uh was it Rich or Rich moved it and um seconded by Cindy Markitz. Oh, second. Sure. Yeah, it works. Okay, thanks. Um, so as I see you roll call. Rich Gazardi. Gazardi I. Cindy Markitz. Mark Woods I. Chris Dowy Dy. And Verer I. Um, thank you so much folks for for bearing with us this evening and uh we look forward to meeting with you again on the 5th. Uh, happy holidays to all of you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy holidays to the board. Thank you.

And, uh, attorney Costa, uh, feel free to sign off. Enjoy the rest of your night. Um, Sue, if we could keep you for the next public hearing, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Adam. Thank you all. Happy holidays.

I'm sure I'll see you before then. Thank you. All right, terrific. Okay, thank you guys. Um, so now, uh, we're going to reopen the public hearing for 975 Massachusetts Avenue, uh, site plan review and storm water management permit, um, in accordance with MGL chapter 4A, the Boxboro zoning bylaw 2.5, site plan approval, and the Boxboro's storm water bylaw, the Boxboro Planning Board, uh, will continue a public hearing to review the application submitted by Goldsmith, Prest, and Ringwall Incorporated on behalf of the applicant, BHG 109. 9 LLC to construct an 8 uh unit contractor storage facility. Um okay. Um I'm assuming the applicant is here and would ask for a brief um summary of the changes and um they want to share something with us. Lima I see you there.

Hi good evening. Hi good evening.

Um good evening for the record. Lima tip project engineer at ghost person ring wall. I'm here tonight as a representative of the applicant for the project. Um here with me and over Zoom is uh Bruce Ringwall. Um so following the the last U planning board meeting been quite a a little while we there was a request for render a rendering to address the uh the view looking up the proposed driveway access towards the um proposed building. We have provided uh two renderings to the board. One with any um existing trees and one with. So bear with me for a second here as I get those open and scare share my screen.

Cindy, I'm noting that you have your hand up. Did you have something brief to say while um limb Okay, you're good. No, that was provoked. Sorry. No worries. All righty. So, can everybody see the the rendering over here? It's coming. Yep. There we go.

All righty. So, this one shown here is um rendering um with some of the existing trees that we had located uh kind of showing on there. They're kind of scatter there. Um as you can see um this uh I guess tan color here is the is the u proposed retaining wall and a little bit beyond that is the building. So, the building with the proposed um planting that was requested by the board, you know, the the trees in front of the retaining wall as well as this tree at the top level does a pretty good job of um covering the proposed building as you're standing on the driveway looking in. Uh let me just switch over to the other drawing of the other rendering. So, here's the second one. um taking out the existing trees um that we located. You kind of see this is what it looks like. Um so so does a pretty good job of screening a building. We generally believe that you know what was provided for the planting is is sufficient for for the screening. Um, and I see Bruce got his hands up.

Bruce, go ahead. If I may, I just wanted to add that these renderings were done before the additional vegetation was added in because those they weren't on the plans when the plans went off to the renderer. Oh, boy. Um so add in addition to the uh the the renderings we have also provided um a landscaping an updated landscaping plan that was requested. Um can everybody see the updated PDF here? Mhm. Yep. Thank you. Okay.

So there are uh obviously a couple a couple items that we'd like to discuss regarding the post landscaping. Um, I believe, let's see here. Let me just pull up the email that was sent over. All righty. So, um, number one would be the the size of the the calipers. Um um there was a recommendation that the height um I'm sorry the caliper diameter of the proposed trees be 3.5 to 4 in for the deciduous over here. Uh generally just looking for a bigger size diameter trees. Um, our understanding after talking with Dave Fischer, the our landscape architect, is that the larger diameter trees would have a harder time surviving. Uh, which is why he had recommended the 2.5 to three calipers. Um, I understand this is obviously different from what we had discussed. Um then I apologize for that because I didn't quite understand the uh consequence of saying okay uh at the time of uh the last meeting when we had discussed these uh these changes.

Um

Bruce, anything else you want to add to that? It's not that they wouldn't survive. It's that they have a uh a smaller tree adapts better to the transplanting and adapting to the new location than a larger tree. And within 3 to 5 years, the examples have shown that the smaller tree is of equal size, if not larger than a larger tree, that it takes longer to adapt. And I've got one in my yard that I put in very small and in the last couple years the thing has just grown 4 feet a year. Um, so

I'd like to know what that is. What is that? It's a flowering dog wood. And I'll take pictures for you from when it was installed to where it is now. Remarkable. Okay. Sorry. Is there more um presentation? Um, I think those are those are really all we want to address. Um, happy to take any questions.

Did you did you point out that on the right hand side of the road where uh they had requested three trees at the first bend to the left. We could only squeeze two in there. Um, we're up against the detention basin, the retention basin, the water storm water management, the access road into that.

We're up against the guard rail. Uh, so we put two trees there. Um, we couldn't figure space to put a third one in. And the embankment on the left hand side for those trees, that'll have to be pulled out, which I believe Hut discussed with you folks at a previous meeting. We just did not modify the grading plan in time for that to be shown, but they'll it'll have to be done so to make space for those two trees to be planted. Thank you. I did I noted that. Thank you, Bruce. Um, the last thing, I'm sorry, Rebecca, is Go ahead.

We we weren't certain what we were supposed to do uh with the introduction of woody seeds to the seed mix. We just we hadn't heard of it. Dave hadn't heard of it. Um I think that you know the idea is establishing a slope that is stabilized and it's up against a a wooded edge. Um it's a successional area. It's going to get all kinds of woody plants that are going to take root over the course of time in there. I think that uh the goal here is to maintain that slope and not have it erode. And I think that that'll be covered with the ve with the seed mix that was proposed. And I think over time you'll have woody plants growing on it. It's happening next door. And that was done a few years back.

Yeah, it's it's really just a a simple woodland um seed mix uh that does have uh plants that will grow into shrubs um and not just remain as grasses. So, um, cheap money. It's not a lot of investment to do that, but it's it's literally rehabilitating the woodland edge, you know. So, that's what the request was for that. Um, board members, um, I'm sorry, were you both done with your presentation before I move it open to, um, I believe so. Okay. Thank you. Um, opening it up for board discussion. Go ahead, Rich.

Yep. I appreciate um you guys coming back, the applicant coming back with the sketch. Um I think that really kind of for me helps me with kind of one of the big things is the the visual from either the front of the building, the back of the building. You guys have gone uh and done the things you needed to do to help help us get our arms around this. So, I appreciate it. I think this, you know, this landscape plan overall and this screening approach is pretty good from my perspective. So, I'm good with what I'm seeing here. Thank you. Thanks, Rich. Um, other board member comment.

Go ahead, Chris. Yeah, I'll be brief. Yeah, likewise. I think I'm good here. This this helps. I appreciate the the revised plans and and all that. You working in more trees where you can. Thanks, Chris. Cindy.

Yeah. So, I was trying to pull up the photograph that you guys provided for 871. And I guess I just want clarification because when I look at that photo, I think you only submitted one from the street. Um I'm trying to understand this building is I think 100 ft closer at least the retaining wall is 100 ft closer than the 871 and just eyeballing the photograph of 871 which is 100 ft further that building seems to show up as close again this is just an eyeball as what you're showing in your sketch as close if not closer so I I don't want to um cast dispersion on the sketch because I don't know what the dimensions were that were used but um can you verify that this building I think you know the distance from the roadway where I think this is supposed this is the entrance to the driveway from Mass AB or the entrance from the 24 ft width I guess that's one question where this is taken because the building just looks further away than I think it will actually be if I am comparing it to 871 photo. So um yes uh to confirm that this rendering is done based off of our CAD file that we provided to um to a consultant to provide the rendering. the grades, they all tie to real life or um what we showed in our grading plan. And we are standing um at the front, I guess approximate um approximate uh edge of roadway at the front of the a driveway access looking in.

Can you bring up the photo of the 871 building from NASA? Um, I think it was in your original package. I have it as page 31 of 44 in the PDF if I'm looking at the right one. I'll have to dig it up. But I guess my question is what because this is a rendering versus what was taken as a photo across the street um for the budding property. Oh,

sorry. 881. I shouldn't say 871. I think it's 881. So, you originally had said that was representative. And so, I'm trying to compare this sketch, which I think the building is 100 ft closer. The retaining wall is 100 ft closer than the 881 building. But again, to my untrained eye, yeah, I think it's page 44. that uh the one at the top. Yeah, right there. Okay. That one. That one. Yeah.

Yep. So comparing that to the rendering, I don't again untrained I don't see that the building that you're building which should be 100 ft closer to the road looks bigger and it feels like it should. Does that make sense? Primary. Yeah.

The the the building whether it appears closer or not I don't know. This picture is taken across the road um to try to get the whole picture in. The other picture, the other rendering is done from the opposite side of the road right up at the property line. Um this picture um has a huge wetland in the front. There's some trees right along the edge of the road and then there's a flat open wetland with no trees until the embankment that's a substantial distance back cuz it's a large wetland. Um and then up onto the hillside. So, uh, we could bring up if if you could bring up maybe a, uh, um, Google Maps aerial to get the relative distances back between the two. I don't know what the measurements are. I'm sitting in a hospital waiting room, so I I don't have that handy to me right now.

No problem. Let me just see if I can pull that up.

All righty. Um, well, that's I'd go Ariel. She's talking that one building sits closer to the road than the other. I'm not sure what the deal is there. Let's see. So, there's the budding building. Well, I guess would it make it would it make it easier if we pull up a previous exhibit that was provided that showed both uh both the existing building next door and the proposed building?

Yeah. I mean, I think the site plan, you can measure the site plan from the roadway, but I I thought we were always talking about 100 foot differential at least from the retaining wall, if not the building itself, the 100 foot closer to NASA. and my my sense and again I you know this isn't scientific but just eyeballing it it doesn't feel like the the graphic that you the sketch that you provided is representative of how the building is going to look I feel like the building ought be looking a little bit larger but that's so that says 200 200 feet no roughly 300 roughly 300 feet yeah and your and

what's it on measure on our Pull that up real quick. 224 roughly to the nearest corner. So, it's a difference of uh what was it? 70 ft.

Well, yeah, about 75. Yeah, Cindy, I think the difference maybe is is really that there's a lot more clearing that's taking place on this site than the other site. And there's also on the neighboring site there's a burm that is actually working to that property's benefit um because it's providing screening in front of the building that we won't have here. We have the wall that's um taking the place of it. Right. So I guess why

right all that being said I feel like the building is going this new building is going to be much more visible than what the rendering is indicating it it will be. And you know, you've got a big that's a detention basin in front and then you've got the retaining wall. I just there'll be a lot of clearing between Massav and the actual uh building. So I think it's going to be more visible than that rendering. That that's really my point.

So if if I may, Madam Chair, the building next door, again, there's a good 100 ft that is the wetlands, maybe more. Um and then there's the slope and so there's trees at varying heights on the slope. Here we have about 120 feet of existing vegetation against the road that's going to maintain which goes up a slope and then we have a burm immediately after that for the drainage basin which is where HUD is showing right now which also sets up an elevation difference which screens the lower part of the retaining wall because it's at a um its base is at or below the level of the this burm and further back onto the site, which is why you don't see the whole height of the retaining wall from the perspective because you're standing at a lower elevation. Um, and then the trees are all stacked in there that you have proposed. Um, I think you're going to get a lot more screening than you anticipate. Um, there was a lot of conversation about how much you're going to be able to see or not see the building next door. um when we were at this stage many years ago and that building is hard to see unless it's this time of the year and you're going real slow.

Thanks, Bruce. Um Sue, I'm seeing your hand up. I'm so sorry. I should have called on you earlier in the the evening. Um but go ahead, please.

That's fine. No, I was just going to um what may help Cindy put it in perspective is that these trees are after they've aged. This isn't newly planted trees. Um, and the other thing is is this is you've got a lot of deciduous trees and they're full leafed out. Um, the picture that um, Lyn Hut showed had the uh, bare branches. So, you're looking at the density of the branches more than the leaf coverage. So, I think that throws your perspective off. Um, I don't know if that was taken early spring or in the fall or late winter, but you can see the only thing that's really providing a a a visual break are the actual tree trunks and branches and then some evergreens mixed in. So, that may be what's throwing it off.

Well, so to your point, Sue, the rendering is showing mature trees. I'm not sure how many years years out, but we are that's going to be several several years. maybe five plus maybe 10 and and you know half the year or or at least a quarter of the year the leaves are off. So you know my point is that this building will be more visible I think than than folks realize. Yep. I just wanted to give that clarification of what I standing back I could see the difference. Um and that was a comment that Bill made but it's really up to the board if you find it sufficient.

Thanks Sue. Um, you know, I actually had a very and and this image is is useful. Um, I had a very similar experience today driving by a couple times. Um, and there's actually less evergreen screen in front of the new building, the proposed building than there is in this image, but um, with the leaves down um, it's largely deciduous trees um, out there. So, all the leaves drop um, and so the only real evergreen is what they're proposing um, by the wall. Um, so you would have very little screening during the fall and and winter months. Um, and you also pointed out Sue Satico here. You you pointed out that uh the tree canopies that are shown in the rendering are are mature trees and these are are proposed to go in um a pretty small diameter. So, I guess to answer the question in the email, Bruce, um the reason for the larger suggestion of trees is to get more immediate screening. Um I plant trees like this all the time with a huge success rate and I've not had issues with planting larger scale um trees and they give more instant impact, which is what I think the board is hoping for out there. Um Bruce, you have your hand up still. Did you have a comment?

I do. Please go ahead.

Um I we contacted the the staff to confirm that we were to show mature trees and not as planted and that was confirmed. Um and that's why we did it that way. No one told us to do it as a fall rendering. So we I I didn't even ask the the uh renderer one way or the other or tell the rendering one renderer one way or another. um you know how do you do uh the twig on that the then I wanted to go back to the landscaping period as required under the zoning bylaw which says to use an existing natural vegetation. We're using 100 to 120 ft plus wide across the front and then it says to plant 3ft high ever uh evergreens that will grow to be at least 5t tall. So, we're proposing eight to 10 foot high evergreens, 18 of them. And we're proposing two and a half to three inch caliber trees um which are pretty substantial size tree um along there and we have all this vegetation. So, we are meeting the the letter of the bylaw exactly what it says to do. Does it take a couple days to to have that happen? Then, possibly yes. Um there have other buildings that have been permit permitted along the main street or Massav, pardon me. Um that don't have anywhere near this much planning put in front of them and um they're they're all existing. I mean when I did the library years ago, no one asked us to put all kinds of trees in front of the thing, you know, and it had much less trees than this. Um I don't know. I think we meet the intent

of the bylaw. Uh we meet exact more than what the bylaw asks for. Thanks, Bruce. Yeah. So, um Oh, there was one other comment. I think Cindy or Chris or um Rich, do you guys have other comments while I look at my notes? No, I'm I think I'm I'm good. And I mean, I guess Rebecca, we've been through this landscape plan a few times. If the suggestion is some of those deciduous trees you'd rather see as evergreen, I mean, is that a swap out that can happen before planting?

Oh, no. I'm I'm I'm not saying swap them out. I just um had asked for larger sizes, that's all, just to get a more immediate impact out there. Um, I was just pointing out that that just to try to give some clarity to Cindy about that. Um, I had the rendering didn't surprise me. I don't think it was a a bad direction or anything. It's just that it is a mature rendering, right? And so, it's not going to go in looking like that and it won't look like that for many years. That's all I was pointing out. The the rendering was just fine. It was helpful to be able to look at what, you know, it might look like in the future. Um, so I I I feel pretty firmly about um the size um bump ups um here. Um but I am definitely going to leave that open to the board if they want to deliberate on that. I did have a couple of comments. Um Sue, I'm going to ask you. I I was actually looking closer at the the plant list and there's a couple of um trees that I'm surprised are still on the list right now. And that being the um the the red cedar um because uh I'm sorry, the red cedar and then the that specific arborite that deer love to graze on and it's because of the um you know the cedar apple rust which kills these trees back. Um, and then I know that deer can reach at least six feet up to to graze on these other trees. So, um, I would like to to lean on places to kind of come up with a a different evergreen for that. And, um, I apologize in advance that I didn't see that um, before. But both of those trees are not going to be successful evergreens um uh to to help screen with that because they're just they're deer food or else they they have um um blight issues that will kill them back. So um Sue, is that something that you guys

could help us with? Well, my suggestion is is they've already got a landscape architect on board. Have them give a recommendation. Um, we always recommend against the red cedar because of the number of apple orchards and fruit trees in the area. It's a three mile radius. So, um, and and we had a site in Stow where the USDA was going to come on and remove them and send the bill to the property owners. So, we just always recommend that, but I would defer it to their landscape architect and then we can comment on it. Okay. They were able to look them up as well as you and I can.

I hear you. Yeah, I was kind of surprised to see them on the the list. Um I but I didn't notice it until um my review this weekend. I I think when I had Bill look at it, it was when the two renderings came in before the updated landscape plan came. Excuse me, Madam Chair. Yes.

The the red cedars were replaced when they didn't like the arborite, the uh dark green, the dark American arborite that were on there before. um then they were put on that. So that had to have been at least a month and a half to two months ago. Um and that was on your markedup plan. Those trees, those plants were on your markedup plan and they have been for a long time. Um I would recommend that you make a condition of additional of additional plans be put forward before you um and so we can close this. This this hearing's been going on for a long time and we'll give you some different plants. We'll bring them in. They can be approved by Bill Murray um before they're planted. Um but to just keeping this open and on and on and on and on, we've we've we've we've done everything that's been asked of us. We changed the plants. No one complained when we changed the plants. I can't see the revision dates. Hut, can you go back to revision dates, please?

I don't I don't think it's necessary. I'm hearing where you're coming from on this. Um I I apologize that I'm only just seeing this right now, but I I do think this needs to be a successful planting up here. I agree. So we'll come up make a condition for those two plants. Understood. Thank you, Bruce. Um and I believe the other arborite was deer food, too. So I'm just trying to steer clear of that. Um uh board comments. No, I'm good with that. I mean, I'm prepared to close this hearing if that's the direction we want to go and just get on with the deliberation. Likewise.

Yeah. I mean, Rebecca, I'm going to defer to you on if you're comfortable with the landscape plan and the condition or whether you'd rather see that, you know, memorialized before um but that that seems to be the most for me. The view from Massav is the most important um issue right now. And uh you know I'm I'm not sure that uh I'm 100% comfortable with with what I'm hearing but um you know again I'll defer to you if you feel the landscaping as as you're proposing it is would be adequate then that would make me comfortable. But if if there's some push back there then I guess I want to make sure that uh you know that you're comfortable as our internal expert here on this on this matter.

Yeah. I um I'm not comfortable that they didn't incorporate the the requests honestly about this. Um the the sizing is going to be very important out there. I mean we've all seen uh a certain project on Codman Hill and what that looks like right now. And I know this is not the same project and it's much further back than than that one. Um but there's no way that any of the improvements that we recommended on that project I think are going to be hugely effective for screening. So um height is important um because it also brings with material um and picking the right material is the right thing to do. Um so um I'm more comfortable with recommendation that I have made. Um but that is entirely up to the board majority.

Yeah. is what what heights are we talking about here, Rebecca? I'm just not

Yeah. Um, so yeah, and I apologize. I don't know if this plan um the last meeting that we had um I marked up a plan and I um was told to bring it in for for Alec and he shared it with the um with the applicant. Um I asked for um the trees, the um evergreen trees to be bumped up from 8 to 10 uh feet tall to um a 10 to 12. Thank you. Yeah, my quick and dirty embarrassing little notes on my page. But uh um and then I asked for the um deciduous trees to be bumped up um to the next range of caliber inches as well. Um I showed a few locations for additional trees which they've um tried to incorporate for us with the the um exception of that third one that Bruce identified was um one too many there uh for what they have proposed. Um I asked for um them to incorporate a woodland mix for the seed um for the snow slope stabilization um which is really just swapping out the grass seed. Um so it wouldn't just be grasses. It would be more of a woodland um kind of um it would have shrubs and stuff like native shrubs and stuff to it eventually. Um it would encourage that but it's still a seed mix. It's not a a large uptick in in price tag on that. Um I think that's what I asked for.

And what was incorporated? Just a couple of the trees. Um yes, five trees. Five. Okay. One. The ones on the roadway. One, two, three, four, five. Those uh the four on the roadway and the one um the pink one over by the other trees there. Yeah. Yeah. And we'll gladly give you the seed mixture. We didn't understand it as a seed mixture. It didn't. It said incorporate woodies into the mixture. Yeah. I'm sorry. I could have been more clear about that, but this was my my quick notes from that that evening. So, so Rebecca, um what where is there a discrepancy now in the height of the trees and how many? And can you kind of show us?

I'm hearing that um they're willing to do the woodland seed mix. Um, so and then the counts of this I I think we are where we need to be. I think I gave uh Lima um artistic license on that right to to kind of fit what he could fit on the plan. So um it's really the pinch point was the jump in in sizes of deciduous and the um evergreens and then making sure that we have appropriate evergreens out there that aren't going to get eaten or diseased. and the and the appropriateness those can that can all be addressed I think as Bruce you indicated you know prior to planning um what about the height is that

the the height that we have here again is much higher than what's required under your zoning um your zoning doesn't say you cannot see a building from the road zoning does not say you can't see um anything from the road that's built upon I And you can see the other buildings down the road um up and down the street and others as well. Um 8 to 10t high trees. I think I saw on the ever on the planting plan just prior to this one 8 to 10 foot on their uh Evergreens has proposed and I think I saw 3-in caliber on their plan and I heard a lot of great compliments about their planting. So um I don't know. across the street. We got a huge amount of deci of existing vegetation um between the two and um you know it's not being asked to be totally covered the second it's put in but it's it's going to do the job and bylaw doesn't call for anything larger.

Okay. I mean you guys get to make the decision. you you you vote, you know, you get to put it in the way you want. We've come back with as much as we could. I didn't understand the woody seeds mix. I will add that in. Um I am going to have to cut out of here quick cuz I am in a hospital waiting room and they're going to kick me out of here cuz I'm past visiting hours. So, um I'm going to have to turn it over to Hut and uh shut down. Thank you, Bruce. Hope everything is okay your way. It's not, but that's all right. Goodbye. Thank you. Um, board members, additional comment, thoughts.

Good to hear. Good.

Well, yeah, I'm I'm I'm not comfortable till you're comfortable on this, Rebecca. So, um, you know, I am very very concerned about the visual impact. We do have rules our rules and regs um under 4.5 um rule 111 viewing tree protection does talk about uh you know make maintaining the uh the viewshed uh that on the corridor and uh it is said that the intent of this section is that a proposed development be so designed as to minimize the disturbance andor destruction of any existing healthy trees on the site and along the corridor. So, we know there's a lot that's going to be disturbed. Um, I think we owe it to the town to do the best we can to get replacement trees that are going to to do the the screening that we're we want. So,

in terms of disturbancing, there's there's two trees coming down, right? Two trees at the front, but lot of clearing in the on the site. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But, I mean, nothing prevents them from clearing the site. I mean, that's that's certainly allowed. I agree with you. There needs to be screening from 111. I'm not I'm not disputing that at all. Um I I mean, I guess this is really just a question of, you know, do you have what you want day one or do you have what you want day, you know, one plus two years or do you have what you want day one plus 5 years? Like I or 15. Is it 15? Is it 15? I mean,

is it 15 years before those trees grow to the size? It's going to take a long time, Rich. It does. It takes a long time. I mean, I've got I I'm not going to I've got arbor bodies in my backyard. They seem to have grown in like four years. Arbor bodies Well, evergreens will grow faster. They're weak wooded trees. They They are quicker growers, right? The deciduous trees are hardwoods, right? And they grow much slower. But the the evergreens are the ones along the front of the building that provide the wall pretty much. And so yeah, in in like two years time they'll get established and then they'll start putting up like a foot a year.

And what are they getting planted at? 8 per the plan. It's um 8 to 10. And how high is the wall? Limut. You want to confirm that? Is it 10 feet tall? Roughly 10 feet. Yes. So the trees the trees will be just about the height of the wall at planting. That is correct. Or two feet shorter. Yeah. I mean it's close. I mean it's close. It's but in the height of the building I guess is probably more relevant here. That's like 30. Is that right? Limb hut. Uh yes approximately 30. Thank you.

Again how much above the wall? Um how much of the building will be above the wall? How many feet? 30. 30 feet of the building will be above the wall. The entire building will be above the height of the wall. 20 30 ft. Yeah. Sorry. I'd like Limhood to answer that. Sorry.

So, here's the wall. Um, I can see on one point here. So, the the grading is very limited here is relatively flat. Um, so immediately as you're coming up the wall, this area just shoots up uh 30 ft to the actual uh peak of the building. I think we talked a little bit before about how the center is where the the the peak ridge is is at 30 and obviously the side is a little bit lower roughly um you know 22 and some change. And what do we have on the top of the wall? We have a line of go back to the landscape. There's a line of evergreens to be determined.

A line of evergreen. Oh, those are the ones on top. So, I mean, what if we split the difference and got taller ones on the top of the wall and the size you've got on the bottom of the wall? And then what about the deciduous trees? Yeah, I'm just poking at one item right now. Is immediate impact on things then Say that again, Chris. I'm sorry you cut it. If the concern is immediate impact of screening, then where you're going to get the most most effect is the ones that are higher up. Mhm.

Yeah. So, if you if you increase the size of the ones on top of the wall, keep the ones below the wall. I'm just talking evergreens now. Is that a is that a split? Maybe you can't make that call in, but um I mean, we can always condition it, but I I'd rather have agreements, right? Yeah. I guess the one note of caution is that we don't know what those trees are yet. So we don't know what their growth is going to be like. Um so you know we we can't put the ones that are on this this plan up there because they're going to just they're not going to be successful. So we could cross our fingers and hope that works out good for us, I guess.

Well, I guess Go ahead, Luna. Can I make a I guess compromise suggestion then because we just you know we just talked about this 8 to 10 range versus the 10 to 12 range. Would it be agreeable to just have a condition as a minimum of 10 ft high for the evergreen because then you know that it's not going to be eight but they're still within the 10ft range of the 1012. Yeah. You can't even specify trees that way though that I mean they they are specified as 8 to 10's 10 to 12s 12 to 14s.

But if we say it's got to be no it's got to be at least 10 ft that would take out the 8 to 10 range wouldn't it? Yeah. It basically makes it into 10 to 12. No, it would be either 8 to 10 or 10 to 12. That's how that works. That's why I'm saying it should be a 10 to 12 range. I see. Is the applicant willing to accept that a 10 to 12 range or or are we not sure?

I believe we had discussed with the applicant regarding the the tree sizes and he he is leaning he is leaning on keeping the uh the sizes as they are. Um, whichever way the board may vote, um, we're just going to have to go with the, uh, the vote. And Rebecca, I'm sorry. On the deciduous trees, you are suggesting

I'm trying to bump those up, too. Again, deciduous trees are very slow growing. They're not like arborites that'll put up a lot of height every year. Um, they are going to go in very small. It's it's going to be not doing heavy lifting. So the the the heavy lift is is really the evergreen trees out there until the deciduous can catch up. And how long for the deciduous to catch up? Years and years and years and years, Cindy, they're they're going to be very small for a very very long time. And when I say years and years, it's you're talking about 15 years for a tree to get, you know, sort of

Yeah. I guess canopy. But I understand wanting to have more and better screening, but I guess we might be putting ourselves in an awkward spot with how our bylaws are actually written today. So if they are meeting or exceeding all of the requirements on paper very hardressed to how do you say no to that because we do have some discretion I think in regard to our rules and regulations and you know we are being told in the rules and regs to protect the 111 corridor and citing an appearance and harmony with the landscape. So, this is going to be a shock. I, you know, I don't mean to be harsh, but I think this is going to be a shock to most people when this thing gets cleared and and constructed. So, I am leaning very heavily towards the the higher requirements per Rebecca's suggestion.

Lima, can we talk about the materiality of that stone wall for a minute? Um, we can, but I don't believe there is any real plan to to design that wall at the moment. Um, we had talked about the potentially using um the uh the big blocks for those walls.

Okay. So, concrete blocks for the walls. You know, just when we hear emails like we received today or whatever it was over the weekend about the concern about the the downtown corridor and that building is not architecturally in tune, if I will, with with our, you know, downtown Boxboro look that we're going for. And we're talking about town center district. It's short money to put trees in there or we can go and we can do architectural revisions. You know what I mean? If we don't want to try to do something about screening, then we should be looking at the building maybe and the materiality of of things here um a little closer just to make sure that we're in pairing with a downtown Boxboro vision.

I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with with which email you're referring to regarding I'm sorry. was an email we got with blanketing a few um few recent developments. Lima, it wasn't specific to necessarily to this one particular project. It was um something that came in as a separate application or in a separate application in reference to a separate application. The reality is our bylaw today and our in our rules and regs today basically says you need dense screening which they've provided.

Yeah. It also says that you need to ensure that the overall site uh has you know is protected and the view is protected from 111. The fundamental problem we have and we talked about this on the Massav corridor and I'm not going to go down there because that's not the subject of this. But right now we can't impose design guidelines. We're going to get the the trade shop aluminum buildings because we can't legislate it. We can't require anything different because it's allowed by right. So I as this is actually a special permit. Is this not a special permit in this district?

Well, okay. It's a special permit. Yes, you're right. But we're doing a site plan and under the site plan, we don't have the ability to legislate the look of the building. Right. The there's no design guideline that architectural harmony. Yeah. With what? With the building next to it. with the DPW building with with the the tree masters across the street. I mean with what harmony with the neighbors th this is no different from what from what's being built on 111 and don't forget that there's residential uses

let's get around this this if the planning board is serious about projects like this and how we go about it then this planning board needs to get serious about the mass aav corridor until that time comes all we can do is read the bylaw and the and the regs that are in front of Yeah, this is fundamentally similar to their neighboring property. It's But you have a neighboring property on one side. You got another one on the opposite side which is a residential use. So you can't just we can't just point to the DPW. There's residential uses right next door.

I'm not talking about the DPW. I'm talking about this exact client applicant's building which they are architecturally mimicking on this site. It is a similar building in design and in use. So it's it's it's reasonable. Um and and the special permit is for the use. I don't believe the special permit is for the design. That is correct. Yeah. Well, that's the ZBA to make findings that there's a overall beneficial um Yeah. that the project is beneficial. Yeah.

Yeah. So, so we can we can make suggestions about, you know, you shouldn't plant this here because the deer are going to destroy it in like a in one spring. Like that's definitely something that they they should listen to, but I don't think we can really impose uh anything that isn't in our bylaws. We can ask nicely, but that's I think that's the that's the extent of it.

Well, it doesn't say dense screening 10 years from now. It says dense screening. And I think we're struggling with that, you know. Um, so, you know, a little bit of of wiggle room here on on interpretating our our own interpreting our own bylaws, but uh, you know, I I'm I think the the most recent project on Cottonman Hill is a very good example. Um, you know, we tried to to do to do the right thing there and it's going to be a long time before that. We got the taller trees there, didn't we? Yeah. And I I drive down there one or two times a week going to the transfer station. It It already looks better than what's across the street from it. So, but we got the taller

Did we not get I'm sorry. Did that I thought in that project we specified taller trees. We did. So, we definitely have a precedent for this. Right. But but I'm hearing that it's not good. I I'm I'm it's I'm I'm saying it's not going to be good enough for a dense screen. It doesn't it doesn't provide a dense screen, but it's trying to be reasonable with applicants um without overburdening them. I mean, I plant trees that are 24 feet tall. We're not asking that of them, you know.

Yeah. I mean, I look I I I think that that building is right up on the roadway. Um and that's that's a very different look. This is set back 225 ft. Um I mean I I don't know. I mean I'm not I you know sir sure bigger trees are better. The applicant saying they're not going to do it. So maybe we just close the hearing and put it to a vote. Alec go ahead.

Thank you madam chairperson. So, um, on that line of thinking, uh, based on some of the comments I've heard tonight from, um, members of the applicant's team, um, it does sound and based on discussions I've had leading up to this hearing, um, it's it's my understanding that the applicant would like to proceed to a vote tonight. Um, as uh, the applicant's engineer or one of the engineers stated earlier this evening, um, if the board wishes to apply a condition, that is a way we can do this, uh, as an intermediary solution. Of course, we cannot speak for what the applicant is going to do. However, to deny on the basis of of tree heights would not be, in my opinion, a strong enough argument to to render a denial of the of the

site plan approval application. Rather, I would encourage the board, if it's going to do so, to condition the height of the trees. Um, condition them at what you feel is appropriate. And if the applicant chooses to challenge that, that's at their discretion. But um you know, Lim Hood, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like the the applicant's opinion is that they would like to to have a decision rendered tonight. And if that's the case, I would encourage the board to continue this conversation um in the form of a decision, which uh Ian has done a substantial revision to. He's made great effort to address each individual component of um and uh at that point, I'll turn it back over to you, Madam Chairperson. I just caution with the lateness of the hour. I think we might have to dive into the meats of this.

Um, okay. I mean, we can Yeah, it's 10:00. I don't know that we're going to get through much this evening of that decision, but um, if the board is comfortable closing the hearing, I guess I entertain a motion unless there's additional deliberation. right now. I'll motion that we close the the hearing on 975 Massachusetts Avenue. Second. Okay. Moved by Rich and seconded by Chris. Um, roll call as I see you. Rich Gazardi. Gazard. I Chris Dowy. Dy. Cindy Marowitz.

Sorry. I was trying to make a point before the vote. I had a discussion. I don't Oh, I'm sorry. I should open it up for deliberation. And yeah, can I Is it too late to Is it too late, Alec? I called the vote before. Okay, folks. Sorry about that. That was not me. Um, so we uh had a move in a second by Chris and then um deliberate. No, no, my apologies. You can go to deliberation now if you want. Sorry. That's what I understood from you. Thank you.

Yeah. So, my feeling is I'm willing to um to close the hearing um but I would like to take a vote on each of the criteria in the decision um because I I feel that we ought to be on record um on each of the criteria. So, um but I'm willing to close the hearing if if if that approach is amendable to others. Okay, that makes sense. I don't know what you mean, Sydney.

I don't know. I don't know what you mean. So we have decision criteria um under site plan approval. Correct. Uh A through H. And I would like to take votes on each of those decision criteria um as part of the uh the decision. Take eight votes on on this. Yes. Not just one. Okay. Why? because I think there's some that maybe I would vote in favor of and some that I might not.

But it's either Well, maybe we should debate this when we get there. But if you I mean, does if you vote nay on a criteria and it doesn't pass, does that mean the site plan approval fails? I would like that to be in the decision. We've done that before where we voted on particular parts of the decision. How do you have How do you have a How do you have a Uh, how do you have an element that fails and the whole thing passes? I'm not I'm not sure how that works.

But do you need every single element to to pass? we have to go through decision criteria and I want to be on record on some of the decision criteria um because I'm not I may not be in agreement with each and every decision criteria. So that's what I'm trying to make sure gets gets incorporated. So you would we would take eight votes, one for each decision criteria and then we would take an overall vote on the site plan. Is that what you're suggesting?

Um yeah, I guess that is what I would I'd be suggesting. And we have done this in the past where we voted on particular pieces of a decision I believe. Am I am I Yeah, I just don't know how it works. If if the majority of the board says that they disagree on a criteria, how does the majority of the board pass it? Like it to me it's like you'd have to pass every single one of them. Yeah.

Or you you're just I mean maybe we need to talk about whether we're planning on not passing or if we're planning on getting to a set of conditions that are acceptable. But I agree. I agree that we need to go through each of the criteria and be comfortable that they're satisfied. I just don't understand how the vote by criteria works relative to the overall decision. Well, then I think we should go through the criteria before we uh we have a vote on, you know, if that's the way it wants to go.

But um we have had had votes within the decision um before, I believe. So, madam chairperson, I am encouraging the board to go criteria by criteria, thin out, add anything necessary. It's your words, not ours. We've only provided you of a preliminary draft. Um, I will note that unless the applicant gives you an extension, your deadline for a decision is also tonight. Um, we can of course do that subject to a final written form, but uh things like conditions should be hashed out and finalized tonight. Um, and criteria preferably as well, but if you needed to make final tweaks to a criteria at your next meeting, we could do so and then sign and and turn in the decision that night.

Wait, don't we have 30 days from the close of public hearing out? No, because with this site plan approval, we're already past the initial deadline. So you are on a firm clock to render a decision as well. Each one of the extensions that we grant has to both stipulate or that we agree to has to both stipulate the continuation of the public hearing and then the deadline for that decision and that's always stipulated as the same night. You can ask the applicant before you close the public hearing now if they would agree to an extension of the board's deadline to render its decision or agree to an extension of the public hearing. But from what I've heard tonight, I I don't know that they're going to give us that.

I'm I'm not sure that interpretation is correct. Um I guess I'd like to see understand that. Why do we have to um make a decision the same night that we close the hearing? I because it's site plan approval. If you're thinking about a special permit, you get 90 days after the closing public hearing plan approval. You get 30 days, do you not? No. the 30 days is incorporated into the overall 65day timeline and we've already passed that.

Yeah, I'm It's 10:00 at night right now. We're going to slam dunk this. Uh it just Yeah, I'm a little uncomfortable with that as well. Um who made the motion to close the public hearing? Um, yeah, Rich did and it was seconded by Chris. Great. Rich, can you withdraw your motion real quick? I'll withdraw my motion real quick. Madam Chairperson, through you um if I could ask um Lim Hut a question here. Lim Hut, would you and your client be prepared to offer an extension of the public hearing? Um, we respectfully decline.

Okay. Would you be willing to offer the board an extension of their deadline to render a written decision if the board closes its public hearing tonight? Also respectfully decline. Okay. Madam Chairperson, it's my opinion that you need to at least render a decision tonight. As I said, that can be subject to a final form of written decision. However, um you need to get to whether it's an approval, approval with conditions or denial tonight. Um and with that, any conditions should also be stipulated.

I don't even know how we've gotten to this point. Um okay. So, do we need another motion, folks? Reate your motion, please. Um motion to close the public hearing on the site plan approval for 975 Massachusetts Avenue and second. Okay. Moved by Rich and seconded by Chris. Thank you. Um any further deliberation? Um yeah, I'm going to ask again. Uh how did we resolve the landscaping um issue? I don't know that that has been resolved. My recommendation back to the board is to resolve it through conditions.

The seed was addressed. The height wasn't agreed and they've agreed to swap out variety of Yeah. Evergreen. And I'll just as a reminder, Rich, your motion is just to close the public hearing, not a decision yet. Okay. But once we close the hearing, we don't get any input from the applicant. Right. That's correct. You can continue speaking to myself um to Sue Carter as much as you'd like. Um but that's the extent any other deliberation. Okay. Um in order uh of how I see you on screen, Chris Dowy

Dowy I Rich Gazardi Gazardi I. Cindy Marowitz, Margaritz, and Verer I. Okay, thank you. Um, Alec, you want to pull that up?

Yes, absolutely. Um, Ian, if you could go ahead and pull up the written decision. Um, I will just note, um, for the record here, uh, we have muted the applicants, so unfortunately, uh, no more communication there, but thank you for sticking around with us. I'm sure you're going to stick around to listen in on everything. Um, as I noted, um, Ian did take the the feedback of the board last time around and he did a substantial review and, uh, amendment to the last form of the written decision. Um, so you'll see now that each one of the various decision criteria are listed out, um, with responses then shown in bold. So the condition is listed in italics and the the response as we've written it in bold. Uh, Ian, if you want to zoom in on it, I think that'll give us a little bit better of a picture. Perfect. Thank you very much. Um, so as I said, your priority tonight should be your end decision as well as your, um, conditions, but I encourage you to go through all of it. So, uh, I leave it to your discretion, Madam Chairperson, how you want to go through this.

I think we go through it like our normal, just start, finish, and people should weigh in as they have comments when we go through these. Sounds great. And as I said, myself, Sue Carter, Ian as well, we're here if you have any questions as you're going through these items.

Um, so I I guess there's some commentary in here. The proposal shall comply with the purpose intent of this bylaw with the existing local and regional plans. So yeah, I think it's a fair statement to say it's allowed by special permit. probably want a reference which is which uh is required to be provided by the zoning board of appeals not us uh align with the intent of the bylaw the I don't want to get into like the proposal aligns with the box master plan by supporting small-cale commercial activity in the business district while also attempting to maintain the town's rural character. I'm not like that's a commentary I'm not sure we need or I'm not sure that it fully aligns. Um I went through the 2030 master plan summary and I didn't see anything about um construction trades and and you know I see a lot about village style businesses which this is not. Um so I just don't think we should pass judgment on how this either aligns or doesn't align with the master plan. This is a decision based on an allow a use that's allowed by special permit and meeting the criteria of a site plan. I think the first sentence is probably sufficient.

Yeah, that's where I was going. Chris, you said it quicker than me. Did you want to completely omit the second sentence? Do you think there's a way that you can edit it or change it so that it is I think we can just everything but the first sentence. the I I think of criteria as very specific questions that have usually very clear answers. It's a a yes no yes no yes but kind of situation.

Yeah. If you wanted to say it meets the setbacks, it meets the the you know the land mass area like it meets all it meets all of the requirements of the bylaw dimensional requirements. But I mean that it I don't I I'm not I'm not really into starting to put in qualitative statements about the master plan and whether or not it serves certain businesses one way or another. Yeah. Because then we end up we could end up writing novels and we don't have time for that.

So I agree with the elimination of the section. I do think there are times when it makes sense to reference the master plan if there was a specific action item or goal in the master plan that addressed this, but it sounds like Rich already reviewed it for that and there is not. I looked for it, Cindy. I didn't see this is not like the downtown area. This is not it's not a village style development,

right? I just want to redirect you guys to section 1.1 of our our zoning bylaw, which does identify the purpose. It's a pretty lengthy paragraph, but um you know that should be the overriding thought when you when you look at this particular criteria, but I'm I'm good with leaving the one sentence and and uh and just that.

All right. Shall we move on to B? So, I'm guess I'm just going to say it. I don't believe that the that the proposed project adequately meets this criteria. You know, I think there's going to be blasting. The terrain is going to be altered and, you know, because there's not going to be, you know, what I consider sufficient screening. you know, this is the the section that I feel is is uh going to be tough to tough to meet.

Yeah, I agree with you on that, too. There's a tremendous amount of cut on both and fill on both sides to make this this this building shoehorn into this site that, you know, the site doesn't feel like it's the most appropriate site for this happen on it at the size and scale that it is right now. existing terrain. Well, so this I'm just going to kind of read it here. Development shall be integrated into the existing terrain surrounded by landscape and shall be designed to protect abing properties and community amenities. So that first section, I mean it has been integrated into the existing terrain, right?

Well, with a blasting of a rock ledge that doesn't that's an engineered for necessary to integrate it. Well, any building's going to need foundation to it and we're all wrong. So, okay.

I mean, it's you it's minim it's trying to minimize the steep slope, right? So, like it creates the retaining wall. I mean, you can you depends on which vantage point you're coming at this. Um the terrain's the terrain and the building sits within it, right? It it can't be on the low end of it because it's all wet. So that's designed to minimize use of wetlands. It has to be up on top. And so to to make it work up top, you have to blast to get it to fit within the existing terrain. So it's really depends on your vantage point. I mean, coming into it, I didn't think anybody could do anything on this piece of land, but they've shown that you can. with a tremendous amount of disturbance. Right? So, um minimizing steep slope um use of steep slopes, uh minimizing tree removals and soil removals, maximize open space. Well, they're making a lot of open space. You know, there's like a significant amount of cut behind this building and then the 10 feet up front and the whole site is like incredibly graded out. It's a super engineered site.

They're still doing the I'd argue they're still doing the best they can with making something work for that site, right? minimize the use of wetlands, steep slopes, flood planes. I mean, I think if you look at the site, they probably couldn't have done anything differently, right? Like I mean that we look I think they had one suggestion, can you access it from the other parcel that didn't really look pan out,

you know, you can't bring it any lower cuz it's wet. And then you are you are getting closer to 111 and you're while you're lower than the trail which might be nice you're getting much closer to 111. You'd have to build up that site and you'd impact wetlands. So, is it is it the board's is it within the board's purview to just judge that the site's no good, can't be done, or is it within the board's purview to say the development has been integrated into the site? Yes, there are impacts, but they've balanced all of the elements of it to the best that they can and they worked with the board through that whole process, right? For months, we've given them feedback. Is that really the decision to get to? Or or can we tell someone, "No, you can't put a building there. Doesn't the site's too steep and it requires blasting?" I mean, blasting comes with construction, but I think this is a massive building bridge and it didn't maybe necessarily need to be that big. I mean, it could have been smaller and less impactful to this particular site.

Oh man, I don't think it's necessarily our place to say what people can what people can do with their land in that in that sense. So, yes, they can build a building, but if anyone's going to build something, it has to, you know, just has to be worth the squeeze. We need design guides. Yeah. Yeah. It's like we don't currently have any. So we don't have them. We don't have them. We don't have

hold someone to to a a standard that we don't don't have in writing yet. So um so I I think the point of contention around this one is more about like what what constitutes adequate screening. Um and I think we can probably answer that with conditions. No, I disagree. It's it's the amount of clearing, it's the uh the amount of blasting, the amount of grading. Um you know, so it's integrating it into the site. It's a subjective. This is decision criteria and um

it's not just about the uh the screening although I appreciate I appreciate what the applicant has proposed but you know in its totality I just don't find that this is this meets this proposal as stands now meets meets this criteria in my in my opinion. Well devil's advocate what if anything would meet it? So, a smaller building um that doesn't require the kind of blasting and ledge removal. Um there's a huge amount of engineering just to manage the storm water. The driveway is going to require a huge cut on 111, but that might have to happen no matter what because that's a DOT requirement, but that's still an impact of the town. Um

in fairness to the applicant, did we how hard did we ever push about size of building? It's all part of the package. You guys wanted to close the hearing and uh

No, but I mean if there's a if there's a potential showstopper, it's I think it'd be our responsibility to to highlight that early in the process to not drag someone through if we thought there was, you know, something that would veto the project. We were talking about integrating into the site. We've been allowing them to come back and provide as much detail and information as they could to show us how they're going to do that. We're now at the end of the process. I'm not convinced and that's my opinion. You know, you guys might see it otherwise.

Yeah. I mean, maybe we need a process where we tell an applicant whether or not it'll fly right out of the gate, cuz like that building 25x 54 or 8 25 x 54 units um 10,800 ft has not changed since day one. And I I don't know that a smaller building I'm not I'm not the developer, but would a smaller building not require like if we took half that building away, first of all, would it even be economically viable? And two, would it still not require everything that's happening?

Yeah, it would just be it would require most of what's happening because if you need to blast, you need to blast. Uh, it might be less like square footage or cubic footage of material that needs to be shifted around, but I'm not sure that's a meaningful difference. If if you have to do all this significant grading to get a big chunk that's flat enough that you can actually put a building there, you're going to need to do significant grading. And, you know, having the size of the building, you still need to do a lot of work to get it in there. So, that's where I'd argue it's it's not a it doesn't make a practical difference. on, you know, it could be a little bit bigger or a little bit smaller, but the the impact of the train still happens. And if the impact of the train wasn't in itself a nogo, then I I think they're doing here everything that everything that we've asked um and trying to do the best they can. Taking these things considerations into account, you're going to have to do something. And the only current open thing is the the height the the height of trees and potentially the species which I think they're at least with the species they're very open to conditioning to whatever the landscape architect tells them

which is hopefully sufficient. Yeah. I mean that's Yeah. So okay. So this maybe this one um we're kind of split on. Um what about the next one? Yeah. Do you want to just we can flag it and come back to it just to mark through just to see how many how many of these are we off on. Um, so that go I'm just going back to B1. Uh, or B, yeah, I guess BI B1.

Um, the it says it's the landscape plan is mimicking the existing natural woodlands view from both. It's not doing that. It's a landscape plan. It's a I I wouldn't say that it's mimicking the exact uh natural woodland views. It's pro trying to provide screening only. Yeah. To provide uh adequate screening. There's plenty of screening shown in the landscape plan, I think. Period. Yeah. And it's not right. And it's not from the conservation trail, is it? There's no screening on the back. Or is there? They do have trees.

Oh, there it is. I see it. Yeah, you're right. Yeah, you're right. There's also existing stuff back there that'll stay um on the neighboring property. Yes. Oh, yeah. I forgot where exactly where the line is. And you guys, sorry, Cindy. Uh the last sentence I think it's a southeast corner um where the wetlands uh replication is supposed to be not southwest. That is correct. Yeah, that's right. Thank you.

Are we on six or C? Uh C. God,

I'm willing it forward. Um, I I guess this one it's a little subjective. It says that it's in pairing with architectural styles of a few buildings, but it doesn't list others that it's not in architectural style with. And there there's some right across the street from it and right next door to it that we probably should identify both, right? It's kind of not spanning this So, are you referencing um at 984 that that home? Yeah. The home that's being proposed to be used for dry storage. Is that what you're talking about?

Well, there's that. There's the the even the woodworking shop, you know, there's residential uses, you know, I guess it it is in pairing with the ones that are selected maybe, but um it's there's other questionable non-pairings. I agree with you. I agree. Yeah. The unfortunate reality on Massav is the like the the woodworking shop and the homes are are um nice and they're unique. Most of the properties developed along Massav are the style buildings. Yeah, it's corrugated steel.

Well, let's remember the corrugated steel buildings are in the ice. A lot of them are in the IC portion of NASA. You know, earlier the applicant mentioned the library. I mean, that's also a mass building that, you know, we didn't different. Yeah. Don't don't need to screen that building, right? Exactly. I think that was the point. A nice building doesn't need a level of screening, but a corrugated steel built steel building.

But like even further down, there's the there's the shop that is the um steel shop. Um that's that's in the B district. Um that's and then you go further down past, you know, you've got um the DPW building, you have this neighboring building, the DPW building, and then you go down past the school or before the after the bank, you have that's a corrugated Yeah. So, it's it's unfortunate and that has to be addressed from a long-term planning perspective. Maybe there's a way to soften this that says it's just it's not inconsistent with its neighboring the neighboring Okay.

The adjacent the neighboring property um properties, you know, it because it looks like 881 and that was the intent um like it's a sister building. Yep. And it's not inconsistent with the DPW building which you can see plain as day. Yeah, that one's obvious. There's seven I mean several like residential houses though close by. Even New England Tree Masters has that little building up front. That's a little house. Yeah. I mean

down the street at that old priestly garage, right? That that's a residential house building. So you can say it's consistent with some but not all. Or do you I guess that's where I'm going is it it it isn't consistent with everything, right? consistent with other commercial buildings, right? Man, most of the other commercial buildings or no. Well, most Mark's building um that's that's a that's unique and it's very nice, but it's unique.

And now the building across the street, which is going to be used for dry storage, that would be a was a home, but now it's not. The building that uh Rebecca referenced at New England Tree Masters is a commercial building now. Yeah, there's six at least six like resident seven residential units in and around this from left to right. That bottom of the hill that garage looks more like a house that became a garage.

I would say mostly consist well is not inconsistent. How's that? Inconsistent with the character and scale of neighboring commercial buildings. Yeah. Is that a better way to say it? Not inconsistent with the character and scale of That's a double negative. You don't need consistent literally means the same thing as not inconsistent. Yeah, I gotcha. And I'd say some of the commercial buildings, but certainly not all. So,

with some of the commercial, the character and scale of some of the commercial But Cindy, it's hard to deny that this building mirrors several other buildings on Massav. I mean, I I just I you I don't know how to how to like, you know, I don't know pretty that picture up any anymore. I mean, it's, you know, we asked them to splatten the roof. That was a request I made that wasn't uh Yeah. And I don't know if we talked to this applicant. can't recall about changing the um material, the building material. But

I'm all in if we want to make a design guide change and everything needs to be of wood or and appear. I'm just saying we we asked the applicant to consider those things and the applicant, you know, chose not to. So, they don't have to. They don't have to, but I'm just saying this is, you know, we're looking for Yeah. Without architectural harmony, without design review, I think we're just we're still in the ask nicely territory. which we did, but oh well. So, it meets the letter D. What? What else does it say at the bottom there? The screening. I'm sorry. Did we

There will be screening. Yeah. In an effort to screen the proposed building from view, the landscaping site will include more plantings. And I would take away in a manner similar to 881 because Bruce just walked us through that. That's a very different um the area in front is very different. Well, can can we So, and Rebecca, you you know, I mean, we pushed a lot. I mean, I think and you said like I don't want to put words in your mouth, but we have plenty of there's plenty of plantings. The only debate I think I'm hearing is the the type of evergreen, which we'll work on later, and the size. Is that fair? Am I reading your

That is what I'm saying. Yeah. Okay. So, we should take credit for that in this like I I think in this write up if you go up just a little bit. proposed screening with uh me which are also cor effort to screen the proposed building from the views of this landscaping site will include but I think we can say the applicant has proposed what's the right ad you know super superlative here like you know comprehensive but or you know several plantings or robust pl I don't know what the right word is maybe robust isn't but in greater quantity and size.

Yeah, the lands. Yes, landscape site. Well, I would I don't I think we're debating factual. I mean, I I don't know that we need to have opinions in this thing. But it it's it's more what more than what one like oh nous will include numerous plantings property dense screening like it's not dense screening. I mean I I would just strike more screening. Yeah. Include plantings to screen to screen the property period. I would again delete in a manner similar to 881.

They put a So I guess my only point is they did a lot in terms of adding plantings and we can debate that well I don't want to be qualitative about a lot but we're about ready to get qualitative on the other item about what dense means. So, this is not a dense planting by any way, shape, or form, Rich. Not at all. I said a lot. I didn't say dense. It's not a lot of planting. It's not. I thought it was. No, they've cleared the site on this thing. They planting. Yeah, there's a lot of trees around where the I mean, they have to clear what the building is.

Yeah. I mean I they planting like are they planting 50 trees and like the wetland they're leaving alone? No, they're disturbing the wetland and replicating 1,200 square feet of wetland like the the hill going up there is what I mean that that space we gave waiverss on multiple tree plantings on this project. I just want to point that out like the plantings in the the parking lot, the street tree plantings. We gave waiverss on all of that stuff. I'm counting 120 plantings on their plan. Those have got to the including shrubs and perennials.

So you can subtract the 60 shrubs and perennials. It's 80 and multiple waiverss to reduce the trees. All right. It's just they planted trees. a lot more trees than are in the front of the DPW. A lot more trees in front of a lot of buildings.

I don't know how they got away with doing those things without planting the front of those buildings, but that's another conversation for another day. We're going on today. I would rather see language here that sort of mimics the uh you know the proposed project will meet the Massachusetts stormwater standards. you know, you don't have to explain what the system is necessarily, but I think that needs a little work. Um, is designed to meet the Massachusetts storm water standards and will improve water quality or something to that effect. Um what's that preventing surface of ground I mean, you can work on that language that we don't need to get it right now.

Storm water management requirements is what you're looking for. Is that sufficient? Did the board want to see this omitted? Well, is that that's all part of meeting the stone wa the storm water bylaw requirements, right? All that Yeah. I mean, I like you saying something about, you know, they've designed a storm water management system that includes a detention basin or whatever. I just I can't come up with the wording right now. You know,

water will then be fed into a large infiltration. It'll further reduce the volume of peak flow. I mean, I'm okay with what's written there. Is it I'm fine with leaving it. If you don't want to, if you want to call out some of what they did specifically, then sure. I think this works.

This I didn't understand. And then are we on moving on to E? What part? The guardrails or the It says the applicant expects almost all visitors to enter the property by car truck. What how else would they enter? And I think that's just the statement. I I'll def I can definitely fix this. It was based off uh an email or the waiver request, I believe, that specifically mentioned pedestrians and bikers um not expected to enter the property. Well, I think the first thing that happened is the the entrance way was moved. Correct. Yeah. It was moved to have a a better sight line.

Yeah. And angle for like if a fire truck needed to come in. Right. So they the um the entrance point was put at a location that uh is was determined to be most safe terms of sight line and truck entrance and exit also offset to Sarah's way

and that was the main thing. Yep. and offset to adjacent Sarah's way. There's no pedestrian accommodation on this, is there? So, on any of the circulation, like there's no sidewalk up this driveway or anything, is there? Yeah, I think that's what that clause was about. Like we don't expect any pedestrians ever to have a reason to walk up here. So that's why.

Yeah. And and you um they asked for a waiver of bike ramps. So you expect everybody to be by a vehicle and not bicycle or on foot. If we're calling out the 20 foot width of road driveway, do we need to say anything about the opening?

Yeah, I would definitely want to add the um you know, due to DOT requirements, there's a 72 foot wide opening on Massav, but once the property line, you know, it's a 24 foot wide opening, something to that effect because that that's still a concern of mine as well. Didn't they put a guardrail at the top of the building as well? Is that what you mean? The wood guard. The guardrails are along the driveway or are you talking about the guardrail at the top of the building?

Um, I was specifically talking about these ones here, but they do go up here as well. Yeah, they install those, right? Okay. Pedestrian safety or Yeah. employee safety. So you talk about the 72 foot opening, but then you say driveway is 20 ft wide, but it's really a 24 foot to then I guess it uh narrows down to 20 feet, right? Yeah. You want me to show that gradual uh the

narrowing to 24 feet and then eventually 20 ft. question. Um, do you need to go into such detail in the decision if you're going to be approving it per the plans that you list? Ah, good question.

I'm just thinking this this is taking a lot of detail and it's making your decision long. Do you feel that you need to do it? Can you say as shown on the uh design plan or the plan set? Well, you know, again, I'm not convinced that the opening is a is a positive thing. Um, yes, it does provide convenience and safety. I guess that's uh Let me just reread this. Yeah, I guess I guess the uh Yeah, the width of the opening just

that that's a good Could we could we Is that a better I like that, Sue. I mean, could we just say that um you know, yes, uh per the site plan, and you could always say that, you know, you know, driveway location, width, uh guard rails have all been incorporated uh per the plan. um

because I I think the only time you need to really spell things out in the plan is if it's super critical and it's not clear on the plan. But a lot of times things are per the approved plans. Yeah, the only reason I said it was because we have the 20 foot width on there. So, one way or another, I suppose. Well, the one thing about the 20 ft wide is that's also required by building code or fire code for access to a building.

And so, just remind me this is a 7% grade road. What is what's the max that we allow for? You don't specify for site plans. What's in our subdivision? Um, I think you allow steeper. I I'm not sure if this was five or seven%. Let me see if I can Oh, I only have reduced plans with me. Okay. I bet you might know off the top of your head.

Yeah. No, I've been bouncing between too many different plans. I'd hate to say the wrong thing and have it end up in the decision incorrect. Cindy, I think it was more like a 5% which is has a maximum slope of 7% down a little bit.

Okay.

Right. And I'm sorry that's why I was asking whether I site plant rules and regs. So I was trying to find it and I couldn't find I mean my our subdivision rags so forth and couldn't find it. We good with I or E? Is I one of the numbers? I'm the letters in the lettering.

Uh yes. Yeah, these are technically numbers. Yeah, it's the Roman numeral one because it's the way it's formatting the lowercase letters than Roman numerals because the capital letters get the Arabic numbers. I'm good with F, I think.

Yeah. Did we want to reference um a specific plan as we've been mentioning? I think the um I mean a sheet I mean the site plan I think shows that I mean, I'm okay with it the way it is. I think the next one's probably fine.

Yep. F and G look good. H.

Yeah. And H. We already talked about driving. Yeah, I think there's enough width. Yeah, we already talked about the driveway, so I think we're good. Oh, emergency vehicle access. Hold on. No, don't go past that yet. Just catching up.

Okay. I is it's not town center, so don't care. I'd rather rather than saying vehicle acts been re rendered, I would say the fire department has indicated. Did we get a letter finally? I thought there was some email back and forth on. Yeah, there was an email respondance. Was it a sign off from the fire department? It was kind of a I don't remember the last respondents, but

there were several exchanges back and forth. Uh after the applicant provided the final round of comments, uh Sean had no further comment, but he did not confirm that via email. I did however speak to him and he said no further comment at this time. Well, again, we need to get that stuff in writing as far as I'm concerned. So, I'm sorry. Did you change that language or I guess you it was provided to the fire department and they had no further concerns. I agree. It would be would be nice and clean and buttoned up if you got, you know, something in writing from the fire department saying that like everything's good with a thumbs up emoji, but it's just a Yeah. No. Well, that discuss doesn't help. I think you just have to acknowledge the fire department. Um, and can we say they've approved it or I mean, we need to be more definitive here. I guess you could say the fire department had no further concerns because if the exact wording we have is

have no comment, then they didn't have any concerns. I don't want to put words in their mouth. Well, that I remember something about them wanting to have a address marker. Did Did that get like because they they didn't want to have a sign? Yeah. There and there were going to be um similar to their they wanted gated similar to 881. they were going to have mailboxes with big obvious number cuz yes, I do remember they they just want to have a clear obvious marker of what you know this driveway is for this address because if they're racing to a an emergency there Yeah. I mean, and they were going to have a gate on it for safety.

Well, they talked them out of the gate. But I I think we ought to have a condition in here if this thing goes forward that the fire department provides written approval on these on those outstanding items. Hey, just just to keep it in perspective, remember the fire department has to sign off on the building sign off on the building permit and the occupancy permit. So, they have a lot more criteria than what you guys see as a planning board that they're going to be checking and signing off on. So, I'm not sure you need to get too worried about them cuz they have they're probably one of the biggest departments that has an opportunity for input even after your decision,

right? But we should close the loop on the things that, you know, we know that they've been corresponding with.

Yeah. I mean, if you say that, you know, their concerns have been address adequately addressed, um, and then if there's other stuff, they'll bring it up when they, you know, under their review of the building permit application. I would just leave it adequately addressed. the board like to revisit item B or go through the boxwater storm water management standards.

Was B the only one that was in contention? But my understanding, it's the only one that we did not move past without uh noting that we should come back to it. Okay.

Well, C was still under some discussion, but um we can keep going. I I'm not the stormwater stuff I think is too verbose. Um, I know I wanted to see what, you know, kind of do a tick and tie to show that we've addressed each of these things, but it felt a little bit, you know, I did a quick read of this. You've got acronyms in there that aren't defined. I mean, this this is too much detail, but, you know, without going through it, I didn't go through it line by line to make these edits. So I think uh did Sue write a letter to address each and every one of these? Like do we have sign off on each of these Sue or by standard?

Yeah, I they addressed all my drainage concerns. But the storm have you gone through the storm water the standards and Yeah. Yeah, that was done a long time ago. And then we just tweaked things like getting uh test holes in the bottom of the basins, things like that. And some of the sizing um I mean you if you wanted to do it as simple, you could just go through and after each one you could say it was addressed. Yeah,

in the storm water management plan and that way you don't have to go into how it was done or addressed through storm water management plan and approved site plans and that may be a faster way.

I'm good with that. approved per storm water management plan. Storm water management uh yeah storm water management plan or your drainage calcs and approved site plan. and just put that for each of them.

I think so because we went through that. If somebody has a question about it, they can always go back to your record um and see, you know, what your public record on this project were or was. Sorry. Did they make revisions? I I assume the storm water management plan, I think, listed as exhibit, right? So, yep. Yep. and they revised it until I was satisfied with it and they got the additional calcs and stuff in it. So, yeah. Right. So, you have to put, you know, you know, if you have to date the date of the plan or or whatever, but Well, it's already in your exhibits, so it would be as last revised. Yeah, that's what I mean. You have to Yep.

most most recently revised or something that um that last one that you had, you might want to keep in there. So it's clear that Oh yeah. Um because that that gives you some good numbers. So if somebody looked back or or if they wanted to modify it, they could see what was in the decision that you uh approved. And can you not I mean CDS I not even sure I know what that what that is. It's it's a particular brand um storm water uh treatment unit. And I should note that

pre-treatment unit.

Well, you could say contact CDS uh hydrodnamic pre-treatment system. and that way if and all you have to do is Google it and they'll know exactly what it is. But the hydrodnamic is a generic term for what context CDS unit is. These ones were not applicable. So, I have a question for you. Um, a lot of what you're doing is you're you're pulling out word for word what your regulations say. Do you want to just refer back to it? Because you're reiterating all the criteria of the regulations. Do you feel that you I'm just looking you've got a really long wordy um decision. Do you want to scale it back or do you want all the details?

I think it's better to cite the regulations. Um

yeah, I'm not I think I hear what you're saying, Sue. I think we can truncate a lot of this. I mean, I know. Yeah. I mean, if if you use the main category, I don't think you necessarily have to go through like I'm looking at the top of the screen, average pollutant removal is X, Y, or Z, the different management ways of doing it. I'm not sure you need to go into that level of detail, right, of your criteria in the decision. What if we change numbering or add a section or, you know, and then have to look at this 10 years down the road? I'm being devil's advocate right now.

Well, I think you have it. If you kept just the number five, I think you have it. And then you don't have to say how you can achieve those. We just said that that's what the criteria was and they met it because when you talk about because the one above it you say it did it met the 95% um TSS 66% T uh total nitrogen or total phosphorus reduction. So you've got that information in there. So I'm not sure you have to say how it can be achieved. That's more for giving design guidance and not necessarily criteria.

Sue, sorry. Are you recommending to omit any of uh standard 4? seeing that we do standard standard four I'll go back um standard four just the top you've got it but I don't think you need to list all the subsections on how you achieve that and you list all the alternative methodology where we've said they do meet it removing these then do you see what I mean

the big picture This is the category and then we said they meet it. We don't need to say all the options of how they could meet it. We just know that they did meet it if that makes sense. The board want to continue going through these. These were included in the last version of the decision. I'm not sure I looked at the last version of the decision and I apologize for that.

Um, I will note for the board historically you have not addressed uh these sections in writing, but I leave it to your discretion if you wish to do so here. As always, what we can do to thin out a decision does make it easier to enforce later on. I guess my thought was just if we we have the general stuff. Um I mean I think these go under the criteria. Um

I think we've addressed you know that's the place to address these. I know Ian, I'm I'm a stickler for calling out the the bylaws and where we meet, but I think we think we do it in the criteria. If I'm hearing no other comment, I'll get rid of this section. All right. Yeah, I just was looking at your total number of pages and I think it having too much in it detracts from your specific conditions like you're going to have for landscaping. So I think maybe less is more. Yep. Okay.

Did we want to address this? Did we want to go through with the conditions and try to um go through those? Let's go through the conditions so we can get through this one pass and then revisit whatever we need to go back to. Sounds good. Good idea. Uh I will also include that. Sorry I didn't see it until now. I did include uh a request for waiver section. However, this is very derivative of the uh the letter that the applicant has has put in. Um,

and you do need to vote individually on those or or as a block, but the board needs to approve those even though it's embedded in the decision. I think we already did vote on those, right? To give direction. No, we nodded that we were okay with them. Okay. Formal vote. I mean, you can vote on the on the waiverss as a block, but I think you want to have the the the uh you know, approved the board approved. Yes. Or you know, at the end of it say approved.

Yes. So, typically you would either do these one by one if you plan to deny one. Um, alternatively, you can do it as one block of the remaining waivers. But I will note Ian, if you jump to the last waiver on here, um I believe the applicant has now addressed that um specifically providing the rendering. So that right there we can cross off unless the board feels otherwise, but I believe the rendering they provided satisfies that requirement. Do we have to mention it here because it was in their letter?

Um no, in their submission um they've complied with the requirement. Um as as a note, these are waivers not to the decision criteria but waivers to the application criteria. In this regard, they've fulfilled that criteria um as you were not going to grant the waiver. So do we just make a motion to do a block approval of the waivers or how or we wait till the end? Wait till we get through everything.

Uh I'd wait till you get through everything. um and then look at the waivers and confirm that you are in approval of those waivers. If so, then you approve all waiverss um as stipulated in the decision.

Okay. So I will say the conditions went largely unchanged from the last version which we did go through in some depth. Um in an attempt to summarize the concerns of the applicant, Alec and I put this together um obviously not in a final form. So this might be a good starting point. However, if you guys had comments on the uh the conditions that were supplied to you in this version of the draft, more than happy to hear them.

Well, do we need do we need to say the I see where you're going with the language? Do we need to provide the 10 to 12 ft minimum or do we just say final tree species and size shall be subject to is it all species or is it just

um madam chairperson my apologies to jump in here. I would take those two separately. I only heard one of them that is likely to be challenged if at all. So I would do the size separately from the species. The the applicants engineer indicated um that they would um that they indicated in one condition that uh the uh the town's uh landscape architect through places associates could approve the species. However, uh the size I would do separately. I would not wed those two together. Yeah, I mean sort of they kind of do go hand in hand if we don't know what the species is. But um

well I the other thing I would say is is that you could do it subject to final approval by planning board staff in which case they can get feedback from places and from Rebecca as to see whether or not it's appropriate. Yeah, that's fine with me. And don't forget, you also want to they agreed to change your uh seed mix to include woody plants in it or woodland plants. So, even though they agreed to it, you want to make sure it goes in the decision because that can fall through the cracks.

Yeah, I agree. I think just tacking that on underneath these two. Um just adding another one should be sufficient. So 17 is still referencing size. If you want pull it out. Yeah. The the word size here and size. And size. Okay. And Yep. There you go. Rebecca, was this any issue here? Because some of them are measured by caliper.

Yeah. So the deciduous trees are going to be caliper inches. The evergreen trees are going to be um by feet. Okay. So that's just a standard notic you might have to do deciduous and you might have to do evergreen as two separates. Yeah. What is this one? The dogwood is for some reason measured in height. I called that out a while ago too. I would just say deciduous trees. Well, I think you want to say the evergreen trees shall be planted as a size of at least 10 to 12 feet. And then

and then deciduous trees shall be what size caliber were you saying? Uh we had three and a half to let me just double check my note that can even I would think go in with eight. Oh no. There. It's a caliper. Yeah, caliper w inches. Is that your recommended caliber inches or is that what they're proposing? That was my recommendation. At a I just want to make sure I have the verbiage right. Um at a size of 3 to four caliber in

3 and 12 to 4 in calip uh 3 and 12 to four caliber inches. Okay. Three 3.5 to 4 in. or caliper inches. Yeah.

All right. And Sue, if you don't mind, um, before we had gotten into that, it was about woody. Yep. Tree mix was Was that for the slope planting, Rebecca? Yes, for the the that they have a grass planting there, but I was saying it should be a woodland seed mix. Um stabilizing the slope. Was it a conservation? I don't I think a conservation Yeah, a conservation mix. A conservation mix shall include um woodland species.

Woodland species. anything about the the slope or the stabilization? I think so. I think they were using it on all the sort of the rough areas around the site. So, I think we can just leave it conservation seed mix. I think that covers us. Okay. Um because if they have questions when they go to, you know, build it, they can call my office and I think having been here, we'll know what the intent was.

What's the um by going to the 3 and 1 half to four caliber? Sorry, what was in their plan? I have it up here. I could probably just look and this is what you're looking for. The next bracket bigger. Okay. Three. Yeah. Reason why they're bcking at that is cuz they may need a tree spade to put them in. Is that big enough for tree spade or still a backhoe? Yeah, I think they could get away with a backhoe for that. Okay. Um Ian, real quick, under number 17, um if you could change out town planner to town engineer. How about town engineer or agent? Yep, that works better.

And that way you're covered. I know the limit of my areas of expertise and it is not in species. Yep. But but that covers it for Bill. Or if you guys at some point have an arborist on on staff, you've got it covered. Yep. on number 21. I mean, there was mention above about they're going to do all their work inside, but can we shouldn't that be a condition that um I don't know how to state it, but you know, work, you know, all work shall be conducted inside the building or something to that effect, but I don't know how we said it both before, but

was that in another condition? I can't remember. I think it was in a finding or in a in a Yeah, I think. Okay.

Um I just I'm reading um on 20 it should be shall not will. Sorry. Conservation seed mix shall include instead of will.

Sometimes my brain kicks in. Do you know which finding that was? You've got the document there. You have to go up. You can search on uh what word would be good to search on? Um I don't see it in there.

Ian, go ahead and scroll down back down to the conditions. Um, find a nice little place towards the end of conditions, not at the very end, but towards the end. There we go. Before we get to prior to the issuance. So, a new number 26. Um see uh operations of the site and individual contractors shall be strictly limited to interior spaces and that should cover us. And that is for ongoing and not necessarily for just con uh construction.

Yes, that's why I tagged it as operations and uh an individual. Okay. Did we have one about lighting that I'm not able to find right now? Oh, thank you. Um, do we want to say something similar to our last hearing about um timers or um you have that on number 15, timers and andor motion centers. Beautiful. Thank you.

Um and I think we need to address the sidewalk issue. sidewalk funding point. I think it's in there somewhere

and I didn't like the Yeah, I don't like how a gift to the amount. Is it a gift or is it a contribution or that is uh it's what was used in past ones. It's fine to reward it. Contribution. I would like contribution. Yeah. Except for we say contribution right afterwards because I think technically it it does it is a gift right? Technically how about if shall provide the amount of contribution. Sorry.

Don't be sorry. Thanks for doing this live. Like I don't know what keyboard shortcut that was to open the calculator, but you found it. Did you guys get that too? Sorry. So So I'll provide the amount of $31,000 to select board for a or or either way. Sorry, you took it out already. Yeah. Yeah. That way you keep contribution second one. You just reject that change. You right click on it. Do you want to say in lie of or anything like that? Do we have Did we already You already did. In lie of construction. Um

you want to reference the site plan regs or no? I think it's fine. Do we have an exhibit for that calculation for one or six? Sorry. Sorry. Were you mentioning exhibit for the amount of 31,000? How that was calculated? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, we do. Um I don't believe it's been assigned an exhibit number yet, but um I will

for now just Yeah, just leave a blank reference. We can update that at any time. Should I change this to exhibit to reference the specific exhibit of the most revised landscaping plan

subject to um Rebecca some following conditions through the revisions they've made to the um through the revisions they've made to their landscaping plan. I think they've corrected everything that was shown in your previous exhibit. Is that correct? Uh, no. I mean, except the things that we've called out tonight in the conditions um were not captured, right? So, they did add five trees.

It is it before building permit or is it before some other milestone? When do we ask for these things to be I guess it is building permit. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm pausing here only because we've done we we've tagged the other elements to the preonstruction meeting. So I I think this should happen earlier in the game for sure.

Yeah. Yeah. Let's let's leave it as is and um rather than list out reflect blank blank blank blank blank um read that or revise that to read to reflect uh conditions and then what numbers were those 18 19 and 20 was it? Yes. 18, 19, and 20. 17 through 20. If those move if those move that your reference changes with them.

Yep. We'll just have to confirm that number when we accept all the changes and and double check that those are accurate. But that should be sufficient. Um Sue, we'll just have to do this preconstruction meeting before we formally issue the building permit. That's all.

That makes sense. Yeah. Going to go down slowly if anybody has any changes. That that's an awkward sentence right at the top there. To assess for protection of existing trees.

You say to assess that of adequate protection of existing trees or something to assess that adequate protection is in place or something to that. Just an awkward sentence. Even the first sentence, the limit of clearing shall be delineated at the bottom of the grade. He did like a 10-ft offset. So they were clearing more than they needed to. So that was very specific to one area.

It was all along the toe of slope. And I said that was my my issue with him. I said there may be significant trees that are in that 10 ft that could be retained. Um, how about delineated in the field and then wait a minute. Oh, we asked them to move it in tight to the toe of the slope. Shall be modified to the toe of the slope. Does that make more sense? Yes. Yeah. Sorry, my brain is not firing fully.

That's why I'm throwing it out there for somebody else to say yes or no. No, that sounds good. Sue slope. Um, is there only one slope? I mean, is that slope all the way around the site? There's whether it's a cut or a fill slope. Toe of slope is a is a term.

Yep. I need to start a clear and a preassessment site subject adjacent to the cleric. Um sidewall include the town engineer to evaluate uh potential or the retention of existing trees along the edge of clearing. Does that sound better? Yes, I think so. and and well I want to make sure and potentially modify as needed or something evaluate the retention and yeah existing piece along the edge of clearing that could be um enforce preserve

if you're if you're evaluating the retention it means you're trying to save Do you want to say to be included in the tree protection plan? Would that add to it? That better

along the edge of clearing to include in the tree protection plan. If you hear me yell, my cats are getting feisty and one of them just tried to grab my foot. So, so I'm sorry. Just let me understand the sitewalk. You're going to determine whether they're adequately identified where they're going to retain trees and then they have to then put that in the tree protection plan. Is it not too late at that point? No. So, oh,

so Sue, correct me if I'm wrong, but um effectively they would on site they would mark all the they would mark the limit of clearing. They would also present to us a plan set that demonstrates and reflects the exact limit of clearing. Um and we would confirm on site that that is adequate. Right? And if on the fringe of that, say there's a 18inch oak tree that they can work around and preserve, we're going to make them do it. Um, there's some pretty big trees out there that they don't have located, and this is just an attempt to to save them if we can. That's great, Sue. Thank you.

Yeah, just the beginning of that sentence just is awkward. You mean the limit of clearing shown on the current plans shall be modified in the field? Yes. But the plan shall modify the limit of clearing to the toe of the slope. I mean now we're asking for new for revised plans. So that's not what we usually do. Well, then we talk about revised plans to the town planner.

In this case, we are expecting multiple revisions after approval anyways or after decision regardless. Um, so at this point I think it makes sense to just include the language that uh the the plan shall be revised to demonstrate the limit of clearing shall be modified to the toe of the sl. And Cindy, that's only an improved situation, right? It's not going to step backwards. It's only going to step forward. Yeah. Yeah, I understand that. I just it didn't make sense the way it was written. Oh, okay. Gotcha. I'm sorry. Did I capture that accurately? Okay. The plan shall be modified. What was the discussion there?

The plan shall be modified to reflect the limit of clearing at the toe of slope. Right. Yeah. And if it helps put anyone's mind at ease, I we can make simple grammatical changes after the fact to these so long as it maintains the intent of the condition. So yeah, we can we can word Smith to just make the sentence flow correctly.

Great. Let's keep going. Okay, wait a minute. That that top sentence uh town engineer to evaluate the retention of existing trees along the edge of clearing to include in the tree protection plan to be thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Is there a timeline on this number 10? By when?

Uh, well, all of this has to be done prior to issuing the the Oh, wait. Number 10. Sorry about that. Uh there are various milestones throughout this. So um we effectively have to keep doing this up until the certificate of occupancy. Um Sue and the team will account their expenses to date. Um and that'll have to be paid prior to us actually releasing the decision itself back to the applicant for recording. And then uh prior to issuing the final certificate of occupancy um Sue and the team will again um do an accounting of their full billing up until that point for site inspections, any consultation throughout and then they'll pay that as well before the final certificate of occupancy.

Multiple milestones built into the the individual condition. Okay. Oh, is 11 a both a construction and operational?

Uh 11 is a perpetuity. You have a pre and post construction bylaw. So it carries through. Is that our standard regular hours 7 to 7 that we impose? Is that weekdays?

Uh I believe you had discussed these directly with the applicant including weekends, didn't Uh, it should reflect weekdays.

What do we typically do on weekends? Limited hours on Saturdays. Uh, yes. It's not unheard of to do limited hours on Saturdays. Are we screwing with something we already talked? I don't think we we would say 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I mean, this is this is a trade shop, so people are in and out. It's not a huge nuisance, but I wouldn't think 7 to 7 on a Sunday is No, I would I would do this as Monday through Saturday um just to to really cover yourself here because there is work that gets done by contractors on Saturdays. Or do we want to just refer to our bylaws? That's sufficient. What does the by What do our bylaws say?

I'm I'm looking them up right now. I think it's in the general bylaw. I thought you gave them some flexibility because they were contractors and giving them an earlier start time. Yeah, my understanding was start work. Yeah, my understand my recollection was we had discussed these hours directly with the applicant.

Yeah, that that sounds right. I I think Yeah, I'm fuzzy on the specifics right at this second, but I think we talked it through with them. So, I would want to I trust that what's written there I think we already talked through, but I Chris, do you I I think saying Monday through Saturday probably does it, right? Were they Do you recall us getting into a Sunday discussion? I I do not. Um it it would be quite unheard of if the town or if this board allowed construction activities or operation on a Sunday.

Yeah. So Monday through Saturday. This is operation, right? Yeah. Monday through Saturday. Yeah, I just checked the general bylaws. I didn't see it in there. Yeah, I'm not finding it either. Oh, so I think the seven to seven was just what was negotiated in uh on 23. The second sentence has an extra space before a. What a catch.

Yeah. People who used to use physical typewriters make two spaces after a period. People who learned with a word processor use one. That's from my mom typing with an actual typewriter because you needed the room. That's cuz those type fonts, you know, had two spaces. You couldn't tell.

You ever had a capital letter and you slapped the the one before and it got jammed raging? But Okay. Any other comments happening here? Pressing 11:30. Yeah. Um, I don't think so. Madam Chairperson, I think it makes the most sense to jump back up to the waiverss and just confirm that the board has agreed to all of those. So, let's just Can we scroll to the bottom of this thing just to make sure that everybody's looking at this last couple? Yes. Yes. Good call, Evan. Sorry, I was paused. Got excited. It's fine.

Okay, I'm fine with these things if everybody else is. I'm good. So, hold on. All work shall be done in accordance with just number 30 unless a change is requested in writing by the applicant. So, we know they're going to provide plans, revisions to the plan. So, how do we This is This is the part that I don't I'm a little uncomfortable with. You say they're going to provide revised plans. We need to

put a comma after the number one as modified here in. And then real quick, you're gonna go ahead and just highlight what I just told you.

Sorry, where? So, highlight what I just had you type. Oh, yeah. Yep. And you're going to cut that and you're going to put it instead after the word decision. And that covers you. Well, I don't know. That's a little plans listed in condition one. Well, I I I think we've been advised not to do it this way. So, I'm a little uncomfortable with having submitt plans after the fact. Maybe maybe that happens more. But,

but in this case, Cindy, you're doing it for very specific revisions. You're not leaving it wide open saying that you know you have to modify it without telling them specifically what all right well when you go back to reread this thing Alex just make sure you're very specific about which modifications you're expecting. Yep. Okay. Can we go back up to the top? Just up to the waiverss real quick. in perfect down very few by the end.

Is this where we had the This isn't where we had the question with the board, right? No. No. Um I just think it's it's relevant that you quickly review. There's only three of them here, but just confirm that um that these are sufficient. Yeah, those are what we talked about. Yep. We talked about it and nodded, but we didn't officially vote. Well, also you wanted to check these numbers here, right? Yeah.

Still 11. No, that because they took out one of those trees, right, Rebecca? Oh, there's not the drive aisle. What's the drive aisle? Uh on the right hand side as you're first coming up the driveway. They were doing three but they could only find room for two. Is that the drive aisle? What is a drive aisle? It's not a driveway. Driveway would be it would be correct. There still are nine around the parking areas.

Okay. And then what's the other one? Uh row of 11 trees along the front of the proposed building in drive aisle.

Oh, is that the wall along the wall? Yeah, that must be the ball cuz that's 11 on the most recent plan. That would be at the top of the wall after behind the guard rail. Yeah, those. Yeah, there's 11 little evergreens drawn by 11 big evergreens. The circles are smaller. They're little on the dry. They're littleer than the deciduous trees. Yes.

I'm good with these. Yep. don't need bikes cuz no one's riding a bike up there. Do we have um to vote these? Um yes, it would be a motion to approve the waiverss as stated in the decision. So moved. Second. Moved by Chris, seconded by Rich. Any discussion? Hearing none. Um as I see you Rich Gazardi. Gazardi. Chris Dowy. Dod. Cindy Marowitz. Markitz. I

Verer I. Okay. Um, we had one criteria that was being questioned by both or by members of the board. So, we need to pull that back up. Ian, yeah. Do our conditions as written satisfy that for you? Trees. That's correct, Ian. Yes. All right. Am I not sharing? Oh, no. There we go.

Thank you. Well, does the let's let's cuz I know we were focused on existing terrain and surrounding landscape. Um does it protect abing properties and community amenities? And they've got trees on the back side of the trail. It doesn't interfere with the trail. You don't have this, you know, that the height of the building isn't tremendous versus the trail height. Um, I'm just trying to break it apart, right, as you kind of see what what what are the areas of concern. Well, I think it's still an impact to the steel farm trail. So, it's not protecting the trail. It's it's trying to mitigate it, but it's still going to be visible from the trail. So, my answer would be no. It does not do that uh necessarily uh protect community amenities because there is an impact to the trail,

but it doesn't take the trail away. No. Are you arguing that nothing they could do would ever make it? It's visible from the trail and therefore I would say it does not protect that particular amenity. So being able to see the building is a veto.

That's correct. So, I don't see a way that they could satisfy that without a physical wall of 25 ft high. Cuz on the trail, the building is you're you're above the bottom of the building, but you're about 10 ft up, I think, if I remember correctly. So, you're about Yeah. So the building will be about 24 ft above you if you're standing on the trail there. There are trees there. There's some big trees there, but you can see between them.

The question was asked, does it protect the community amenity? And my opinion is no, it does not. You don't have to describe what the I understand what the mitigation. I'm just clarifying. Yep. Does the building site uh is it designed to minimize use of wetlands? You're building back from it to try to Yeah.

And steep slopes. I mean, it it goes into the slope or it's kind of on the high end of the slope. Um the But it does that to stay out of wetlands. I mean I don't know is the way to write this like well not ide the site is not ideal. Um but they're making significant they're making reasonable efforts to right

to make it fit. While the site is not ideal for construction of a facil a building due to the slope and what you know due to the slope.

Excuse me. They, you know, necessitating, you know, significant land, what do we call it regrading movement, ledge um what is it? Ledge mitigation or le ledge removal. The applicant has done, you know, has worked with planning board in an effort to mitigate and bal balance overall site development. Mitigate these to achieve an overall balanced approach. Well, I think that's a little bit subjective, Rich. You can say the the applicant has worked to mitigate the impacts. You know, I don't know whether you call it a balanced approach, but that's subjective.

Mitigate mitigate these concerns. Attempted to mitigate these concerns in an effort to mitigate in an attempt. Well, yeah, mitigating is just makes less than. So you you can argue whether it's enough. So I think to mitigate these concerns is is fair and accurate is you know one can argue that doesn't go far enough. But

they've proposed this screening um shown in their landscape plan from both rule 11 terrain and I mean do we want to say something in here that with um you know the board's condition to do we want to get into conditions here or not really? No. Sue can I ask you a question? Um, looking at the plans for the northern side of the property along the trail, I don't see a safety railing up there above that that cut.

No, they didn't propose it. Um, that's worrisome. Um, so is that typically something that would be required by building or fire code? building code usually requires them if you get more than a 4 foot drop. So, let's make a note. Um, regardless of what it shows on the plan set, we'll just make a note to remind Ed of that at the time of a building permit. Um, but that would be required prior to issuance of a building permit. So, it's certainly more than a 4ft drop. Correct. Yes. From the back from the trail to the building.

Yeah. I'm just, you know, kids cutting through to go to Blanchard and stuff like that. You know, that looks a little Yeah, they have a they have a retaining wall and that's where you want the cut not to be more than 4 feet. So, that's a code thing. Do we need to say it in the conditions or is that just a code thing? No, the the building code supersedes your site plan decision. Yes. Okay. you may want to flag it out so the building inspector is more aware of it because it may get buried in the overall site plan. Yeah, that seems like a could be a a big issue.

I made a note for it here. Um and I will attach that to the decision when we hand it to Ed. Thank you.

Sorry, I did not mean to derail this bit of conversation. I just was looking. Well, it's a good catch.

Yeah. So after that insert just makes the point they've proposed planted screening showing the plan under the proposed footprint. Okay. I'm okay with the way it's written. and visualized the planted screenings. Yeah. and visualize Okay. Any other comments on this section?

Hearing none. I would spell out square feet and approximately. I think those are important. Has the um conservation commission made any determinations on the wetlands?

No. The conservation commission has been waiting for the planning board to render their decision. I don't have any more comments. Um, and once you're done typing these parts, if you just want to accept the changes so the board can read it without the red line. I just want them to have that opportunity. The this specific one section.

Yeah. How's that? Is there an easier way I can accept all these at the same time?

Nope. That's the important part is clear. All right. You can accept everything in the whole document at once. That you can go up to uh in review and accept all changes. Let's not do that right now. Yeah, we got to say I need to see the red line so when I hear special land use council, he can see where we were where we were poking and prying. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments here?

Oh, for the formatting ones, if you want to clear those, you can highlight that whole paragraph and then rightclick and accept those changes. If you just right click in that mess, Yeah, those are accepting the individual ones. If you highlight the paragraph and then click on the highlighted text. Oh, it should go all of them. Oh, it might not let you on that. All right. Depends on the version word. Ian can play with all of this not 11:45 at night. I was hoping to save save him an hour later, but yeah. Any additional comments here on this particular paragraph, I guess. Nope. is our pinch point.

Um, yeah. I mean, it's it's the best language we can come up with. I'm still not enamored with the uh the ability to meet it, but that will come out. Madam Chairperson, are you ready for a vote specifically on the conditions? I think we are unless anybody has anything else to say. What What do we vote on? We vote on a set of conditions or So, first you would vote to approve the slate of conditions. Okay. And then we would move on to the decisions themselves. Okay.

Okay. I think the bit of discussion would be the conditions as written amended. As Yeah. What? Yeah. I have a specific I have a specific motion that I will ask the the board to use verbatim. Sure. I mean um just in plain language the conditions as we have them set right now. Is that is that sufficient? Cuz if not, do we need to change one? That's to the board. Uh the thing we just spent an hour doing.

Yeah. I mean that it's crazy that we're going to we have to vote the conditions. This feels redundant now. I feel like we're and it's getting really late. I'm sorry, but I'm sort of feel like we're I'm good with the conditions if that was your question, Chris. Yes. No, that was the So I I'm good with the conditions as well. I'm good without a couple of them, but the the reason they're in there is to try to get more support for the for the thing overall. So that that's what I wanted to clarify. So, so if these conditions as they are right now are sufficient for a yes and if they aren't, what else what else is needed?

Well, um, so there is blasting proposed. I don't know. Do we have a condition relative to blasting regarding what? there's I think they have to because it's just a big Well, we usually incorporate some kind of hours and uh you know coordination with the fire department and notifications. Yeah. The construction. Yeah. So I think

all of so all of that the blasting requirements are incorporated into law already. That's through the fire department. If you want to specifically regulate the hours of blasting um to a more narrow window than what you have cited here, you can do so in the same condition. You could simply say blasting shall only occur between the hours of or 9 a.m. and 300 p.m. or something. Yep. Between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You said 10:00 a.m. Sorry.

Yep. 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Except holidays. No, I might. I was only kidding. I think 30 in there. And it should be Monday through Friday. There you go. Through Friday. Not Fridays. You're still making a lot fewer uh typos than I'd be making at this hour. Good job.

Okay. Do you have your motion, Alice? If there Yes. If there's nothing further, u madam chairperson, you would seek a motion to approve the slate of conditions as amended and subject to nonsubstantive revisions by special land use council. So moved. Second. Moved by Rich, seconded by Christy. Um any discussion? Yeah, I mean I guess you know my concerns are not really being mitigated by the conditions. I'm not sure that they can be at this point. So I'll just be on make that note that there are no conditions in my mind that can mitigate my concerns.

Okay. Um at least that I've thought of. So okay. Uh there's a motion on the table. So as I see you Rich Gazardi I. Uh Chris Dowy DY I uh Cindy Markitz. Um Markwitz I and Verer I. Um okay. Now we need another motion or another vote. Okay. Um so madame chairperson this is framed in the form of an approval with conditions. Okay.

Mhm. Uh the motion uh you would seek a motion to approve the decision with conditions subject to nonsubstantive revisions by special land use council and further to authorize the chair to sign the decision on behalf of the board. So this is in a motion to approve with conditions. So moved. Okay. Moved by seconded by Chris. Um as any discussion? Okay. Um hearing none. Um Chris Dowy Dowy I. Uh Rich Gazardi Gazardi I. Cindy Marowitz. Markitz. No.

And Verer I. Um okay. Is Bloom Hut still here? Yes. Thank you for sticking it out with us today. Congratulations. Um, next order of business. What can we get away with not talking about this evening? Um, Madam Chairperson, I'll just

So, Madam Chairperson, I'm just going to tell you right now that I will be sending you an email with uh the department's holiday schedule, information on the annual report as well as the draft annual town meeting target dates that I have prepared. And now because I've said that, I can send it to you and it's all good. Okay. So, that's your report. Yes. Do we all get to see that or is that just for the chair? It's going to go to all of you. Yes. To all of you. You don't need me anymore, do you? Um, we have an enclave update. Can we Oh, okay. Hear that from you right now? We'll take the hour. Yes. So, um, Sue, do you want to give your part first?

Okay. So, last week when we were out on other sidewalks, I drove by the site. They have planted their replication areas and they have worked over uh near the pump house and removed portions of the gravel road so that they have a rip wrap overflow. When I saw it, they were still in process of doing that and they had removed the pavement that they were supposed to and so they're making good progress on finishing up things for conservation. Um, I have not heard anything else about addressing like the ADA concerns that we have for sidewalks. I think that's probably the biggest one that's outstanding and I've had no communications regarding them resolving that.

No communication back to you or nothing from toll about how they're going to address it. Uh basically we told them right now we view it as being non-compliant and that if you know they need to bring it up to compliance. There's some places where I think they've got to do a lot of regrading of a sidewalk to make it work. And I said if you can't then you have to get a variance or a waiver from the architectural access board. And we left it at that and I have not heard anything back from them on that uh aspect. Yeah. there any way we can enforce this?

So, madam chairperson, I think this is a good opportunity for me to pick up the update. Um, so myself and the town administrator uh met with the homeowners association last week. Um, they expressed a variety of concerns that they had regarding the site. Um, they have consulted their own independent services to do an evaluation of a variety of things. Um, in some cases that are tied to the bond, others that are not tied to the bond. um they uh in meeting with them, hearing their concerns, um they're going to provide to us uh all of the evidence uh that they have found as to various issues that might arise or things that might be inadequate. Um, and then from there I will be exhausting a portion of our well my department um consulting budget um to have Sue sit down with myself, the building commissioner and the town administrator so we can evaluate in depth the the list um where they have brought on their own uh their own expertise as well. Um, we want to give them the opportunity to provide that information to us to help us as we do our checks and balances and provide to you uh the variety of things once we pass the the deadline for the the the deadline for site plan approval as we provide back to you a list of any outstanding items or items that need um either corrective action or revision.

Um, board members, any comments? I had a question for Sue. I guess if with is the materials that are being stored up on the front end of the construction access road related to the wetland restoration. Um there's piles of of material um adjacent to the construction access road entrance. Is that related to the work that's being done down at the at the Enclave for wetland restoration?

Um initially it was material that had been stockpiled down and moved up. Um, when I looked at it the other day, it does not appear to be the same or it it appears bigger than it had been. So, I don't know where that material's come from. So, is you don't think it's related to the

So, I I don't I don't I it does not appear to be that way, but I don't know for sure. So, I think that's something that you may need to reach out to the uh Fentons and find. I think they view it as my guess is where that site is um commercially that they're just storing it there. I know part of the material was used to fill in the large kettle hole on that property. Um and they filled it in so it was structural fill um but I don't know what what the piles that are there are from.

So do we have um I'm concerned about the unsightliness of the site. Um and it's been that way for a very long time. Um, I know it was determined that the the site did not that particular site was not under our storm water bylaw threshold. Um, so I guess I'll ask the town planner and yourself if there's any recourse the town has to try and improve the look of that site even if it's not um being redeveloped at this time. Um, we'll put in a request with Toll Brothers that any material and um any material and machinery not being used um but within the original scope of the permit please be removed from the site uh in keeping with the conditions of the decision.

Um that front lot where it is you're talking about over on Massav by the Blue House, correct Cindy? Yes.

That is not owned by Toll Brothers. They have no control over that site. that was uh Jim Fenton and I can't remember what the name of the LLC that owns it is. Uh the only interaction with the Enclave project was the fact that they have an easement using that roadway uh the construction roadway to get access to their wells and then it was for the original construction access which has gone away with the replication area. So, does the town have any ability to um try to improve the aesthetics of that of that site given um that it's been there for quite a long time and um isn't consistent, I guess, with the the wishes of the folks in town based on some of the letters we've received in the past.

So, like I said, we'll we'll put in a request. We'll try and go through toll and try and move this along. Um that's the best I can promise. Okay, thank you. Go through toll. I I thought this is a Jensen property. Um, Tol has a vested interest in actually getting this done and keeping things clean, um, I I can't speak for Jim and his team, but where this is now a toll project, um, I think they have more willingness to help help try and move this along.

Even though the pro the property in question is not um, part of the Enclave project. Okay. I just want to make sure we're talking about the right thing. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Um, with that, Sue, good night. Thank you for sticking with us. Happy holidays. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody and we'll see you uh next meeting. Happy Thanksgiving. Okay. Good night. Good night,

madam chairperson. The only item that must be addressed tonight um is the uh ANR. Um your next meeting will be outside the board statuto statutory deadline to take action. Um, having reviewed the ANR plan, it does meet compliance with your subdivision rules and regulations, including the note on the plan um that clearly defines that this is not an approval of the lots for zoning purposes and not an approval of any permitting type. This is simply endorsement of an approval not required plan and so I would advise the board to uh to endorse the ANR or to authorize the chair to endorse the ANR on behalf of the board.

Thanks, Alec. the project engineer was on the call earlier. I mean, do we want to hear from that person? It's the next meeting is outside the deadline. Um, they provided a uh they provided a written letter to the board uh stipulating just the the simple terms of it. They did provide the minimum number and the required materials as well as application fee and GIS fee um and the ANR plan and the cover sheet. What is the plan? where we actually

an ANR refers to a a plan that does not require approval of the board. Effectively, I describe it as a minimal subdivision of land. Effectively, in this case, they're just reorganizing lot lines um between between property under common ownership. Typically, this is done when they intend to sell in the future. They want to build, say, a single family home or something to that effect. um in this case and and to um to the engineers credit, they were very thorough, even noting the stone walls on the plan, which is an important part, especially on Stone Road. Um but in general, townwide, that's an important thing. Um nonetheless, as I said, this ANR plan meets the criteria set forth in your subdivision rules and regulations, and it is not an endorsement of any proposed future use, any potential use, or the buildability of the site. What do we actually We're just endorsing this ANR plan. We're required to endorse the plan as essentially an acknowledgement that there's a subdivision of land happening.

Yes. That the proposed that the proposed lots have the minimum frontage required or that they have tagged anything without uh with the appropriate frontage lines. So, I know we let Sue go, but usually she gives us an opinion on it. Did she write a letter or anything to this? No. In the three years I've been here, I've never once sent her an ANR. I thought we usually hear from her. I I looked at it. I mean, it looks like they're trying to I mean, whatever whatever they're doing, it looks like they're trying to get conform two conforming lots out of it. And today they're somehow less conforming. I I couldn't you know.

Yeah. It was hard to tell what was wrong with or what was different. From what I can Yeah. From what I can see, one of the lots is currently lacking the frontage requirements by maybe a few a few linear feet there, but they were able to borrow from the the next lot over. I'm okay with it. Sure. I mean, is our approval required in any way? Uh, so, uh, Madam Chairperson, you would seek a motion authorizing the chair to endorse the plans on behalf of the board. So moved. Second. Moved by Rich and seconded by Chris. Uh discussion.

And to answer your question, Chris, if the board fails to take action, um then it's considered a constructive approval. Um and they can simply ask me to sign it because the the board didn't take action. We didn't object. Okay. Yeah. Just the the name felt ironic. Like why do we need to discuss something that we don't need to approve? Yep. Okay. Any other conversation about this? Okay. I'm hearing none. Uh Cindy Marowitz, Marquitz, I. Rich Gazardi. Gazard. I Chris Dy. And Verer I. Okay. Alec, can we push the rest?

We can get out of here. All right. Terrific. 12:03. Thank you all. Thank you, Dave. Thank you, Ian, for being on the fly with all the writing this late. Have a great night, you guys. Happy. Happy Thanksgiving. Yep. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. I move to adjurnn. Thank you, Rich. Second. Second. Seconded by Cindy. Okay. Roll call. Chris Dowy. Gouty. I. Rich Gazardi. I. Cindy Marowitz. Markitz. I. Verer. I. Thank you, Alec. Once again,