Planning Board - Regular Meeting

recording in progress.

Mark, you recording stopped? Yes, I am, Greg. Okay. Just want to make sure. Everybody good? Recording in progress.

Uh good evening everybody. Welcome to the March 9th, 2026 planning board meeting. Uh this meeting is audio and video recorded as well as on Zoom. Uh the zoom caller number is 312-6266799 with a meeting number of 815 324 57068. Uh first item of business we'll take care of is some general business and this is for a 81 uh P for 78 and 79 popular street. Um, if I could go to Marino real quick for a brief update. How far know the applicant?

Um, I actually didn't have a brief update for you. Okay. Okay. I think it was just a little bit of a lane swap, but we'll Mike, you have any issues? Um, no. Was Jim and looks like they're just switching, like I said, um, trading one corner of the parcel for a another corner. Yeah, just set up real quick just just in case somebody out there wants to see. Sure. You don't mind? And then just if you could just introduce yourself for the record, please. Okay. Anywhere you want me to stand or fine. Okay. As long as just just quiet a little bit so Chris can pick it up on the Yep. There you go.

Okay. Uh good evening. Ted Lizinga from Tilton Associates, 81 John Beach Boulevard in North Abor. I'm senior project manager. Uh today we present you uh representing uh bright ideas by JRP. Um what we're doing is we're doing a parcel swap. This is 78 popular street identified as lot 9 map 216 and the land swap would be is with lot 10 map 216. Both parcel uh parcels are non-buildable, but there it's for an even swap, same land area, and so it won't affect the size of the existing lots that are there.

Questions from the board? Uh, no questions, Mr. Chairman. Any questions? Uh, no, Mr. Chairman, I'm all set. Thank you. Um, I just had one quick question. What's the purpose of a land swap? Um so right now there's an existing driveway that's um crossing over um such conary realies trust's lot right here. So the idea the intent is to swap land parcels so we could relocate the driveway over here.

Okay. All right. I make a motion. Uh is anybody in the audience out there? I don't see any hands. All right. Make a motion to approve uh the 81P for 7879 Populatic Street. Um do I hear a second? We're getting a roll call. Second. All in favor? Roll call vote. Uh Greg Rondo, yes. Jay Melo, yes. Mark Mutroni, yes. Chris Stikney, yes. Mr. Chair, members of the board, thank you for your time. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Next item of business would be uh 70 Daniel Street Grill Estates. I understand they're looking to be continued.

Um did Amy give you any idea how far along and where we are? No, she did not. Okay. Yeah. Um I think they're pretty they should be fairly close. Why don't we push this to our next meeting, which would be um the 23rd. The 23rd. This is who? Symphony. No, this is at Daniel Street. Okay. Estate. So, I make a motion to continue Grill Estate 70 Daniel Street till um 3:23. Second. Roll call. Uh Craig Rondo. Yes. J Miller. Yes. Mark, yes. Chris Stney, yes.

Yeah. Next item of business. Um This would be a continuation of 47 Pford Street which is done in estates uh considered in a subdivision plan you want to give us an update or you want to get into it a little bit just introduce yourself.

Sure. Good evening. Rick Kudro with United Consultants. Um, last time we were here, we had received uh follow-up comments from uh Department of Planning, Community Development, Town Engineer Beta, as well as some comments from the board. We have put together a response letter outlining all of the uh comments that had been received and how they were addressed and revisions made. Um, I think with that said, I think we're in pretty good shape with uh everything Beta had particularly. I think I don't want to speak for Mike, but I think the town engineer isn't pretty pretty happy with everything. Um, and as I said, Beta had one comment had to do with the lighting, which they recommended be deferred to the DPW. We did get an updated lighting plan that we had a chance to send to to Beta, but uh, which we think now complies with the mass on length and the and the mounting height that they were looking for. So, we would be happy to have that as a condition if the board was so inclined and certainly be willing to answer any questions the board may have.

Okay. Um, I get I got a couple quick ones. I understand you're still with conservation commission. That's correct. Okay. Um, at what point are you? Uh, the filing's been made. Uh, we've had a hearing. We have another hearing scheduled for I believe Thursday. Um at this point we have not received any review comments from Beta. Okay. Uh from the conservation side. Yeah. Because we're going to wait to hear back from them first. So um okay before I go to anyone else the board questions.

Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh Rick, I appreciate the updated plan on page eight showing the arborites uh against the abuing property. Yes. I just wanted to confirm that those would be installed prior to work starting because that was the abuter's concern is the the construction visibility and debris kind of filtering over. Yeah, I mean we could add a note to the final plan if that would or a condition whatever the board would Yeah, I think I think a condition would be great just to make sure it happens before not after. Yeah, it's well away from the construction of the house and the roadway. So I don't see it as an issue but that certainly Yeah. Thank you very certainly accept. Thank you Jay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So,

okay. So, um I think we've pretty much wrapped this one up. I'm cool with the waiver requests here for a sidewalk on one side and the cover on the drain pipe. Uh, I know the sewer thing is a contention, so I'm going to put my opinion out there uh before, you know, I guess it's first, not really before, but um I don't think this is like a a town matter because it's between you guys and black upper Blackstones. Not upper Blackstone here. Charles River.

Sorry, wrong one. It's between you and Charles River. If you really want us to know away Blackstone, that sounds expensive. But it's between you and Charles River. Um, in my opinion, just because it's their main, I, you know, uh, I'm sitting here trying to find where the town is a party because if the homeowner owns the service and Charles owns the main, it seems like the only party that the town would have in this would be the road. Um, and I would assume that you guys would clamp down pretty hard on a restoration anyway. So, it's of my opinion that I don't care um, if you run a new main or if you connect to Charles River, it's their job to tell you no. So, I'm kind of just neutral on that one. Um, I do think they're going to tell you no because it's an interceptor, but it in my opinion, it's your no to go get. So, that's it.

Thank you. Well, uh, no. Good. Mark, no. Uh, no further questions. Thanks, M. Mr. Chairman. I'll go to Mike at DBW if you don't mind. Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so just touching on the sewers, um, as Jay was just referring to. So, our recommendation was to build a um a new sewer main within the layout of the roadway and connect that into one of the manholes on the interceptor. But regardless, that process will need um they will need to get um approval from the town council for um water and sewer map amendments because there are some of the parcels that won't be have frontage on the sewer anyway. So, they still need to go through that process. So, the town council will have um a vote on the matter and then and Charles River Pollution Control District, it is their interceptor, so they have some say as how things get connected, too. So that was our recommendation. At the end of the day, they will need to go through those other two processes too. So um that'll be something that will happen. And then just on the lighting, I think during one of the previous um renditions, I think there was uh decorative lighting within the layout and our recommendations just to uh make sure it meets the planning board's standards with the Cobras Cobra heads, which I believe has been done. So that was the only other comment we had regarding that decorative lighting on the individual lots. We don't have an issue with those. Those are private.

Okay. Um Steve, yes, our um final comment was regarding the lights. Um they had submitted the revised lighting plans and I had issued it to Amy. I forgot to CC Rick, but um as far as we're concerned, our comments have been addressed. Lighting plan was was good. That was it. That was all. Yes. All of our other comments have been issu have been addressed.

Okay. Um I did I just had one quick. I I know you worked away. That's good. I'm okay with the waves. The only one I have reservations about just the sewer, the depth of that sewer. You're a little nervous wet down there. Um and you're deep. So me personally, I'd rather see a main run down the middle of the road, tie in, do one connection at the very end of the road into the interceptor because just thinking if you ever get back into that, have fun. You know, you're going to be trench boxing and you're going to be shuffling that thing back quite a bit. So I think correct it now while you can. It's a safety. me personally when I mean down the middle a couple houses off of that one said. So that's my opinion but town council could rule us on that potentially.

Well the town council will vote to allow them to extend the sewer to connect the other houses into and at the end of the day the connection to the interceptor will be um through DPW and the uh Charles River Pollution Control District because we still have to issue permits for that too but they'll have the ultimate say connecting to the interceptor and how that's done. So we'll work with them and that we've had some preliminary discussions with them already. So

okay. Yeah. I I I just think the needs of methods and everything for for all intents purposes 10 years from now if you have a problem have fun. I don't mean to be sarcastic but I'm saying it's a dangerous thing to approach. So um so con lin sew I think you got everything pretty much wrapped up other than that. If you can if you can think about the sewer main down the street and make me feel that. Um I think every All set. Mark, you're all set. Yes, sir. Thank you. Um, what do you think? If you have a meeting, want to go two meetings out and you should be able to have Hong Kong summit result.

What do you want to just come back and Well, if we could just come back in two weeks, see where we're at. You want to come back with an update just in two weeks then? Sure. Okay. So I'll make a motion to continue 47 Patrick Street Dunovan Estates till March 23rd for an update. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? Roll call. Uh Greg Rondo, yes. Jay Melo, yes. Mark Muchon, yes. Chris Stickney, yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, our next item of business, this will be, excuse me, continuation for a subdivision uh for Symphony Drive, Tangle Wood Estates 2. Um guess while the applicant is setting up. Um, Marina, did any we have some comments and whatnot, but um she's

anything in particular that she wanted to No, she didn't call anything out to me. Okay. Um, did you all you all received this? Yep. Yep. Um, but she didn't call anything in particular out to me.

Okay, good. All set.

I forget I'd let you get settled in first. If you just want to introduce yourself for the record.

So, good evening, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Bill Buckley and I'm the engineer for the project. I represent Cypress Realy Development. Uh we came before the board back in January to make our initial presentation to you for this project which is a a two lot subdivision on a private subdivision roadway which is approximately 150 ft long and 20 feet wide at the end of Symphony Drive. And so um this is the rendering that we've had and we actually it's been updated a little bit which I'll talk you through the changes and I think you will all have a set of um revised drawings or at least have access to them. So, we received comments from the board. Um, we received comments from the town's professional staff. We received comments from the town's consultant. And we prepared a a response to them. Um, and filed that with the board um I think about a week and a half ago along with the revised drawings. And so, what I'd like to do is just talk about some of the changes we've made uh back since then. Um we went out and did some additional test pit test pit test pits uh on the site. That was a request of the consultant, one of the comments. So we we've added that on to the drawing. Um we've added screening on there was one of this is a board comment some the lot on the right as you come in right here. is a storm water basin is located just to the right and there was a request to add some screening on that and so we've added some six foot high arborites along the top of that burm in order to screen it from the the neighbor although I did point out at the time that house is probably going to be at least 8 ft higher than where we are but still it will we put it on the burm so it they wanted to look over it it should it should screen the the basin itself which is really only about 20 21 inches deep so it's not like it's a big hole in the ground and that that's actually on

sheet four of your plan set if you want to go to that. Um there was some a comment about a a connecting dedicated open space that's out there in the back. So up here on the north this is a large open space by the town and then down here there's an access way to a smaller open space which I think go went with an old um not old but with a open space subdivision. And so, um, there the request was made that could we provide an access point or an access lane along that eastern side of the property to connect the two open spaces. And so that's what we did. This this lane down here is about 20 feet wide now. So, we made the access drive or the act drive and access parcel 20t wide. That's on sheet three of your plan set if you want to take a look at that. Um, so we we we made that change on there. Um, some of the other comments that were made in the um I'll just touch on them on the comments were um a lot of neighbors were here concerned about the fact that uh water not not a lot but there was several down here which is at the bottom of the hill. I think I pointed out earlier this is probably about a 90 foot drop from the high point in this area here down. So, you know, they got water. One lady was talking about having to do some work in her yard. So, that was a large concern. So, one of the things we've done is on um in our SWIP narrative, page seven or sheet seven of the plan set, we put some more detailed in um narrative in there timeline on what we want to see done, what should be done during the um the construction. You know, one of the things I want to point out is, you know, we're we're showing these houses here. I have no idea where these houses are going to go. I mean, I think they're going to go in that general area. I'm showing some big

houses. And really, the purpose of it is, as it always is, is we just want to prove to the board that it's possible to physically place those structures on the lots that we're creating. In this particular case, this is a seven acre parcel of land. Each of the lots is, you know, three, four acres and it's one acre zoning. So, certainly plenty of room in there. But, um, based on our, um, preliminary review here or our preliminary design of where we think the houses could go and should go, um, we've we've done that that swip and that will change once it it is actually a contractor is actually hired and houses are actually done. But we did we did add more narrative in there. Excuse me. In order to um and that's again on sheet seven. One of the comments was about disturbance of the lots. And so you know these lots as I pointed out are large. They are much larger three or four times larger than the lots arounded in the conventional subdivision which are one acre zoning to the southeast and then to the northeast. It's actually smaller zoning. I think it's probably an old cluster subdivision or something like that. And you look at those lots and they're look, you're probably looking at 70 to 90% altered. Trees are gone. You know, they've just been damaged. And I live in a 40,000 square foot lot subdivision. I have very little trees in my lot just the way it is. These lots have 60% untouched area, even showing the amount of grading that we're showing in there. And again, um, we're showing grading, but maybe those homeowners or future homeowners maybe want to do put walls in, so there might be less grading in there, but I think we've shown what's pretty much maximum of what what would be seen in there. Um, and we still have 16% of I won't call it open space because it's not, but it's untouched land. Um

I think I'm going to stop right there because those are the larger items that changes. Um really not a lot changed on that drawing itself. A lot of the commentary had to do with um responding to questions and comments from um Bader and from the professional staff. Good. Thank you. Um before I go to the board, I'm going to go to uh Mike at DPW. Mike, if you could uh weigh in, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um our previous comments, I believe most of them been uh been addressed. We don't really have anything outstanding. Um but I'll defer to uh Bader and Steve's comments. So I we did speak a little bit. There was some concerns about some of the storm water modeling. Um I'll let Steve speak to that directly, but it had to do with the amounting analysis. And I guess the one thing I just want to throw in there is that I I I just believe that the the analysis should be done to an extent that we we can be confident there's not going to be any breakout outside of the detention basin and the side slopes into the wetland, any surface run off through the side slopes basically just to ensure where this is such a a steep site and cut and there have been, you know, concerns about flooding downstream. They just want to, you know, make sure that that's going to be addressed. That's all. But I'll defer to Steve and any other comments he may have.

Okay, great question. Um Steve, we'll go to you next. Yes, Mr. Chairman. So, yeah, it's a tricky site. Um, there's a lot of elevation change and everything. And a lot of what we were um designing this for, uh, excuse me, what we were analyzing this for is for the downstream neighbors. in the idea of the amount that was being removed. Albeit it's not um as much as some subdivisions, the amount of clearing in the slope was was our primary concern for a lot of our comments. Um so I'll just go through and I have some of the major ones highlighted basically. But so the proposed cut um our first comment is Z1 under earth regulations. Um the volume's going to exceed 1,000 cubic yards. So they'll need to request a special permit from the board of appeals for that. Um we recommended the applicant added a bunch of additional erosion control measures which we appreciate. Um we added a comment um under I3 to we recommend using 12 in diameter, excuse me. um erosion controls, the the tubes, um again the slope and you know the amount of work out there. I we believe um and there should also be a stockpile of extra tubes out there. Um and I'll touch on this more um as as we go further through uh our comments. Um but I think how this work is done and how it's constructed is very important. Uh again with the amount of

clearing, the slope um and the neighbors already um having concerns about it. Um I'm just moving away. Um so another concern of ours is that the the location and I understand that these are just hypothetical spots on the plans. you know, these aren't exactly where the foundations are going to go, but there's a pretty significant um amount of cut um that's going to be need to be accomplished in order to have the house on the left on plan left, which is the west. Um there's there's close to a 20 to 25 ft cut in that area. And um the local um observation uh holes were yielding ledge at about 5t was my understanding or close to 5t which means that you're going to have a pretty significant amount of um I would imagine it would be blasting because unless you have a I I don't see an excavator being able to do that without some kind of aid like blasting. Um, so and again, our concern is that when you when you excavate that amount of soil and it's going to be right down to the ledge, um the groundwater breakout could impact the proposed infiltration um items on site downstream uh the infiltration basin um and eventually the downstream of Butters. Um that was uh one of our major concerns and again all of them all of our comments kind of are around that same idea. um you know

so if you could go to I think it's page nine but it's storm water comment S SW5 um you know and again it speaks to the amount of blasting that needs to be done the downstream neighbors and the wedge being present in the test pits um you know you know I know detention basin number one which is on the west side of the entrance drive. It's not going to be an infiltrative um storm water feature. It's going to hold water and convey it across the way. Um it is located in an area between 6 and 10 ft deep. Um so again a matter of like breakout was something that we were concerned of in that area with you know if water breaks out it can run down the face and then you have an infiltration B I mean a storage basin that is already full prior to a rain event. Um and again um us you know I'm not a geotechnical engineer. So I we weren't sure how a cut like that is going to affect groundwater for an entire site. Um so these are just concerns that we think we should speak about um that we should talk about. Um making our way a little further through my just give me one moment. So yeah um S SW19 we we we asked for uh hydraulic conductivity which is not required by the by the storm water regulations as

they are now. Um we do recommend it for um for any um HSG B or C soils. Um because a lot of times in our experience the most common cause for an infiltration system failing is due to an overestimation of the infiltration capacity. Um you know the on-site soils are HSGC soils and um you know so having hydraulic conductivity is nice to be able to confirm the actual infiltration that you're going to get out there. Um, excuse me. So, um, as Mike had alluded to a moment ago, so just we had a question about the mounting analysis, um, in that it was only run for a two-hour time and not for the whole storm. Um there was some you know uh interpretations um you know the the applicant has a certain interpretation we have a certain interpretation on how this should be mounted um in the storm water regulations of in in in this comment sorry this is S SW22A there's there's volume chapter and pages um that are referenced and so it's just a matter of you know we feel like the mounding analysis should be longer, but at the very least after speaking with Mike about this, it's important that it stays in the basin and it won't the the mounding won't break out through the downside bank um because again the abuters um you know that was a major concern.

And then uh one of our final comments was just to have the board consider having the town council review any HOA documentation ensuring the language and protection of the storm water management that they have on site. Um but otherwise that is our comments major comments. Thank you for your time. Thank you Steve and I can answer any questions. Let me go. You know what you want to respond before I go to the board questions? Whatever you want me to do, Mr. Chair. Um maybe just ch on some of what Mike and and Steve had. Sure.

So, um we saw the comments and we addressed them. We believe that we addressed them properly and correctly. Um, so I think what's probably going to have to happen is my suggestion is we would have a meeting with uh me and Mike and Veta and go over these things instead of talking to the board about them, which is probably pretty boring. And the um and then I I'm sure we could come to a solution to these uh to these items. So that's really all I have to say. Okay. Um Okay, good. Thank you. Um Chris question.

No, I think that approach makes sense to me to get the technical aspects ironed out. Uh I think the only thing I just want to reiterate on our meeting that we had on the 12th of January, um I had made mention of the connection point from the culde-sac to the new private drive and the responsibility of that area that's currently it's in the rightway, but it's currently those two abuing properties yards on the back side of the culde-sac. Um, and I think the you had said you're willing to make it a condition of approval to how that just gets maintained in the future by the HOA. Yeah, just wanted to reate that.

Thank you. Okay, J. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I guess I have the same concerns as Steve and Mike. It's just a whole lot going on geotechnically um and hydrogeeologically. Um, so I don't know if did you guys do a mounting analysis? Did you just use that though? Yes, we did. Okay. We don't get these kind of things. I don't I don't have access to it. Um, so yeah, if you guys are going to talk about it, I think that would go a long way in my fears on it just because it it seems a little unsettled still. Sure. Um, and I guess the only other comment I had, this is a personal one, is it seems as if the grading I I loathe homes below the rightway. I hate it.

Yeah. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. And I understand here that that would require building a pretty significant retaining wall or like a lot of fill to get the eastern home, I guess we'll call it, the home on the right side of the plan at grade with the rightway or even above it. Um, but that being said, it looks like the grading is kind of straight down and like just dead down the center. uh not really super elevated towards that stone trench, but it might be worthwhile to do that. It's kind of like pegged right down the center. I saw that. I'm like, well, that stone trench ain't going to do much. So,

just to turn it super elevated to push the water into that trench and towards the basin and away from the house. That was I just every time I see those below grade driveways I the calls that Mike's going to get for something that wasn't his fault. Hey man, I would I did it with you for seven years, but I remember. So the um you're right. It's the problem is well it's not a problem but it's just something that that we have to deal with. So town has a regulation that says you can't have more than a 10% driveway. Yeah.

So we have a 10% driveway but you also have to deal with conservation issues. So the back of this house is in the buffer zone. Um, actually a portion of it, the corner of the house that we show it is, but the backyard is. So, we were trying to do there is is hit the grade in the back so we wouldn't have to grade anymore into the buffer zone. I'm half Italian. That's why I walk with my hands. The um Is that why you broke your arm the last time? Yeah, that was skiing. Yeah, that was a shoulder. Yeah, if I remember correctly, you did it like five years ago, too. Yeah, you're right. I had a broke I broke this collar bone and tore this rotator and I it's a bad shoulder. See planter boy stitches. Jesus.

But the uh what we what we're trying to do is meet the uh the grade back there and as little grading as possible. So yeah, you're right. I agree with you. Love to pick it up. And actually one of the regulations is that the sewer has to come out the basement. Um, and we could still make the store come out the gracement, but it's not going to come out gravity. And this isn't this isn't going to be gravity. So, we would be pumping it up into a manhole on the property and then gravity it into the Is that your intent anyway? Is just to force it. Okay. Yes. So, yeah, I guess for the driveway if you take the driveway lines and maybe kick them so your stone crunch is doing something. Yep. Because if not, it just looks like you're going to flood out your your garage.

I think that was the only thing I had beyond that. Thank you for doing the parcel back. I appreciate that. No problem. Mark.

Yes. Uh, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Um, I think it's a great idea that the engineer and the town Mike get together as far as solving those those issues because that's what I was mainly concerned with. Um, I know Steve did mention that although the fire department was okay with the turnaround, Steve was concerned with the the slope of it as far as the uh fire engines make, you know, being able to maneuver those. Um, Steve, did was the I guess the town the Franklin Fire Department make any comment in regards to that or is or is that still pending or if you could answer that question for me? We we have a letter from them saying that they're satisfied with with the design. I I don't know if there's anything subsequent to that, but

Okay. Um and um the basins basins do because they're going to have standing water. Should there be fencing around that? These basins are not designed to have standing water. the the one to the left as you're looking at the plan, the upstream one has a a a culvert at the bottom and that's a detention basin. And then the one on the right

is a um infiltration basin and it's designed to drain in no more than 72 hours. And although the the National Resource Conservation Service maps show this to be a sea soil, um we've done soil testing underneath these basins. this ba these bas the basin on the right specifically and found it to be a lomi sand. So a better soil certainly not um the kind of soil but other portions of the site do have poor soils and then when we were doing those test bits we were doing them with the board of health as a witness. So you know we would we thought initially we were going to be putting septics in here so we were doing test bits out in that area. Um, so it wasn't just our opinion on the groundwater elevation or the type of soils. We had the board of health agent there, you know, we do the logs together. We kind of agree on what it is and move forward. So, um, it's not meant to be a wet basin and, you know, we can put it's it's 21 in deep, so we certainly could put a fence around it if that's what the board tells us to do. I I don't think it's necessary on something that shallow. Um but again, if if that's what you want, not going to fall on our sword on that.

No, I'll circle back with the board if they they also feel that way. Just a residential area. That would be my concern. Other than that, thank you for your response and I have no further questions. Good. Thank you, Mark. Will questions?

Yeah. Um, thanks for working on the uh corridor to, you know, keep continuity between the two uh town parcels. Just looking at the trail on the map and it looks like it bends kind of west um once you get about halfway up the corridor, but I think that can be worked around. It looks like the elevation's pretty the same if you went straight up and then cut at like a 90° turn after the corridor um to get around the corner of the property line. I I meant to get out there and try to check it out, but we've obviously been a little buried. So, yeah, we were there in snowshoes. We did test.

Yeah, I don't have them. I thought about ordering them just to do it, but I didn't. So, yeah, that's that's all I got really. Um, I only had a couple quick ones. Um, the biggest the biggest one and and maybe you guys can work it out between Mike and Steve and Jack would be um how you going to cut and clear this place without flooding all the neighbors down below with this pretty substantial amount because it's going to be open for a good period of time.

Yeah. um you individually do the lot on the left, take it all out and then do the lot on the right. You know, just the sequencing of it because if you clear all that and prep it all and get a good range, um it's going to want to go. That's that's my my biggest concern with this one is the amount of cut uh blasting. Obviously, you'll have to go through fire department with that one, right? Um maybe

if you do happen to go back out there, if you think there's ledge at 5t, that's a pretty substantial cutout. So maybe adjust the lower the lot on the right concerns me the most just because everything's falling, you know, when you cut it and clear it. I probably say just um if you could when you sit down with Mike and Steve and work out some of the logistics maybe you know give us a potential phasing plan if you can think it through just so this thing's not vacant for any long period of time maybe do one piece then another piece if it's feasible um just based on the duration of time and when it when this may transpire too um we don't want sit idle for a solid year either,

right? You're just going to have problems down here. That's all. That's my me personally, that's my biggest fear is the amount of water. Um, that's pretty much all I had. I mean, I'm okay with it, you know. So, how about the um pump station? Like you you're working that out to the pump station. You're going to you're going to set some money aside to the offsite mitigation. That was something that was voted on through the council. So we'll hand out handle that as we go through the permitting process and pull permits for all that. So

and yes, thank you for connecting the property with the easement. I know Eric had comment on that. I just want to make sure we took care of that too. So thank you for that. Um so you guys get together think you can get together before the next meeting and clarify some of this stuff before the 23rd. I I would like to uh do that Mr. Chairman if you could and if we can go right to them guys too. It's okay if we can deal directly with them. We've done that in the past. Okay. Clean everything up and then get you back from the 230. Okay. And we're meeting with conservation. We've already met with them once. We're meeting with them on Thursday. I'm sure we're going to get more comments from them. So, yeah, because we're not going to release it as well. So, right.

But if you can clean everything up um and just wait on decision. Okay. Okay. So, uh, make a no one in the audience and I don't see anybody else. Okay. So, I'll make a motion to continue Symphony Drive, Tanglewood Estates 2 till March 23rd. Do I hear a second? Second. Roll call. Uh, roll call vote. Greg Rondo, yes. J Millow, yes. Mark Mutroni, yes. Chris Stickney, yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Have a good night. Last item of business. Uh this is part of general business discussion for future zoning amendments. Um, if I could go to Morina, our time planner, give the board an update on where we are on some of the changes, please.

Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh, members of the board, Moren Zlaya, planning director. Um, I just wanted to give you sort of a heads up. Um, you've had a couple of bylaw amendments that have been sort of pending since early January. Um the reason for those pending um not just because of the snowstorm and everything, but because um while we were submitting those, we actually discovered that there were some errors in the way that our um bylaws currently read. um with the transition period last year with the uh former director um leaving and then um the position being a little bit um it was vacant for about six months and um everything was a little bit uh hectic during that time. Um we we we discovered that there were some errors in um the crossing neighborhood amendments and um the residential commercial kitchen amendments which actually caused for some um uh of the zoning to sort of drop. So right now we've got um use tables that sort of just need to be um corrected and they affect the um MBTA communities districts. So everything sort of goes hand in hand. Um and um we've got to sort of take care of the cleanup before we can handle the MBTA community so that we can sort of get everything in place. Um so I presented uh very briefly to the council last week what these changes are going to be. The public hearing has been posted for the 23rd. Um the changes are limited to the use tables themselves. Not all of them, but um I think there's six of the use tables that are that are that need to be fixed. Um and I've got a a fairly lengthy memo sort of just explaining what happened um and how the changes what we're putting back or what I'm recommending to for there to be um for the zoning to be in the specific cells that we're talking about. So happy to answer any more questions if

anybody's about anything but if not you can um wait 23rd. Okay. Um will questions? No. We kind of went through this little I thought we were going to discuss the zoning changes regarding parking voting and all that I kind of came down the road, right? Yes. That's this was this was a month ago.

If I if I have two seconds, I would at least put this one out there because it will lead to another down the road. Sure. Um, I know that we were looking at removing minimum parking requirements for lots in G5, correct? As we also increase the byray usage to three families and it would effectively be four with an ADU. Um, even if we were to go and I'm going to use my neighborhood as example because I'm the definition of G5 and the home that might get turned into a So my home is 50 ft of frontage um and a 12T driveway with an opposing driveway say a 12t. So we were left with 25 ft of frontage which is one parking spot give not two it's you know more than one but it's one um and you can sneak maybe three cars if you get them real tight in the car and driveway. um again and that's by the way right up against the fence pre-existing we would never really allow that now. So I could just foresee that potentially creating issues um in so much as there's going to be a ton of parking on the street maybe potentially not enough to handle the street and then um and I'm in agreement with this for you know financial installment related purposes but it's going to create some potential friction with this. Um, my street's only about 24 ft wide after being reconstructed. The town has a bylaw which prohibits parking on a road if you don't leave a 20 foot lane. An 8ft car is an 8ft parking lane is going to leave 16 ft. So, you would not be able to park a car legally on North Park Street, which is in the middle of the residential zone that has been selected for this bylaw amendment. So I

So we need to So what I'm guess I'm saying is we need to it looks like we need to clean up the parking prohibitions,

right? and start looking around town and saying, "All right, well, if we're going to have, and this is all part of this to to roll out, if we're going to have no parking loading requirements in G5, we're going to have to start figuring out where people can park on the street and change the parking amendment and the no and the parking zone map and all the rest of this stuff because it's there's going to be a pretty hard cascading effect because there's zero chance that within 10 years my home isn't a three family um and probably all the rest of them around it. So, especially with this, people would be crazy. They're just you're just sitting on a whole der of potential, you know, worse triple decks. So, I think that's what's coming. And I don't think there's uh the party's been addressed. So, that's a I just wanted to put that all out there because I'm like there's some rubs here that aren't going to work.

Yeah. Um so, I'm happy to look into that. This is separate from what I'll be presenting on the 23rd and from what was presented back in January or what was um referred over uh back in January, but I'm happy to look into it because I will admit that I am not aware of these bylaw amendments. So um something that I'll look into, especially since um while I don't think that this would affect our submission for MBTA communities um because GR5 is and you are talking about GR5, correct? Correct.

Yeah. So GR5 is um one of our uh districts that we've submitted. So essentially any time that we make changes in the zoning for the districts that are submitted, we have to then reapply to the uh executive office office of housing livable communities and they have to sort of sign off on any sort of amendments. So I'm going to um look into that tomorrow morning. Yeah. And so it it shouldn't affect the actual zoning code and it really should just be the the parking code like hey we've got to change our no parking map and our our list of streets you park on and where there's one-sided parking. And it seems to be more of that exercise for Yeah, we we did bring that up quite a bit. We knew that was

for the next phase. Yeah. And then you're like talking about like winter parking bands and like well how we're going to accommodate those. We have we have a parking garage in the city and uh you can tell my neighbors all you want but yeah but we already had discussed parking is quite an issue. You're always hunting for votes. Yeah. I don't think I'm doing this again. I don't understand. How about Mark? Mark, any comments or questions?

Um uh thanks, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I have these are these are not recommendations. These are actually uh we need to do these to comply with the MBT communities. That's correct. Uh yes, we do. Not I mean not all of them because not all of them relate to housing but um yes the the ones regarding setbacks um regarding the lot with um those ones it's just that um they affect the districts that are part of the MBT community. So yes they do need to be done. Okay. So all right that answers my question. Thank you very much.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh Miranda you mentioned that the uh it's limited to the use tables only. Does that mean that the use tables are going to be brought in line with the narrative of the bylaw? So, what we discussed in regards to frontage and commercial space, that's all going to get finalized.

Yes. So, um, right now a lot of what's happening is that, um, when the, uh, crossing neighborhood district was created and when residential commercial, uh, kitchens was added, um, and those used tables were changed, um, it was a combination of maybe draft amendments were included when they shouldn't have been, so things were, um, struck from the news table. So, a lot of what um, is being submitted is just putting back into what was already there, what is meant to be there. Um, I think there's maybe two changes where I'm um where DBCD is recommending a change maybe to bring it more in line with commercial one. Um, but essentially that's exactly what will happen. So, it will fit what the bylaws actually say. But if you're just looking at the news tables right now, there's a lot of blank cells going on um or things that sort of contradict what's actually in the bylaws.

So, if I'm a resident today, what should I be looking at? um wanted to do something in those districts.

Um so because the bylaws themselves don't always explicitly say what's in the use table, they may just refer to it. If you've got questions on the use table, your best bet is to just contact um planning and we can sort of talk to you um because we know sort of what should be there. Um and it's not a matter of um the zoning doesn't exist or it was um struck. It's more of administrative because the planning board, the council never voted to actually remove the zoning. It was more just like an error, scrier's error that actually has sort of an impact on what on what we present to the public. So, fastback, contact our office and we can sort of walk you through.

Thank you. Um I'm okay with the changes I was watching just for everybody as saying this is just to update uh what the MBTA is looking for the town to to to meet and and meet their guidelines. So, it's something we're not changing. It's being demanded from the state level. Um and we had to tweak some of the charts just just to make sure we could

So, Mr. Chair, I just want to um because it is a little bit even though they all sort of intertwine, it is a little bit of two separate issues. Um we are we have cleanup changes um which are primarily the ones that were just presented last week. Um there is one MBTA community related um new change sort of but for the most part everything else is is sort of clean up um from things that just sort of got lost in the shuffle of the transition last year. And then the amendments that were submitted back in January, those are the ones that are solely to do with communities. So to they go together because they're they uh affect the same districts, but they're not all MBT communities. But anything that's not MBT communities is essentially um putting in place what was already there.

We're going to bring this back up. Yep. Obviously just discussion. So if you guys need to bring up because then at that point there so we'll still have one more shot at it at our next meeting. questions. I think the comments questions Mark, you all set? Yes, sir. Thank you.

Motion to adjurnn. Second. Roll call. Greg Rhonda, yes. Jay Mela, yes. Mark Mutroni, yes. Chris Sticky, yes. Okay, thank you everyone.