Planning Board - Regular Meeting

one's where approximately 6:30 p.m. the scheduled meeting of the Franklin Zoning Board of Appeals will come to order. Note to the residents, all residents are welcome to attend public meeting in person. To view the live meeting remotely, citizens are encouraged to watch the live stream on Franklin Town Hall TV YouTube channel or the live broadcast on Comcast [snorts] channel 9 of Verizon 29. To listen to the meeting remotely, citizens may [snorts] call in using the number 1- 1929-20546099. To participate in the meeting remotely, citizens may join the Zoom meeting or the Zoom using the information provided below. meetings are recorded and archived by Franklin TV on the Franklin Town Hall TV YouTube channel and shown on repeat on channel on Comcast channel 9 and channel Verizon channel 2029. Uh the Zoom ID number is 939 58121077 and the link is zoom us/ I don't know if that's an I or a J, but 9 3958121077. All participants will be automatically muted upon entering the meeting. To in order to speak, participants will need to select the raise hand function to request to be unmuted. All speakers will be required to state their full name and street address before commenting.

Uh announcements from the chair. Uh there isn't any real announcements. Not even sure when the next meeting is going to be. Uh citizens comment. Citizens are welcome to express views for up to three minutes on a matter that is not on the agenda in compliance with uh Mass General law chapter 38 section 20. the open meeting law, the zoning board cannot engage, according to the open meeting law, the the zoning board cannot engage a dialogue or comment on any matter raised during the citizens comments. The zoning board and the department director or other to review the matter. Okay. Any citizens want to speak? Sure. Just identify yourself, please. Yes, Mark Mini Kelly, 31 Longfellow Drive to Chairman Hunter, to board members Acavdo Hallan Whitmore and Lang even though she's not here.

She's coming. I want to simply thank you all for your time, your energy, your expertise, and your stress dealing with some very tough issues this year. I hope the residents of Franklin realize how difficult your roles really are and appreciate the complexity involved in your decisions. And I implore the residents of the town of Franklin to treat you all with respect and civility, especially during this holiday season, regardless of what decisions you make. My sincere thanks to you all and happy holidays.

Thank you. Thank you. Hi, real quick. Uh, Steve Mallaloy, 19 Roset Hill Road. Just want to confirm that everybody on Zoom is actually in the meeting. I don't know. Does anybody know? In case you know, anybody who's in the waiting room for this meeting, citizens, everybody that was in the waiting room is the meeting and anybody else who joins will be let in. Yes. Thank you. Thanks. [snorts] Okay, I'll entertain a fivem minute recess because we're waiting for Janelle Lang to show up. You want to take citizens comments on Zoom? Is there any? No, I don't. We got anybody with their hands up? I don't see anyone with their hands. Okay.

Any minutes? We don't. No, we don't have any. They were only last week. They didn't get a chance to get done yet. Slacking. Yes. Slacker. All right. I'll entertain a five uh recess for five minutes. So move. Second. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed none.

Uh, the meeting will resume. John, you got your minutes to the chair. I'll be recusing myself. Yeah. Thanks, John. Take care, John. Enjoy Christmas. Yeah. Time being approximately 6:30 p.m. 4:44 East Central Street. We had a 5 minute recess. Just say 6:45. 6:45. Reopen the hearing.

We are reopening opening our discussion, 444 East Central Street, TAG Central LLC. Applicant is seeking a building permit to construct a 264 unit multif family development. Building permit is denied without a comprehensive permit from the ZA. That's it. Okay. Most, can you hear me now?

Is he on TV or is he on? He is. Can you see him? Yes. And he is on. You just can't hear him.

Chris, let me see. Um, I can ask Joe to try to speak to his work. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you, Joe. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Joe.

So, must be something with marks. Yeah. have a problem.

I don't know. I just told him talk to us. I just text him. Huh? Just texted Mark. I just did. I said talk to us. [cough] So they know he's there. He's on. His microphone is just not working.

Okay. Oh, he's going to sign out and come back. Okay.

Got to get the volume up on his microphone. Microphone. Just so everybody in the audience knows, we're having a little problem getting our uh consulting attorney hooked up to the meeting with his microphone. All right. You know what? We can start reading some of these waiverss. Joe's on the line. If we have any questions about them, Joe can handle those and most of the first ones. Now, Mark suggested that we handle these like a whole town meeting. Read them off. If nobody says hold, we just let it go, then it's going to be approved. Fair enough. [clears throat]

Do they need to be um are they unanimous like our other waiverss or are they just majority? Just a majority. I mean, we're going to board one at the end. So, you know, if you got a problem, hold it and we'll come back to it. If you don't have any problem, we'll clear a lot of the way. Okay. All right. So, for the ones up for discussion, get Yeah. [clears throat] You want to hold them, we just you just say hold, then we'll go back to just um and I guess we're going from the the waiver list of October 25th or 29th, 2025. Got that?

I have that one. And then I had um two other just notes um and questions so you can I'm curious when we when you would want to talk about them. Um let's go through these first until Matt gets on the line and then we'll see what happens from see how many of these we could get wiped out. Okay.

Just read the if you can just read the the local regulation, the requirement, the proposed and then the explanation. That's why that's why I waited for waiver 1A section 1857 attachment 7 use regulation schedule. The requirement is multif family use is not allowed in the commercial two zoning district. Uh proposed waiver granted to allow multif family use in the commercial two zoning district. You want the full explanation also? This is a customary waiver request for a 40B proceeding. As the regulations mandate, the zoning board is required to act in place of all local permit granting authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit.

Anybody have a problem with that? Not hearing one. I'll put a check next to that one. Okay. 2A 185-11. Number of buildings on a lot. Not more than one single family or two family dwelling shall be erected on a lot. More than one principal building other than a single family or two family dwelling may be erected on a lot provided that access, drainage, and utilities serving each structure are functionally equivalent to that required for separate lots by the planning board rules and regulations. A certification to the commissioner of buildings from the department of public works, water department, fire department shall be required. proposed is a waiver granted to allow more than one principal building regardless of if the lot area requirements and use are met for each building without counting any lot area twice. A certification to the commissioner buildings from the department of public works, water department and fire department shall not be required. The explanation is that a waiver granted to allow more than one principal building without necessarily meeting planning board rules and regulations required for separate lots lot area requirements for use for or use for each building. Proposed buildings include four multif family buildings, a clubhouse, six garages, and a pergola.

Anybody okay with that one?

Check it. 3A section 185-13 attachment 9 schedule of lot area frontage yard and height requirements maximum height of building shall be three stories and or 40 ft waiver granted to allow height of building to be four stories and 50 feet max based on average grade to top of roof for each respective building assumes non-livable exclusions listed in 185-13 may be above said height as zoning allows. explanation. Based on flat roofs as proposed, three and fourtory buildings proposed would require the waiver.

I'm done with that one. Okay.

4 A section 185-13 attachment 9 schedule of lot area frontage yard and height requirements minimum sideyard setback of 30 ft. waiver [clears throat] granted to allow a minimum sideyard setback of less than 30 feet. A waiver is granted to allow building number one to be constructed with a setback of 20 plus or minus feet. And then there is a zoning table that shows um all the dimensional requirements, the proposed dimensions and uh which sections comply or need a waiver. This sideyard setback is the waiver requested from 30 to 20 ft.

It's only the one side. Correct. Just that one building they said. Okay. And then there's another one handed down 5A height stories. We we already talked about the height and the stories. Okay. 5A. Go ahead.

Set back from streams and ponds. No building parking area or leeching field shall be located within 35 horizontal feet of the normal bank of any stream or pond. Waiver granted to allow buildings and parking lots within 35 horizontal feet of a stream. A waiver is granted to allow buildings and parking areas within 35 hor horizontal feet of a stream. Closest building is 18 ft plus or minus from a stream. And closest parking area is 40 ft plus or minus from a stream. Anybody have a problem with that one? I guess I have a question on that one. Go ahead.

So these waiverss were brought up through the conservation commission. Well, evidently that one doesn't come under the concept. They got a whole list when we get down a little bit more. We'll go to uh waste storm water and wastewater and stuff that the concom handled that I guess they're waiting on for us to do something because evidently at the last meeting, correct me if I'm wrong, they did not approve your plan yet. They're wait they're holding off until July, January sometime. Correct. They did not approve our

Well, I don't know how they can approve it if we don't give you the waiverss. So, maybe that's their problem. I mean, it sounds to me like they were ready to approve it, but I think they figured it out that because usually, you know, we're doing it halfass backwards here. You know, we're doing you went to them, you went to both of us at the same time. So, the Kroncom's expected to give you some relief, but they can't grant you the relief. The relief is up to us. So, for them to approve your plan the way it shows, I don't think that they can really do that because they can't grant you or they not willing to grant you the relief. So maybe that's why they didn't that's why they didn't approve. Mr. Chairman, go ahead, Joe. Just a Yeah, just a point of clarification. [clears throat]

Um the conservation commission is totally within their bounds to act under the state wetlands protection act, which is what they've been requested to do. Um that has no your your decision has no bearing on theirs. um you're the determining you're the approving authority under the local wetland bylaw. So you're you're being asked to grant um waiverss as outlined and you're being you're being asked to approve the project under the wetlands protection under the local wetlands bylaw through the issuance of the comprehensive permit.

Okay. when we get to this. C certainly certainly they they can the conservation commission can do whatever they they want to do and and I guess they're just waiting to see if you grant these waivers because I think if you don't then the project fundamentally changes um and they would have to redesign and that would affect the application before the conservation commission under the State Wetlands Act. Okay. Where are we going next? Yeah.

On on 5A, does the conservation commission ever get involved with reviewing bylaw 18516, which is a setback from streams and ponds? I don't think that comes under them. I think that comes under the zoning bylaw. It's a zoning the zoning bylaw requirement and they're just um it's it's redundant to their local bylaws.

Um so it's they're they're always talking about the proximity of proposed buildings and structures proximate to their wetlands under their under their local bylaw. So I guess it's in a manner, yes, but not specifically with regards to they don't have any power to grant zoning relief. Um, so it'd be interesting. I don't has the ZBA ever been had an application for for a variance of this item. Not that I recall on other 40bs. Yeah. This close.

I don't know. It's we're only talking because of the way it's only the building, not the parking. Once the building's in landscape, I'm sure that the the project will move forward. But he can't he can't unmute. He says he can't unmute. They going to allow him in to unmute or each time he speak, can you hear us now and speak? I think I guess it's his laptop. Yeah, you can unmute Peter.

Yeah, you can't get it [clears throat] to work on the laptop. You can call in on the phone. Unmute your phone.

Excuse us everyone. He just says, "I'll call your cell phone." I'll call my cell phone. Call the zoom number zoom number. Call somebody read that number. Tell Peter,

Mark, I'm I'm going to send you the link. You can get on you can call on your phone and get on the Zoom call. Okay, I'm just typing it in there. I'll text it to you.

[clears throat]

It says the unmute function's not coming back on his screen. You're going to have to let who? If he call I don't know if he calls in. You got to let him in too, don't you?

[clears throat and cough]

Why don't we keep moving on? We get past five. Okay. 5A. I'll just put like a question mark. Yeah. If we go back to that one comfortable

uh 6A, 7A and 8A are all related to accessory buildings and structures. I had questions about these. You want me to read them off now or we just come back to them? You want to hold them? Yep. Which ones? 6A7. They all talk about accessory structures which is not sure what the problem is. What what do you what do you need an explanation that they're proposing only an 8ft setback? Okay. And the minimum is 10. Okay. Eight backs 8 foot setback from another building. Maybe from another building or the lot line.

Yeah. I don't think they're within the lot line. They might be within the lot line. He's got a section of garage is Palton, you know. Go ahead. It is. That's why they want the waiver 10 ft between buildings. It's um for clarification, the the the the one area we're looking for the setback on is where the two garages are but the seller's property, right? That just for screening. That's what I thought. Yeah. Nowhere else is it closer than that. They're going to abut the guy that's already there that owns the property. Okay. And he don't have a problem. Alton, can you Yep. Peter, we can hear you now. [cough]

When you go back to 4A through the chair and I apologize because we had discussed last time because of the addition of the bus shelter to be cautious. It looks like it would require some dimensional waiverss. Carla Peter 4a wasn't a question. We didn't we didn't hold them. We're holding we're doing it like an old town meeting. We're holding the ones. No, no, I know. We were muted and unable to talk and we had mentioned the bus shelter and that actually would require a very slight change to 4A and I think uh the dimensional table. So Carlton, you can explain it.

But Peter, I thought we had I thought you had spoken to attorney Babrowski about that and it was going to be handled in the condition itself and there was going to be language which said all any and all necessary waiverss shall be granted um in the condition itself. So we didn't have to revise the waiver table. That's what we discussed, right? That's possible. There's been so much going on. I'm not sure I remember that. But if you're okay with that, then fine. Yeah. If attorney Babas can can confirm um if if he's not muted. Yeah, that's the difficulty. He's not able to speak apparently

right now. You didn't [clears throat] see him log on with his uh I just let somebody in with their telephone number and I'm requesting to un [clears throat] [clears throat] All right. So, where did we leave off? The accessory structures. Accessory structures. All three of those are just concerning those garages that are going to above the landowner's link.

Um, the first two ones are for the two garage to the sideline and the other one is to allow the structures to be within 10 ft of retaining walls, which is also a structure. That's not that's not issued to sidelines. It's structure to structure. Who's that now? So Mark has to mute his. Can you hear me now, Bruce? Yeah, I can hear you now, Mark. Thank you. Sorry, Mark. You just need to mute your computer. Sorry. We started down the list, the waiver list. Mark, we're on the third page [clears throat] under accessory structures. Ask him to mute.

He's got to mute his speakers on his computer. Mute his computer. Uh Mark, mute your computer or shut your voice or shut the sound off on the computer. Should be okay now. Okay, sounds better now already. Anyway, we're at the access accessory structure. I I've been I've been following that. What AJ said about the bus stop is exactly right. We talked this afternoon about any waiverss associated with the bus stop with the bus stop ought to be just uh uh considered grant and we didn't clarify what kind of bus stop that is g or a school.

It's a bus shelter for just a shelter. Okay. Okay. Uh 9A, right? Yes. So, we're we're holding on the accessories. We'll come back to those. Okay. I thought they just experimented, don't you? Also, no, I didn't ask my question. I just said I had a question. Should we come back to them? Well, we're here. Fair enough.

Okay. So, I um didn't know if the stockade fence was behind them and if there was a um a fire concern from the uh building commissioner. I know that the 10 feet is there for a reason. So, I just wanted to make sure that we're not putting uh structures dangerously close to each other. Gus talking about the west shelter. Mr. Chairman, he's talking about the garages and the 10-ft separation between the stockade fence if there's going over some emails that we just got. So, I apologize for that. Emails. Yes, Mr. Chairman. while the meeting's going on. I go on too. Okay.

A little late. Y um the setbacks as far as the accessory structures are concerned. Yeah. What's the question? Do you have any concerns about them being only 8 feet from the lot lines and 8 feet with um within other garages as opposed to 10? What's the height on it, AJ? What's the mean height on the garages? No, but they got to be 10 ft apart from any structures. That's what I don't think it's going to improve the height. It's one story garage bays like they have at uh station 117. I have no concern, Mr. Chairman.

You can make them use fireproofing, too. Can you? It's not necessary unless it's within 5t under the building code. Okay. Okay. That wipes them out. I wasn't trying to be difficult. Well, I just had a question. Okay. 9A. [clears throat]

All right. 9A. Uh section 185-20. C.4 C1 signs. Um properties within the IOPD and CBCD that are directly abudding or facing a residentially zoned district shall have all signs reduced in size by 50%. Waiver granted allowing the monument sign area to be up to 50 square feet. A waiver is granted to allow a full-size sign, although property abuts a residential zone district at the rear of the site. The sign will be in the front of the site as located on plans sheet C102B.

Colin, what's the distance between where the sign's going to be and the rear property line residential? It's hundreds of feet. I don't know off the top of my head. It might even be a thousand. probably a thousand roughly. There's just going to be the one sign at the road. Just one mon it's the monument sign is one monument sign at the street. There's other signs of course on the property, but we're referring to the monument sign specifically. It's about interior lit and light from the outside. Sorry. Is it lit interior lit or is it lit from the outside? You don't know. We We haven't fully We haven't designed the details of this vine yet. All set with that.

Yeah. 10A section 185-20.H signs. All signs within the commercial and business corridor sign district CBCD are required to obtain approval from the design review commission prior to the issuance of a signed permit from the building commissioner. Waiver granted allowing the ZBA to grant approval of monument sign as shown on plans prior to the issuance of a signed permit. No separate signage permit required. This is a customary waiver request for a 40B proceeding. As the regulations mandate, the zoning board of appeals is required to act in place of all local permit granting authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit.

I had a question about this one. Okay. Are we holding it or do you want to hear it now? No, we can hold it. I'll just mark it as Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I can just make a comment on that. Yeah. And we got a new signed bylaw since this was asked for. No, sir. Huh? No, sir. Okay. Go ahead. So, the the protocol has been and we just had a 40B that came into design review for a revision on their signs. I don't understand why this one is in place. It's not a It's not a special

unless unless the entire signed permit through ZBA is required to have a special permit, but I don't believe that's the case. I don't think this wave is required, but just throwing it out. Okay. Is that because of the new sign bylaw? No, it's because every sign goes through design review regardless. Yeah. if they're looking for a waiver for it, if the ZBA grants it now, in the future they would have to come back to the board if they change or the design view board if they change their signs. I just it's again, it's not something that unless they're over the size is going to get denied.

Let that one go. Um our our thought process there was simply just because this is a comprehensive permit. Um so the idea is all approvals are wrapped into this approval um other than wetlands. So we put that in here. Um there's multiple that are similar to that. Um well that's I mean everybody says you're asking for a lot of wavers but they're all similar in size and shape. you know, I mean, there's reasons why you're asking for them because they just go along with the comprehensive permit, right? I understand that, but I'm happy to obviously go to get a, you know, signage permit from from the building department. Um, if that's what Gus is asking,

they have to go to the design review committee because they're in charge of signs. I don't know that they are after since they did the new Now, the planning board's in charge of signs, aren't they? Didn't they just issue a special permit for the one down at Glen Farmer? That was because it was le LED. LED. Yeah. Okay. I don't see the nec necessary reason for this, but I'm not the applicant. I skip that one. Peter, anything to add there? No. Cus, the only question is is did you say it's a special permit provision? It is not. No, it's not. In my eyes, it is not.

Right. So, if it's not a special permit provision, then AJ is right. is just basically clarifying that the waiver is granted so that the applicant doesn't go to design review committee simply goes to the building commissioner to get a sign permit if that's what the board's I agree with that there you go get that and then so is the sign reviewed at all it's it's only reviewed by building commissioner yeah if the bylaw if the waiver request is to not go the desired viewer, then it would just come to me.

When they come in for the final uh plans and stuff, you going to have a sign ready for that to show us that we could give a stamp of approval to. I'm just trying to think of when that would occur based on the draft uh special permit um the draft comprehensive permit. I'm sorry. comprehensive permit. Yes.

If the sign is not shown on the current final set of plans, then they should come in with a sign sheet to add to the plans as an insubstantial change when they're ready. Okay. You all set with that, Peter? Yeah. I don't have a problem with that. Okay, there we go. Yes. Quickly move, right? So, that one's done. We won't do it. We'll just take it off. Just I'll put an X on cross. Get the 10 A. Yes. 10 A. Yep.

Cool. All right. 11A. Section 18521.B 3 AI. Parking schedule. Each dwelling unit, regardless of number of bedrooms, requires two parking stalls. waiver granted to provide less than two parking stalls per dwelling unit. Project proposes 1.52 parking stalls per unit. If we went to uh 1.65, how many parking spaces would that add?

We do this exercise before. I think we were at 1.65. We were we started but when they changed the design and then came back with the small building and everything they wanted to get to the three-story building so they they cut down the parking sizes a little bit 32 I'm looking to see if we can get back to 1.65 and I don't really care where we put them. Where could we put them? We have no place to put them place somewhere.

Got a big area. Don't you have some area down behind these buildings you got to replicate anyway or fix it? Clean it up. We have wetland replication area that we um are doing um and to the southeast corner um as a part of the with the conservation commission. Um [clears throat] and we have a ton of area that we preserved on the east side to save trees and buffer area at the benefit of the abutters. And how much of that would you have to take down to get to the one? Well, we're going to find out how 1.65 does how many you need for 1.65. Uh 32. 32. Can't find 32 spaces on. How many acres is it?

You put it on. Can you put on that piece that you want to donate to the town? Uh no. It's it's there's no possibility to do that based on the based on the topography and the um the the the circ Yeah. The situation of that land stuck in the mud all. Yeah. I in fact we we removed a row of parking stalls along the east side of the drive aisle in the last um revision in order to increase the buffer for the benefit of the abutters um by roughly a third I think is is what we were able to do with that revision. Um and we also

a third of what how many feet did you say? Uh I think it was 10 more feet at the time at the at the minimum but it goes up to what is this over it'sund and something right? Yeah it's over 70 ft at one point. Yeah I mean just a reminder the peer reviewers were satisfied with the 1.52. Those were lost at the benefit of the abutters getting about approximately a quarter of an acre of undisturbed vegetation that we had to keep. And we installed a retaining wall in order to make that work as well, which wouldn't have been required if we didn't hold on. We'll come back to it so we can move on. 12A

section 185-21C9 parking space dimensions and article 5 parking loading and driveway requirements. 185-21c9A states, "Parking spaces in a layout other than parallel shall not be less than 9 ft in width and 19 ft in length. Waiver granted to provide smaller parking spaces than zoning mandates. Refer to parking table on layout and materials plan sheet C102A in plan set entitled revised comprehensive permit plan stated 10925. Portion of parking spaces are less than eight feet and eight and a half feet wide. All standard parking stalls are 18 feet in length and compact stalls are 16 feet in length. So I noted this when we last met that there appears to be a typo because no parking spaces should be less than 8 ft in width.

That's correct. Uh less than should be deleted. Should be no less than. Yeah, it should be no less than eight feet and eight and a half feet, right? They're they're eight and eight and a half feet. Either way, the stalls are eight and they're eight and a half. Okay. There are some that are eight, correct? They're noted as compact.

And and we did this change in order to increase the amount of buffer that we preserving on the east side. It's only it only applies to uh the spaces on the east side of the property. Um, and that was done to preserve to maximize the amount of buffer we could we could preserve. [clears throat] Um, this one, how do we address the typo that's in there?

We'll just change it. And this is a document that's going to go with the permit. So Mark will just change it. And what do you want it to say? No less than eight and a eight and 8 and 1/2 ft. Can we quantify the number of parking spaces that are compact and what their dimensions are? I think they're shown on the plan. They were shown in the plans. That's that's why we we make reference to it in the first sentence. There's a parking table on C102A that spells out all the the number of stalls that are and what width they are. So then make a note of it. So we just need to change uh the wording that says R 8T and 8 and 1/2 ft or put in no less than eight.

Say that again. On 12A over on the right hand side, the furthest over to the right there about parking where it says less than eight and 8 and 1/2 ft. Should say no less than eight and a eight and 1/2 ft.

[clears throat] That work, Joe? Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Don't you have to correct the second column? Oh, no. That's No, that's just a quote. I get it. No problem. Okay. [snorts]

No. So, just put a no over there. Okay. 13A section 185-23. A2D Earth removal permit. Earth [clears throat] removal in excess of 1,000 cubic yards in any areas as noted in subsection A2, A1, 2, and three above shall require a special permit by the board of appeals. In addition, earth removal in excess of 10,000 cubic yards within the same industrial subdivision requiring hauling on public roads within the subdivision shall not require a special permit and shall be permitted subject to the applicant providing a performance guarantee satisfactory to and in an amount determined by the board of appeals. Any earth removal outside of the boundaries of the industrial subdivision shall require a special permit by the board of appeals. Waiver granted to allow earth removal in excess of 10,000 cubic yards be removed outside of the property incidental to the construction of the multifamily housing without a special permit from the board of appeals. The earth removal would be approved as part of the comprehensive permit.

Carlton, how much earth do you think you got to remove out of that site? I would say you got to bring in much more than you got to take out. It's a it's a fill site without a doubt. Significant fill the So, what are we talking about with this? Is this the area you got to dig out up front to replicate some wetlands areas? There would be spoils and there would be lom that you wouldn't be able to reuse on site that may be taken off site. Do we know how many thousands of yards that is? It would be figured out by the contractor. Um I don't have that number. Okay, Mr. Chair, Mr. term. Yeah,

there's a spe there's a specific condition that's proposed in in the U draft comprehensive permit that speaks to this requiring that prior to start of construction they provide um the quantities uh and also number of trucks, the proposed schedule, length of time and the trucking routes that they're going to take. Um so that has to be presented as a matter of information to allow the police department and whoever else cares um you know to understand the um understand that part of what is normally reviewed in uh earth removal permits

and that's special condition six. All right. So we already got that covered. If you're not going to quarrel with the overall design, I think this is a necessary waiver in order for them to go forward.

Yeah, but we don't have to give it until they come up with the number, right? Well, the condition says prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant will provide the ZBA with a estimated quantity of total artwork. Um, the requested information will be prepared and submitted by the GC in accordance with good practice. The applicant will provide this information to the building department, public works, and police department as part of the site work grading andor building permit application. So, you're going to get the final.

Okay. All right. I don't have a problem with that. 14A section 185-31 site plan review. No building permit shall be issued for and no person shall undertake any construction alteration or other improvements unless they have first obtained site plan review approval from the planning board. Waiver granted from site plan review by planning board. This is a customary waiver request for a 40B proceeding. As the regulations mandate, the zoning board of appeals is required to act in place of all local permit granting authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit. Everybody all set with that? 15A section 18540D1 L Impervious coverage rendering imperous coverage up to 80% of the upland area of a lot located within the water resource district is permitted only in non-residential zones provided an application for site plan approval has been provided. An applicant for site plan approval must provide artificial recharge that does not degrade groundwater quality. The proposed water recharge effort shall be permitted only upon the approval of a hy hydrogeeologist retained by the town of Franklin at the expense of the applicant under the provisions of mass general law C44 uh 53G. waiver granted to allow imperous coverage up to 80% of the upland area within the water resource district without an application for site plan approval being provided. This is a customary waiver request for a 40B proceeding as the regulations mandate that zoning board of appeals is required to act in place of all local permit

granting authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit. I have questions about this one and the next one which is also about drainage. Ask away. Okay. Um, this is uh part of mass general law or is it a local bylaw and can I would like to have the proposed recharge efforts reviewed by a hydro geologist

as part of the proceedings. So, is this the kind of thing that um if it's not going through the typical process and through the ZBA comprehensive permit that we at the appropriate time will review um a a plan that's been re approved by this hydrogeeologist. We could make it subject to a hydro hydrogeeologist uh review. No. No. Okay.

No. No. Carlton, correct me if I'm wrong, but we're asking for simply not having to go to uh the whichever board would normally uh go to. Um because it's a comprehensive permit. Uh if you could explain that and how the plan is or is not different because you still say in the middle column that the coverage is up to 80%. And yes, you know, we are asking that it not be sent to a hydro geologist. Um, if that was a concern, it could have been done in the many months of this hearing. Um, but we can't agree to a post uh permit condition. Um, that could kill the whole project. Although I think Carlton and probably Joe can tell you that that's quite unlikely.

You're not joking. Um we did provide um infiltration to meet requirements. Um we went above and beyond and we're actually reducing the amount of volume that's going offsite and recharging it into the ground. And I think the provisions noted here for master law that's just a you the applicant would have to pay for the peer review, not that the peer review is required per the law. Um, so, um, if this was an issue, it would have been Beta's purview to flag this as an issue during the peer review. Beta who was working for the conservation commission, not us. No, we got Joe.

M Mr. Chairman, I'll just give some some color to this. Um, anytime you have a water resource district, um, there's a state regulation 310 CMR9, which is the mass water drinking water regulations, which require a town to implement [clears throat] zoning bylaws that protect the, you know, the watershed areas that are approximate to the town wells. um within that it has prohibitions, but it also has um uses that would require a special permit. And the impervious cover comes from that section of the state regulations which just requires that there be a process, a local process that reviews the implementation of artificial recharge when impervious cover is um is created on a on a site. So under the normal processes for the um for the town to review a special permit under the watershed protection district those calculations would be provided reviewed and approved. the the kind of the nuance here is the requirement that is only part of the local requirement for the retention of a hydrogeeologist um to review that artificial recharge. Um and and what would a hydro hydrogeeologist bring to the table that myself did not that um that Mr. Quinn did not that the engineers at Beta did not. Um just a kind of a a better higher level

understanding of groundwater movement. Um but at the at the end of the day how these artificial recharge systems are designed are uh mandated by the mass D storm water regulations. Um and and that's what was used for myself to review the drainage calculations and beta to review the drainage calculations and and come to the conclusion that those systems were designed in accordance with those uh those requirements and those requirements have components of them with uh that that include offset to groundwater, the um permeability of the underlying soils and the adequacy of of those and the sizing of the system to meet um a minimum recharge volume that attempts to mimic what happens today. Uh additionally, there's requirements for water quality. So having to treat the water before it's put back into the ground which meets the um the standard under this that uh that the recharge that does not degrade the groundwater quality. So I think due diligence has been made uh in this in this u area uh and that sufficient review has occurred uh and that the spirit and intent of this u normal special permit process has been has been done which would then allow the board to to grant this process waiver and grant the comprehensive permit which would include clude um the approval of that that otherwise special permit.

Can I ask about question? So you're saying that due diligence has been made even though the the design may change and be refined um [snorts] given proximity to the well. I mean I guess that's the concern on the site. There's a lot of groundwater movement across this site and it is close to one of the town wells.

Yes. I mean that there that's why there are um standards that need to be met for water for water quality for treatment of storm water for uh attenuation of storm water and for the recharge of of storm water. So you're you're what you're trying to do is is just mimic what happens today. It rains on the ground. The ground uh soaks in some of the rain and uh some of the rain is uh runs off to the to the wetlands and to the to to the well area. Um introduction of the imperous areas does two things. it. It can change the um the quality of that water and that's why it needs to be treated before it's put put into the ground and it can change the quantity of that water and that's why there are these prescribed amounts of of of recharge volume that has to be put has to be included in the system designs uh to to meet that. So customarily it's not that the the board would not grant a special permit for imperous cover in the water resource district. The the process is to make sure that those standards are met and if those standards are met then it's presumed that the well is is protected. There are later waiverss related to the storm water. This is about like the recharge check by a hydrogeeologist, right?

Correct. Okay. How much in the area you covering? 80%. Um 53% but that also includes the impervious areas for the wetland and the stream that are wet most of the year. Okay. So, what does that bring it up to 80? You're at 53%. That's including the weapons, right? They let you go up to 80%. We're only You're only going to be at 53, correct? Um, correct.

Yeah. And I think this is something that they recently changed anyway. It used to be lower than 50% I think at one time in the commercial two zone that they changed. It's too bad Joe couldn't be here because he knows more about it than I do, but I think they changed that to 80%. [clears throat] And and just one other point of clarification as with the hydro geologist, this site is downstream of the well. So the groundwater is moving away away from the well from the site [snorts] and that's in the existing condition and in the proposed condition.

Correct. Yep. But the stream is all flowing away from the site and that's what the same movement of the groundwater would do. Okay, we'll do the next one. 16A section 18540E4 drainage provision shall be made for on-site recharge of all storm water runoff from imperous surfaces unless following consultation with and written approval from the conservation commission the building inspector determines that either recharge is infeasible because of site conditions or is undesirable because of uncontrollable risk to water quality from such recharge recharge shall be by surface infiltration through vegetative surfaces unless otherwise approved by the building inspector following consultation with the conservation commission. Dry wells shall be used only where other methods are infeasible and shall employ oil, grease, and sediment traps. Drainage from loading areas for hazardous material shall be separately collected for safe disposal. Floor drainage systems and commercial industrial process areas which discharge to the ground without a department of environmental protection permit are specially prohibited. Waiver granted to allow subsurface infiltration without the approval of the building inspector. This is a customary waiver request for a 40B proceeding. As the regulations mandate, the zoning board of appeals is required to act in place of all local permit granting authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit.

Joel, this falls under basically the same thing we all said with this one too, or is there some questions?

Yeah, I think I think this one is just has no correlation to the to the requirements under the state regulations. So, this is something that's that's unique to Franklin. And they're just basically saying we would rather you have um surface infiltration than underground infiltration. And I'd summize the the motivation there is just kind of out of sight, out of mind. Um if you can't see what's happening underground, then you don't know what's happening underground. Um I I think this is more the safeguards as as the latter section um speaks to with regards to loading docks and industrial sites and um areas that that might have hazardous chemicals. This is a residential multif family residential site. Um it will have a comprehensive or it has a comprehensive storm water operation and maintenance plan. um there are conditions that they continue to follow those those those conditions to implement the on andm are survive after occupancy permits and they're um required to submit reports on an annual basis that they're maintaining the system. Um, so I I think um in in this instance, in in a normal 4DA instance, if somebody wanted to do underground infiltration, they'd go to the building inspector. The building inspector would consult with the conservation commission and they'd determine that, okay, the risks are low. We'll let them do underground infiltration. So, you're being asked to stand in those shoes of the building inspector and the and the conservation commission. And for the same reasons I discussed before with

the due diligence, um I'm comfortable saying that with the design as as presented with the with the components that will treat the the storm water before the infiltration and with the ongoing operation and maintenance. Uh the risk is low.

Okay. You have questions or just comments for yourself? Just comments for myself. Okay. Okay. Now we get into the storm water.

All right. Waivers from the town of Franklin storm water management bylaw chapter 153 1B section 15310 shy posting a shy at the discretion of the director of Franklin department of public works waiver requested not to require shy. This is a customary waiver request for 40B proceeding. As the regulations mandate, the zoning board of appeals is required to act in place of all local permits granted by authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit. Any questions on that one?

No. Okay, moving right along.

2B section 15315A9. Groundwater groundwater levels measured November to April in areas to be used for storm water retention, detention or infiltration waiver granted to provide groundwater elevations agreeable to the third party stormwater peerreview engineer. This is a customary waiver request for 40B proceeding. As the regulations mandate, the zoning board of appeals is required to act in place of all local permits granted by authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit. The project will be permitted under the mass to EP storm water guidelines. Joe, you want to comment on this one, too?

Yeah, essentially, Mr. chairman. I don't um the um long time ago when we did soil testing, we had to do soil testing in the spring so we could see seasonal high ground water, the ground the groundwater actually being there and being high. Um, so as certified soil evaluators, we can now go out and look at the evidence in the soil that the water leaves when it does come up high. And um that allows us to um determine the seasonal height of groundwater at any time of the year. So that was done here. It it there was a third party review of that. Um,

yeah. So, it's I I think it's I think it's fine. If I remember correctly, Joe, wasn't the Wasn't it measured in May and it was deemed like that was unusually wet or something? So, it was sufficient.

That could be the case, too. That that that uh that happens. But for back [clears throat] in I think it was 94 1994 um D revised title five for septic systems and that's when there was the implementation of the certified soil evaluators and for us to be able to for us certified soil evaluators to be able to do this we need to take a class and take a test and do continuing education. Um and the whole idea of that was we are trained to be able to see this evidence and not have to wait for um spring high water. So even in times of drought, it might be May, but it's a drought, we could still call where the seasonal high groundwater is. So I I think it's just it's it's just changed. This is a um I'm not sure when the genesis of this requirement was. Um, I'm going to guess because it's a storm bylaw, it's fairly recent, but it's it's just kind of a belt to suspenders. You know, if if we just say you can't test in the summer, then you take that um that risk out that the certified soil guide might not might not see that evidence. Um but here uh I think with again the the third party review um diligence was made to make sure that these systems are um designed to be above the seasonal high groundwater which is the the whole intent

and the intent of the waiver is that the groundwater levels were already measured and if we grant this waiver they don't have to go back and measure them again in this November to April window. Correct. Okay. Any other set with that one? Yep. Okay.

3B section 15316A. Control of storm water shall meet the town of Franklin subdivision of land storm water regulations. waiver granted to allow the control of storm water not meet the town of Franklin's subdivision of land storm water regulations. This is a customary waiver request for 40B proceeding as the regulations mandate. The zoning board of appeals is required to act in place of all local permits granted by authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit. The project will be permitted under the mass EP stormwater guidelines. Maybe I should go backwards this time instead of asking Joe to talk when he don't have to. You have any questions on this one? No. Okay. Moving right along. Now we're into conservation commission and wetlands related waivers. Waivers from the town of Franklin wetlands protection bylaw chapter 181. 1 C Franklin wetlands protection bylaw chapter 181-1 additional functions uh oh purpose additional functions characteristics standards and procedures under the bylaw waiver granted from application of additional standards and procedures listed in local bylaw proposed work to comply with requirements of mass wetlands protection act basically the next three waiverss all have the same waiver request, similar waiver request and uh explanation.

Any questions on those three or four? What are we down to four? [clears throat] Right. Uh these the comments we got from the conservation commission chair basically said in their capacity they couldn't recommend we grant all these waiverss because it is per their bylaw. That's my understanding of that letter. I didn't see

it was addressed to you. I know, but I I don't remember. I got it right here.

Did Mr. Chairman for you? I I don't think the B I think in fact that letter was specific about certain bylaws which we do need to discuss for waiverss. I [snorts] don't I'm not sure. you could pull it out, but I don't think it addressed chapter 181, which is more procedural and logistical in terms of having to go to the conservation commission to then have them basically deal with it and enforce or wave uh the next set of waiverss that we've requested for which is the Franklin wetland protection um regulations themselves. So for example 2C it's jurisdictional 1 C is purpose um and you know the the business about the 200 foot river is really covered more specifically not just by the state act which we know we have to comply with the state wetlands protection act but you know addressed in the substantive provisions below. So, uh, I see these as necessary to make clear, as is everything else with the town local regulations, that we simply go to the zoning board of appeals.

You still got to meet the mass wetlands. Yes. And that that's what's stated in the third third column. Yep.

While we're reviewing these, shall we pull up the Concom letter? I think so.

What paragraph? I can't find it in the files, but I mean they're they're referenced specifically The letter is dated October 30th.

Yeah, we got it here. Okay. We're not talking about one one through 4C. Are we down to 5C now? Are we still talking about We are down to 5C. is the the from 4 C through 7C.

Concom says applicant is requesting a waiver. Um, the commission does not recommend waving bylaws uh and is willing to work with the applicant to find successful ways to potentially implement the project while protecting the interests of the town on the following regulations. So the next chunk that are mentioned is bylaws uh section 2, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Where are we on another page with that?

No, it's this. It's 4 C, 5 C, 6 C, and 7 C. Okay. And this is where I think I wasn't clear in terms of are they recommending we not grant these waiverss um knowing that they're going to be reviewing as part of the wetlands protection act review. Anyway, Quinton, where were you with the conservation commission? I know that they held they held out their vote, but I mean, you've already gone over all this, haven't you? Yes.

You showed them plans that you were going to be within closer than 25 ft. Yes. Closer than 50 ft. Yes. Closer than 100 ft. All meet Mass D regulations. Correct. Yes, sir. So, these are just the local regulations. They're suggesting that we don't wait. Yes, sir. That's why they're here. They're the only town commission that's commented. So that's why I want to be respectful to their comments.

Now, just to just so we get a clear view of this, you guys that the last meeting had when we just left it and they said they're going to vote on it in January. They don't want any more, right? They want they don't want you to change anything else. They they um the la the last meeting uh we were kind of expecting actually to get a vote from them um last month one meeting when they said they were going to do it in November sometime.

Yes, we we were expecting it to happen last month. It's very common for um conservation commissions to issue uh order of conditions prior to uh a zoning board issuing a comprehensive permit. I have been involved in multiple projects that have done that. For whatever reason, Franklin commission preferred to go this route. So, uh, January 15th, we have our next hearing with them. Everything has been fully peer-reviewed. We have a signoff letter from Beta indicating no further comments. Um, that meeting we are planning to go through special conditions and then I don't know if the vote's going to occur on January 15th or two weeks from then, which would be the end of January. I'm not sure where Conservation Commission stands on that, but that's where we're at in that process from my opinion. So, right now, if you went to the January 15th meeting, you are expecting that they approve everything that you guys all talked about.

Um, I I haven't heard anything from the commission that would indicate that they have an issue with the proposed plans and application that has been fully reviewed by the commission and beta up to this. Clear letter from beta. Yes, sir. So, basically all settled up. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't see you. It's okay. No problem. Can you hear me? All right. Yeah, fine.

Perfect. Um, just a brief point of clarification. The commission hasn't even drafted conditions yet. In fact, um, some of commissioners were even discussing adding on potential conditions at the last meeting. Um, so I just want to make it known that there's no promise of an approval at the next meeting. Um, I would hate to step in front of what the other commissioners have discussed yet. Um, being respectful of their jurisdiction and powers here, authority, I guess is a better word. Um, if I may address Janelle real quickly, um, and the the question on if the commission approves and likes the plan, the commission has only um reviewed the current site plan under the Wetlands Protection Act. So they haven't been able and have not said anything about work within the 0 to 25 no touch buffer zone, you know, infrastructure being within the 25 to 50 foot buffer zone.

Okay. Noting that that would fall under ZA. So, while I think it's fair to say the commission has reviewed the site current site plan in its entirety under the Wellness Protection Act, um I don't think it's fair to say that the commission approves the plan and is funky Dorian okay with it forgoing local bylaw. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay, Grier. I guess the next question would be if we approved all these waiverss that are requested, what would the commission do? Approve it that way based upon the correct protection. Okay.

Yep. Then the site plan would not need revision. Therefore, there wouldn't need revisions on concomide or any future permit amendment. Okay. 18. Go ahead. I dropped the call, but that's conquered for you. I'm back. Okay. Thanks. I was getting worried. I thought you fell asleep. No, no, no. Conquer sucks. Are you all set? The weather's cloudy. We lose all reception. Okay. 8C.

Franklin 8C. Franklin wetlands protection bylaw regulations. Five, procedure for requesting variance from bylaw regulations. Waiver granted for variance request requirement. Erical bylaw provisions and regulations there under expected to be waved. Therefore, rendering this section unnecessary.

Yeah. 9 C instructions for filing an NOI in Franklin 7.4. 4.4 local filing fee waiver requested for local filing fee waiver granted for local NOI filing fee waiver from local conservation commission regulations project will comply with mass wetlands protection act

I had a question about this one if com if concom is reviewing um for compliance with um mass wetlands protection act Is there already a filing fee an NOI in place? Brier, I guess you can answer that. Somebody else's hand up there. That's Bri. Okay, thanks. Um, yes. So, they did file concurrently with a notice of intent. I think the question was on fees. Is that right? Filing fees. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. Um, so they have not paid local filing fee. Um, their filing fee, I believe, only totals about $1600. Um, so the commission has asked that that not be waved. Um, however, they if ZBA were to wave that, then they just proceed as normal, I guess. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Can we come back to that one? Yeah. I was just going to say no. Yeah. Make them make them pay the 1,600 bucks. I'm sure they'll pay. All right.

Brio, I are you sure that that filing fee 1,600? Is that what you said? Uh, that's correct. Yep. It's a base fee. Um I'm sorry that it would be less than um a gram. It's a base fee of $600 and then it's like a $100 per unit. That's what we discussed at our meetings prior, AJ. So, it's I mean to be fair, if I may be so broad, it's pennies. You said $100 per unit. You'd have to look at our filing fee, but that's correct. So, it's $25,000. It's more than 2500.

Yeah. So, no 25,000. And we did not file a local application. We only filed under the wetland protection per unit. You have a two Oh, I see. Yep. You're right. Your math is right. Regardless, we would ask that you know the applicant pay the filing fee. That's a different 1,600 bucks. I'm sure they would have paid. Okay, that's a question mark for when we get through. Okay. 10 C

Franklin Wetland's protection bylaw regulations 711 and 7112 not to follow certain instructions which are specific to local regulations relating to the submittal of a mitigation plan and are not applicable required in mass WPA in 7-Eleven narrative to describe the application of avoid minimize and mitigate calculus and In 7112, a separate narrative required that may include items from the Franklin best development practices guide book. Waiver granted to not follow certain local instructions related to the submitt of a mitigation plan for wetlands buffer zone impacts. Mitigation plan required for compliance with mass WPA has been provided.

Any questions on that one? So you Yeah, I do. I guess I'm wondering why they they they're not going to submit it and maybe this last sentence says that wetlands protection act has been provided. Yeah, because they're going by the state wetlands protection. They basically meant what that says, I guess. Right, Quinton? Yes. You meant the regulations, the state regulations, correct? Yeah. Move that back. Oh, I'm sorry. Hey, you can be the letter checker. 11 C

11C Franklin wetlands protection bylaw regulations 713. Submittal of alternatives analysis. Waiver granted for alternatives analysis. Submittal for riverfront resource area alteration of riparian zone wetland filling up to 5,000 square feet structures proposed within the 50 foot buffer zone resource area waiver from local regulation requirements for alternatives analysis. Alternative analysis for work in riverfront area has been included in notice of intent. You finally buckled under and did that, right? the analysis.

We we submitted an alternatives analysis under this under the state uh requirements. Yes. To the zoning board. But I believe this refers to a a local alternatives analysis which is more stringent. So

what does it actually mean? Um we so the bylaw um from my understanding has more triggers uh in the um instructions for alternatives analysis. Um so we submitted an alternatives analysis that meets the statement protection act. Um the local has a different different instructions and and different um requirements. So, we submitted our alternatives analysis under the state. I can't tell you further than that. Maybe um Joe can.

Yeah. Well, Joe, you uh mentioned this one time about the alternative analysis and evidently they put they did one. You I think you told us one time that they did one. So,

yes, Mr. Jim and they took the the one that they did for conservation under under the rivers protection section of the wetlands regulations that require an alternatives analysis be be made and they submitted that to the ZBA um whether or not that fully meets the requirements um and would um result in not needing this waiver. I I don't you know I I think it's a certainly not a big enough item to uh quibble over whether they need the waiver or they don't. they submitted something and um so it's not as if anyone's going to deem that to be insufficient at this point and um and do more or if you deny this waiver, how could they then submit more information? I think essentially any any exercise in an alternative analysis says um did you look at other alternatives that would lessen the impact on the resource areas? Um this being part of the local wetlands wetlands bylaw. Um I I I think they they have been working with the conservation commission [clears throat] under the state act which also serves to protect the wetlands at looking how they can mitigate um avoid pull back what what have you. So certainly if they just fully complied with the local setback local wetland setback requirements that would have pulled them back and that's not happening because they still need those waiverss. Um

but the hardest part about an alternatives analysis is always the goes to the the authority that has to review that in determining did they do enough? Did they explore all all alternatives? Um, and the question always comes up, why can't they just do less? Um, and in the context of a 40B, that's a very difficult question because we get into the whole um economic viability u question. and you know the board chose not to go there, not to um ask for additional information with regard to this alternatives analysis and the public hearing is now closed. So I think from the standpoint of whether you grant this waiver or not, I think it's it's kind of a foregone conclusion because you didn't ask for any any more information. Um and and denying this waiver would require more information. Um I I think it just need be granted.

Okay. What did BA say about? Uh I believe they were only reviewing it under the wetlands protection act and they have no further comments for us and we did provide an alternative analysis for the riverfront area disturbance which was required. Okay. Any questions? Next

12C Franklin wetlands protection bylaw regulations 714 replication ratio of 2:1 functions and values included in replication plan and protocol waiver granted for evaluation of functions and values of lost wetlands and inclusion of these functions and values in replication plan protocol and replication ation at 2:1 ratio. Replication provided at less than 2:1 waiver from local regulation requirements. Project will comply with Mass Wetlands Protection Act. So the project as proposed has a one replication ratio

slightly over one. Okay. How much? Um the square footage is 7,145 of the proposed. I don't have the existing square footage in front of me, but the the Well Protection Act requires zero. This yeah these are local uh locally regulated isolated vegetated wetlands only which aren't they don't have any jurisdiction in the state wetland protection act but we did our best to replicate as much area as we could fit on the site. So we tried to meet it to the best extent we could.

How about that acre you wanted to donate to the town? Can you do any replication over there? We we can't. It's not that easy. I I wish it was that easy. There there's a a whole bunch of requirements to be able to have an area for a replication. What about when you dig an old out front? You say you're digging everything from the sidewalk in make a retention a flood flood mitigation storage area. Yeah.

Yep. 13C pages 13C Franklin wetlands protection bylaw regulations 715 construction sequence and schedule waiver granted for submitt of construction sequence and schedule on plan set waiver from local regulation requirements. I have a question on this one. Okay.

So, I mean, similar to the 12C, I think that might be one of the only ones in here where you said, you know, it's it's not the state, but uh you're trying to meet at least partially the local bylaw. So, I assume there has to be a construction sequence and schedule about the work to the wetlands. Why can't that just be provided?

Um, I'm sure the order of conditions will feature a special condition that requires us to provide this information. I don't have the draft though. I've never I haven't seen any of the conditions. So, this is just simply the local instructions under the local act. Um, so you assume you're going to get something from the con? I I haven't received a draft yet. No, but you think you're going to get something. We're We're certainly hoping. Well, they might not just say anything about it. Then you wouldn't have to do it at all, right?

They don't say anything. If they tell him to do it, he's got to do it. probably something we don't have to give, but I don't see the problem doing if it's going to be in the conditions. I mean, I think it's you can ask Brier if she thinks it'll be in the conditions. This is kind of more belts and suspenders. I You can um It's okay. It can be removed, I think. Okay, great. Like I a project like this, I don't think there's anything wrong with belts and suspenders.

No, I didn't mean it like that. I I just meant that going through the bylaw, it's so long and there's so many intricacies. We of course figured we would have to submit a construction sequence and schedule to the conservation commission as part of our order of conditions. Um, but we didn't necessarily know it would meet Franklin's specific instructions. That's that's all. And also, I think we just want to note that this we wanted to provide this post post approval in a condition so that the contractor could sequence the construction how he wanted. Um, and this as it's written would have been required before the permit was issued. So, I think

it's a timing issue. It's kind of a timing thing. Okay. But I I can certainly tell you we will obviously have to comply with whatever uh the order of conditions says and um I know there's going to be many special conditions there that um that we'll uh comply with. Um happy to pop in here.

Go ahead. provide some historical context as well. Typically the commission will actually condition that it's um just provided as a preconstruction or prior to start. So happy to pick up the slack on that too. Okay. Thank you. 14 C. I mean I I heard that it could potentially be struck from the list of waiverss.

Well, that was that was before he mentioned that it was a potential timing issue. If it's a if it's going to be a condition in the order of conditions anyways, I would hope that it could be struck because if there's a timing problem and it says that I that per Franklin wetlands bylaw regulation 7.15, we had to provide it prior to order of conditions issuance, then I would be in violation. So I would prefer it stays and we will obviously do what the order of conditions requires. [snorts] Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Um Franklin wetlands protection bylaw regulation 71815 information to be shown unplanned waiver requirement that plans show existing vegetation i.e E lawn cultivated herbaceous and woody plant areas, uncultivated field scrub and woodland areas and woody plants larger than one inch in diameter proposed to be removed. Waiver from local regulation requirements. Your plan doesn't show all that stuff already.

We don't show every plant over one inch in diameter. That would be a massive undertaking on the site this vegetated in size. And where are these like in the places that got to be replicated and everything anyway? You're probably going to take them out to begin with. Um, we have a limit of work on there, but I mean within the wetlands, there's thousands, maybe tens of thousands of plants that we'd have to provide on the plan. So, the conservation commission recommends that we not grant this waiver. I guess maybe we can get some in information from Bre. Yes, Chair Hunter. [laughter] me and I will uh

it just seems repetitive and a big undertaking to do what the talk you know what that talks maybe. Yes, you're you're not wrong on that. Um the commission's currently actually going through their bylaws to get this revamped this this certain portion. Typically the commission asks for 3 in um or greater as a transex sampling. So you're not actually sampling every single tree. You're doing a transsect sampling and doing a line of best fit. So plants larger than 3 in. Correct. How many of How many of those you got for the thousands? Uh

yeah, just seems like redundancy. They're not going to touch them. Why? You got to identify. Yes, I I will note we did um locate all the trees on the eastern buffer over 10 in on the plan to make sure we try to keep as many as possible for the butter screening. There ain't much stuff on the other side of the river anyway. Is it going towards the dealership? Not not really. I think it's the other way down towards the stream on the southeastern. Yeah. Okay. Bruce, I have a question. Is this like the um diameter of like the trunk or like the the the leaf? It's the trunk. It's the trunk. Okay.

Don't forget it was a nursery at one time. There could be a lot of stuff that was planted as a nursery that never got picked. That's why it's there. Anyway, so how do you feel on that? So there there is a plan showing existing vegetation just not down to the one inch diameter. We we show on the existing conditions plans clouded areas where existing trees um are

and all the surface materials of vegetated verse gravel verse pavement are all illustrated on the plans. We're just not we're just not going to go into the level of detail of measuring and locating every single thousands and thousands of trees that are on the site that you may or not may and may not touch. Correct. Right. And even a 3-in tree is pretty small. There'd be a lot of them. What what plan number has the existing C1 think for that? Just talk into the microphone.

Um, it would be the second page of the PDF. V101 would be just a conditional plan. Zoom down and make a plan for you. I got it. Okay. Looks like we're getting ready. Okay. 15 C,

15 C. Um 15 C, 16 C and 17C are all somewhat related. This is waiverss from the Town of Franklin Conservation Commission regulations chapter 271. uh chairman powers and duties waiver requested for the project to be subject solely to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and regulations there under. Um I'm going to just sort of read them off this way. 16C vote requirements 271-9D and 17C vote requirements 271-9 Hikm. Um, these are all being asked uh to be waved um allowing requirements solely to the WPA and regulations they're under. And if I remember the letter correctly, Archie, maybe you can check that the Concom chair says to not grant these.

Bria, what do these mean? the sorry um I'm dueling tonight with the baby monitor. Um so I heard chairman duties. What were the other ones?

Well, it was 15 15 C 16C vote requirements. Vote requirements and it just speaks about waiver to conduct separate hearings under the town wetland bylaw protection. Uh waiver granted allowing voting requirements. It's a waiver of grant allowing the project to subject solely to the WPA and regulations there under waiver granting and allowing voting requirements solely with the WPA and regulations there under.

Sure. Those are mainly procedural and they do mirror the wetlands protection act pretty closely. I would say the biggest points of contention for conservation commission speaking on their behalf is probably um section four, so the buffer zones and then specifically definitions. Other than that, most of it is just procedural. So, which is neither here nor there since EVA would be the uh point of contact.

Okay. Which we'd probably just refer them to you anyway. So, All right. So the the letter from the chair says due to the complexity of this site and the situation regarding the wetland resources contained therein as well as the directive jurisdiction and mandate of the Franklin Conservation Commission, we also request the following waiverss not be granted um from within the town of Franklin Conservation Commission regulations chapter 271. The reason being it was that because of the complexity of the site and the wetland resources contained therein.

Is it is it if it's just procedural it's still gets reviewed by the conservation commission just through the ZBA on the wetlands protection act requirements. Is that correct? Um that's yes. So I run this by our own town attorney too just to make sure I'm understanding process correctly. So DBA maintains authority. You can ask to chime in as content experts on their own bylaw or disciplines. um or um DVA can move forward full steam ahead without input. However, as I've said before and I hope this answers your question, any change to the plan set concom have have to happen concurrently. So, if ZBA, for example, says the applicant can't be within 25 ft of a wetland resource area, well, then that's going to change the review of the Wetlands Protection Act as well. Potentially, it would probably actually lessen um any impact numbers, but I digress.

Okay. All right. So if it comes to us, we're probably going [snorts] to refer to them anyway. So just define it as far as I'm concerned. Yeah. Okay. 81 18 C is related um definition of key terms in the town wetland protection bylaw. So that chunk is all together. Yeah. Okay. You're all set with that one, too. Yep. Okay. Bless you. Bless you. Thank you.

All right. That's it for com waiverss from town or Franklin subdivision of land regulations for 444 East Central Street 1D section 306 plan believed not to require approval. Um, we talked about this last time. Waiver requested to allow the ZBA, not the planning board, to determine whether the plan does not require approval and endorse the plan. Waiver granted allowing uh the ZBA, not the planning board, to determine whether the plan does not require approval and endorse the approval not required plan submitted to the board. This is a customary waiver request for 40B proceeding. As a regulations mandate, ZBA is required to act in place of all local permit granting authorities as part of the issuance of the comprehensive permit.

When when can we sign this? After the after the decision is rendered and it's filed. And if it gets approved, it gets approved. If it doesn't get approved, what happens then? I'll let uh I mean, why do I want to sign it now?

I'll let Peter Freeman or Mark comment on the condition language. I think I think Mark addressed it in a condition, but also really all it means is that you would and I think the review has already been done in terms of whether it meets the conditions of an ANR plan. It's just procedural that the board, the zoning board would sign it, not the planning board. But you certainly don't need to sign it until you know you have approved the final plans to be submitted. uh it has to be done in order to achieve the separation of the uh parcels that we discussed last time and that is shown on the plane. Um so you know it there's there's no substantive harm whatsoever. Um it could be either um assigned when the myar is submitted because even with the final plans I don't think these lot lines are going to change. So actually could be submitted when a myar uh it could be endorsed by the zoning board when the myar is submitted which could be any time after the um after the uh filing of decision.

We've already submitted a myar. Yeah, we got a myar. So it could be signed it could be signed any time after you know the decision is made. Okay, that's always good. We don't have to sign it tonight.

One more. One more waiver from town of Franklin official home rule charter onee article two 2-4-1 article 22 2-6-4 acceptance of gift waiver requested to allow the ZBA to approve the donation of land located along the southern perimeter of the property as shown on the ANR plan which shall be conservation open space land as a potential addition ition to the town forest. An acceptance of gift resolution or any further action by or granted by the town council shall not be required to gift convey deed land to town applicant to follow applicable state laws.

Waiver granted to allow the hang on a minute. Go ahead, Mark. That that may not that may not comply with that. That's a piece of mud they want to give to the town. So not so that's not a rule or requirement as I see it under that's forgivable under uh chapter 40B that this is not a local requirement or regulation. This is a state law that in order to accept property the municipality must follow certain procedures otherwise people would just dump unwanted property on municipalities. So, I would elim, you know, if you want to give them that that piece of land, just say subject to applicable law. Period. That's it. No, we're not giving it to them. They're going to give it to us if we want.

And the condition. No, and the ZBA can't can't bless it and make all that other stuff go away. That's my point. Yeah. Okay.

Through Mr. Chairman, I as to state requirements for uh uh dealing with with um just disposition of state property be it taking or or receiving a gift. Um I absolutely agree with Mark. The condition that is drafted specifically to address this does state what Mark said, you know, subject to state law. Um, I view this bylaw as being something that that requires some local action in terms of accepting a gift above and beyond what the state requires. So, I don't see any harm in granting it because I think there's something that's put some local twist on it, but it certainly is understood that the town will have to comply with state law. Um, so I don't see any harm in granting it. I think it makes clear that it's the state law that controls just like with everything else. and the condition addresses it specifically.

So, we're all covered with that, Mark. Yeah. Peter and I uh are going to exchange the final draft one last time before I send it back to the board, so we can work it out. Okay. All right. So, so it's the the waiver is consistent with the condition that's written and needs to be granted to be consistent with the conditions or not. [cough] I'm I miss I I heard I heard I heard both. Mark, I guess the question comes when do we don't when do we tell them we don't want?

Well, it's I I think it's not up to us to say it's not up to the ZBA to say if we want it or not. And this waiver is saying it is up to us and that the town doesn't have a say is how I read it. Yeah. especially the place where um well if I [snorts]

I think that probably the safest thing that Peter and I can do here since this is a charter provision is talk to council uh Mark Sell and ask him whether this is as he understands local law. I I c I certainly um don't think that this waiver um if granted in any way orders or mandates that the donation be made. Number one, I just don't think it says that. Number two, the condition specifically uh states that it is up to the town to decide and put in a you know time limit. Um and also said as I said earlier clearly it says in the condition that it's subject to state law. So, you know, as I say, language such as, you know, the town council adopting an accept an acceptance of gift resolution. Um, I viewed that as a local thing which is not the same wording as the state statute, but there is certainly provision that there be town council votes and various things under state law. So, that's why I see it as relevant but not harmful to the town by granting this this waiver. It's much ado and I think we can work it out in the

Yeah, let's leave it in for now. Let Let's leave it in for now. I do agree with Peter that at the end of the day, it has to comply with applicable law. So, it's really got nothing to do with us then. So, if the town wants it, they'll take it. If not, they don't. Well, it has to do with us because we're the ones voting on whether we grant this waiver or not. What? For them to give it the waiver for the But if the town don't take it, they don't have to give it that we're approving all aspects of the land conveyance. But I guess they just said we can't do that. So then let's get rid of the waiver request. We take it out. Mark, would

Mr. Chairman, through you? I I think that's not quite correct. It's purely procedural. Like I said before, and Mark agrees, it in no way indicates that you are saying the land must be uh donated. Um and you wouldn't have that power under state law. So it simply is a procedural thing where I view it as some extra beyond state statutory [snorts] requirements for um handling um the uh taking or giving of town land interests in land. Um and it's you know as Mark said I mean the it's really just procedural. Can can you point

and I can can you point to what the external pieces Why do you need a waiver to ask the board of health to approve? I mean, that's not the normal function of a zoning board of appeals. Did you What? What did you just mention? You said the board of health.

No, the board of the the request says waiver requested to allow the ZDA to approve the donation of land. That's that exceeds their authority by a large measure. So why not just say wave, you know, I mean really what you're asking is that the zoning board of appeals make a recommendation to the higher power.

Well, I I'll grant you I suppose it could be tightened up, but it it could be simply done to tie the condition that you know you and I have agreed on um to this waiver. It could simply refer to that condition. I agree. It's not we're not saying that the zoning board is approving or disapproving the conveyance. They're simply allowing it if the town wants it. That's what the condition says. Just so everybody knows that I would be more comfortable if it said simply that I I don't see the the action that the board of appeals is taking here

or or is is authorized to take which is regulation.

I can see it's it's in artfully or unartfully worded because we're not asking the zoning board to take action. We're just asking zoning board to approve a waiver so that we don't need whatever a gift resolution quote unquote is from the town council but subject to state law which probably requires something that's called something else but has the same substantive meaning as a a gift except a gift resolution. So, we're not, again, we're not asking that the zoning board really do anything other than say we don't have to get whatever that special um uh vote from the town council is. And it is likely to be quite redundant of what the state requires which is why I agree we can strike the top of this section second column uh not referring to zoning board action and we can also tie it to the specific condition. I think that should make it clearer and not be of concern. It's you know do you remember the graphing case Peter

exactly why you and I agree because 40B does not override whatever the state requirements are for uh the um dealing of uh a municipality dealing with its uh accepting land or taking interest in land. Yeah. So when it says an acceptance of gift resolution or further action buyer granted by town council shall not be required. That's kind of like in the Grten case them asking the board of appeals to grant an easement the town property on which the municipal light plant was located. I just think it walks really close to that line. That's all. Well, but let's just word smith it. We can do it.

Yeah, we can word Smith it. I think we're wasting a lot of time.

For your information, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, there was a there's a case many years ago in Grten where the uh applicant needed to cut uh for sight distance on the property of the municipality and the the housing appeals committee actually ordered the grant of an easement for them to do it. And the courts kept in the highest court said you can't that's not a local requirement or rule for a town to grant an easement. There are certain statutory prerequisites that can't be wiped out by a waiver under chapter 40b. So I that's what I'm fearing here. That's all.

Yeah. No, understood. But we're not asking for the zoning board. And again, it's it's not it's not phrased as well as it could be. We apologize. But, you know, we're not asking for the town to grant any interest or to take away any interest. Uh, it's [clears throat] really not action by the CDA, which is why it's not worded. Um, it really is as carefully as it could be. We can word it. So, we will

Yeah. As long as the condition says it's first of all up to the town, which we're in agreement of. Okay. and subject to town approval, which if the town does not approve, we are not in violation of that permit condition. That's all we're looking for in the condition. As long as it says that, this doesn't matter. Cost you about 500 bucks to get [laughter] understood. Okay, let's go back to the beginning. I got a question mark on 5A second second page in the waiverss. Yeah, that was a hole.

I don't know if we got check. No, I mean I do have a question on it. Okay. I guess it it goes to Breida. She what she what her feelings are on this. I mean, just seems to me that the we're waving the 35 ft set back from a stream and having our building come 18 ft to the stream. Okay. I'm just wondering if it comes under zoning regulations or if it comes under conc [snorts]

5A. It's on the second page of the waiverss. We had a question on that. The stream setback is that contract thing or is that a zoning thing? It's zoning. Okay. And as I said, it's redundant to it's redundant to the wetlands requirement. So, can you just expand on that? So, they they've looked at that under their uh no

regulations. It's not it's not within their jurisdiction. I'm not sure why the the town fathers in their infinite wisdom felt that, you know, that Franklin needed a a stream setback within the zoning in addition to a local wetland bylaw that would also have a a similar similar setback. They're not exactly the same because the the local wetlands by law is a 25 foot no disturb and there's restrictions on structures within 25 to 50. What's the this is a specific specific 35

it may predate it may predate everything Joe I've seen that a lot a lot of towns had this kind of thing in place back in the 60s before the hashtag was sent up to Okay so that one's up. Everybody else out with that one. I mean, as long as consummation has got something similar that they hate to bother you again. Have a baby up. It's all right. I'm here.

Uh, this doesn't really have anything to do with you, but it does says setbacks from streams and ponds. Uh, they're looking for a waiver on that to allow buildings and parking areas within 35 ft horizontal of a stream. Closest building is 18 feet plus or minus from the stream and closest parking is 40 feet from the stream. So evidently one corner of a building must be within 18 feet. Maybe it's the whole wall. I don't know. But uh that doesn't you you people probably look at that anyway. Correct. Well, we haven't reviewed. Yes, we've reviewed within the 100 foot buffer zone under the wetlands protection act. The wetlands protection act in layman's terms more or less will allow you to develop within that entire 100 ft.

Okay. Town bylaw and then your um zoning bylaw the reg have specifics to try and pull that back. So I think at this point and definitely rely on your content experts but it's up to ZBA to decide either one or none at all. Joe, any problem with a 18 foot setback on the plans that we looked at? I think in that area, Mr. Chairman, it's it's the clubhouse. Oh, that's the clubhouse we're talking about. Oh, okay. Ma'am. Yeah. And there's there's already disturbance in that in that area.

There's already water right beside the clubhouse anyway when they put the pool in, right? So, they're going to be closer probably by the time we get done. Yeah. Okay. Uh, let me see. 11 10A. I don't know. I got an X on that. We just took that one out. A 10A is bench strict. We took that out. Okay. And the one right below it, parking schedule. I got a hold on that, but it's probably because we wanted them to see what they could do about getting it to 1.65, which I don't know. We could approve the plan at 1.65, then they'd have to make it up somehow. Well, I know initially we tried and say,

you know, we did, but then they changed the buildings. They went they they met the they almost met it and then they went to one point somewhere. Right. Right. And now they came back to 1.53. So I know that they made efforts to get where we wanted to be.

So I think I questioned that one. So I I'm fine with it now. Okay. [clears throat] Uh what's this other one here? 15. 15A there's a question on that in previous coverage. I think we already had quite a lengthy discussion on this Joe 15A in previous coverage. Yeah, we had a lengthy discussion with regards to artificial recharge.

Yeah. Right. on due diligence and in my estimation the spirit of the the spirit of the require the procedural requirements um have been satisfied. Okay. Anybody else got a question on that one? All right. Moving right along and go to I don't see any holes on the next page. Oh, uh, let's just go quick and discuss 9C, the waiver request for filing fees, which initially we thought it was 1,600, but I guess it turns out to be 266

about that $25,000 [cough] on the number of units. What's the number of that one again, Mr. Chairman? Uh 9C. It's like uh it's under the Okay. Yep. Wa a local filing fee with the Kronom. Evidently, they haven't paid anything on the NOI. So, did you pay? We We did. We We paid We paid the state required fees, which the town got a share of. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Okay. So, we don't get 100 per unit. No, because we didn't we didn't file a local fee, a local application. So that's why we asked for the waiver.

You filed a local application but with no fee. No, we filed an application under Wetland Protection Act and we paid those fees. Okay. We didn't file an application under Franklin's local wetland bylaw. Okay. And that's where that fee is. Okay. Mike, that's 26,600 bucks the way I calculate it, but sounds about right. Somewhere around. Not not even your fees. It's the states. Yeah. Okay. Fria said 1,600. I was I would have gone with that.

No, that's just cl clarification that the 1,600 is the state calculated fee and approximately half goes to the of that goes to the town and [snorts] half goes to the state. So that has been paid and as part of them filing a notice of intent. If the state didn't get the fee, they wouldn't issue a file number and they wouldn't be able to give a you know final decision on that. So all of that has been done. This is this is a local wetland bylaw fee that would normally be submitted concurrently with the state application with the local application to the conservation commission. That local approval is being subsumed into the comprehensive permit. So they're just saying we're not submitting a local application to the conservation commission. Why should the conservation commission also get a fee?

Okay. Well, I was questioning it because the conservation commission is the one reviewing that the project is in compliance with the state wetlands protection act. And there are fees related to that that have been paid the $800. No peer review fees in excess of I think 25 or 30,000 with data. Okay. Who they wanted to use? Well, the concom was reviewing them, they could have got the 26,000.

Okay. I, you know, by my chart, we're all set with that with the waiverss. I'll entertain a motion to approve the waivers as discussed. That an appropriate motion, Mark. Sounds good to me. Hold on. We're leaving the 13C. The last one about who's going to take the mud pit in the mud pit. No, construction sequence. Oh, the construction sequence. I didn't think I thought I'd check that off. We're done with that. What was the number on? Uh 13C. I have a note that says maybe stays concom to address.

My my notes say we checked it off um because we're we were required to uh comply with the order of conditions anyways and a condition um a similar condition will be uh in the order of conditions that we will have to comply with. So we'll submit something similar to this. Yeah. It's just the timing of it that was an issue. So if we're voting as discussed then the things that we talked about like a couple areas of word smithing or cleaning up the no less. Yeah. That kind of thing. Yeah. That will all get picked up by whom? Attorney

Babski. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, Casey's taking really good notes. Yeah, Casey's got them. Such, don't forget you had a week off. Oh, boy. [laughter]

Anyway, I'll entertain that motion. The panel make the motion. Motion to approve as discussed. Need a second to move something forward. We can have discussion after the motion is made. I'll I'll second it.

Motion made in second. Any discussion? Hearing none, the hearing none, the vote will come on the motion to approve. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed. I. No. What? I or no? No. No. Okay. Two to one. That passes. That passes, right, Mark? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Now, I'd like to ask if we could go to the main decision, please. Dated

12:15. It's a It's a clean version that I emailed to you. I don't know if if it was dated the 15th. I probably sent it on the 15th. I don't know. Casey got us one. K Casey got us one, but it's not dated. If somebody wants to share share it as a screen share, I can send it right now. It's there's one up there, but it's I think that's the one I got. Got it. Well, no. I just I I I sent her an email a couple hours ago now saying, "Get ready to share this on the screen." That's it. And she did respond to me.

Yeah, it's on the screen. I guess it just doesn't have the date on it. This is this is going to be real quick. I'm going to go through the first 17 pages of this. Okay.

There are some minor changes. The the clean draft as I prepared it on the 15th was as of our meeting uh in early December and the applicant came back with some suggested changes. They're mostly minor. I just want to put them on the record. So, if you'll just if if everybody if somebody can manage the screen share function and stick with me. There's about 15 of these things and I can just if somebody can scroll page to page, we can put this away real fast. Yeah, we're on we're on the Gus is running the computer.

Mr. Chairman, the just to make a note, it should be 355 East Central Street. Yeah, there's a there's some I got a note. I got an email. There's some other things I sent. No, I I did make the change in another iteration of this and I'll make it again. Okay. Thank you guys. Go ahead.

So, if we're on page one of the December 15th clean version, in the first paragraph, I note that the original application of the applicant had five multi-unit structures, not four. And I'm going to make these changes in the final draft. So when any motion at the end of the evening will be subject to the changes outlined by me. I still need the dates of the public hearings confirmed by somebody on our end. That would be Casey. Yeah, she's been working on

and I still need That's okay. And I still on page two need the day of the balloon the sidewalk rather. point. I will add the I will add the date of the site there. You got that date? It's forever in his memories.

On page three in paragraph 8, put a period after 444 East Central Lip Project. Period. And strike the rest of the sentence. On page four, there's a very minor typo in paragraph six. Mark Janelle's got a question. Um, are we going through every single one of Mark's comments and then we're flipping back to the front and going through any of the board comments or are we going sequentially through the whole

No, we've already gone through this. We went through this at the beginning of the month. I know, but on on December 5th, I emailed you, Mark, with um additional comments, and you said to bring them up the next time we met. Yes. I think you had a specific suggestion for a condition. Uh I had like 10. Well, it's you know, this is the time to bring them up. Oh, that's why I ask like are you going through everything and then we start back at the beginning or you want me to just go as we you know from from page one. [clears throat]

But if if you can fit them in as we go through the pages then that would be the most useful way to do it. Right. So where you stop with your comments?

Well I mean just I I have one one big general one about even us voting on this decision. It's it's a question about the lip program um altogether in that if there is now a more formal ask from the Franklin Town Council to um completely remove the project from the uh LIP program. Then uh does that change the project eligibility and do we need to wait for um EOHLC to respond to the town council?

Well, I have a number of different reactions to that, but they all end up in the same place. Number one, EOHLC firmly, I think as firmly as possible, indicated that it would not consider the PEL rescended simply because the sele the town council had a vote to do that. Um, that that couldn't have been more clear to me. Number two, if there is to be a continuing controversy over whether EOHLC was right or wrong, I don't think it involves the Board of Appeals. It it certainly would involve the town council and the town council is free to seek some sort of judicial relief if that's what they think is the important next step. For example, they could file a request for a declaratory judgment. There certainly is an actual controversy and we would more or less be bystanders to that at the zoning board of appeals. It's not the business of the board of appeals to get into that. U we're not a party to it. But isn't one of the requirements of the comprehensive permit to have a project eligibility letter and the one that we have references Franklin's lip

yes and it this is a local very clearly from the general council of the agency that they do not consider there to be any defect in the PEO. But Mark, you said that we go by what we started with on March 27th. Whatever was in place at that time, we go. Hasn't changed since then as far as the letter goes. What hasn't changed? The project Well, the the the the project eligibility letter that hasn't changed.

I I there was an attempt by the town council to resend the PEL. It went up to EOHLC. They had a couple of bouts of uncertainty it looks like, but ultimately the general counsel sent a letter saying it's not in our opinion rescended. That if if there's somebody who's displeased with that, then they have the right to assuming they have standing, they have the right to take action. I'm asking because there was another letter more formal that was written asking for, you know, seeking a more formal response and on whether or not there were material changes to the project. And uh as as much as I do not want to delay this process any further, um I'm asking if we need to wait until that response on whether or not these are material changes needs to come from the state.

We don't have the luxury of that. This is a 180day review process. We're well past that. The public hearing's been closed and we are now in our 40-day period to render a decision and that needs to be done. My calculation is by the end of this month because we had the last the closure of the public hearing occurred on November 20th. So that plus 40 is let's just call it December 30th. And then we have an additional that assumes that we render a decision in that 40 days. We also get another 14 days to clean it up and file it with the town clerk. So that puts us roughly in the range of the 10th of January. We don't have the luxury of going beyond that waiting

unless we agree to extend it again.

It's not for us to unilaterally extend it. I I don't need to be guessing here to know that attorney Freeman and his client are not going to agree to an extension. And Mark, would I be safe to assume that uh if we don't do anything and don't act on it, they can file for a constructive grant and just about do whatever they want? If they file for a constructive approval, then they will get the application approved as it was in its last revisions. They they they changed the record plans that were submitted to the ZBA. So that's what's likely to happen.

Which plans? The first set, second set, or the third set? No, they they the dates of the revised plans are in the the draft decision and I made sure I got the dates from the applicant so that we weren't going to argue about the revised plans later. The revised plans are listed in condition B2, I think, which is on page uh nine at the very bottom of the page. Okay.

And there's a list of civil plans and landscape architecture lighting plans, erosion control plans. Uh we also added another one architectural plans and drainage report. So those those would be the plans of record and a constructive grant would approve the plans of record. Mr. Chairman or tomorrow through the chair if I may. Go

ahead. the the EOHLC letter very specifically said that uh uh the EOHLC will not amend, withdraw or resend the PEL issued for this project on that basis which was in response to the to the town uh council statements that was part of the record. The hearing closed as Mark said on November 20th. Even the town letter that was I think days before November 20th simply was a vote and that they informed EOHLC. It was a vote that they withdrew their support support for the project. It did not even specifically ask to withdraw uh the issuance of the bell letter. So the hearing is closed. there is no basis to either postpone or to deny the project related to this project eligibility letter issue. Um and the final process that happens in the ma as a matter of course in any project is that the whole permit will be reviewed by the state agency at the so-called final approval. So there's simply no basis um and that's what I believe Mark is saying to do anything other than take your required action within the time frames that Mark just described. Thanks. [cough] Well, the the basis

I want to add I I want to add to that that we we're not a party to the dispute between EOHLC and the town council. That's something that the town council generated. We didn't co-sign the letter. the EOHLC directed its response to the town council and I don't think we were even seed on it. Um, and so if that is going to play out, it's by and between those parties. where my concern lies and this is where there is a basis for this discussion and the reason I'm even suggesting a postponement of the vote on the draft decision is that if this comprehensive permit is being put forth on the basis of a project eligibility letter which references a lip which is now being questioned by the town. Now it's now it's been formally sent to the state. Um it it feels that there this is more formalized in terms of it could change the underlying basis of the application. Respectfully worst case that's the dealt with at the final approval process. The hearing is closed. There is a conclusive nature of the project eligibility letter as it stands based on the regulation even without what EOHLC said specifically in their letter. So I I don't know how I could say that any

more accurately, strongly, and respectfully, but there is simply no basis for what you're suggesting. [snorts] Well, the only letter that we have from EOHLC says that the town can't um resend the lip because there's a change of town council. And so then the town council went back and wrote another letter explaining that they feel that there's been um material changes in the project that were not amended, that were not that did not go through the right process. and seeking um EOHLC's response on that. That's what I'm thinking. Uh so as soon as I saw that letter, I said, "Is there any chance you think we'll get a response from EOHLC before this meeting?"

Can I ask a question? When was that letter dated? Two days ago. Yeah, just a couple days ago. And so that's why public hearing. Correct. But but but the the town council's request was after the hearing was closed. Yeah. The first one. Oh, they sent the request out after the hearing was closed. But when did we get that letter from the department saying that they wouldn't uh revoke the PL? Was that before that we closed? I think we got it right around the last hearing. Was that like the 19th of November? It was before we closed the hearing. I think it came. It's part of the findings of fact. It came like a day or two before. So that's the only thing that we have to it's part of the finding.

It's part of the findings of fact in the decision. And I'll just note for the record the changes we've made from, you know, before uh include all enhancements and concessions including a loss in units. Um we added more buffer, we added more trees, we added more uh parking at the board's request. These are all enhancements and um um changes that were made with the best intentions and out of good faith in working with the town. And we also lowered the roof height from sloped to flat to keep it within the foot the footage height of the bridge [clears throat and cough] that they were

and and and now the building closest to we also removed the building closest to the abutters and by doing so we increased the setback to the abutters. Um and uh now if you look at what we submitted during the record um the um diagram that compares the height of the homes compared to ours with the flat roof change um we are le we are less tall than their single family homes next door and we are saving um a lot more substantially more vegetation in that area by preserving the buffer and by doing the the less wide parking spaces. So all those things were done with our best faith effort to respond to comments and neighbor concerns.

You could see the substantial changes that they made.

Mr. Chairman, all that's neither here nor there from a legal perspective because that's not in front of the ZBA. The there was a an informal process commenced with a letter to EOHLC. It got a little more formal when general counsel stepped in and now I'm learning that the town has responded. But absent some sort of legal impediment, we need to make a decision and there's no legal impediment because there's no pro, there's no injunction. There's nothing filed as far as I know that would create that kind of a scenario. And in the absence of that, it's just plain speculation on our part. and it will lead to a constructive approval unless we take action. So if we right it's conjecture at this point. That's why I was suggesting completely open-minded expecting that EOHLC may come back and say proceed as submitted. Um or they may not they may agree with the town council that these are material changes that the waiverss have increased by a substantial amount and so forth. We don't know. So, how can we sit here and [snorts] vote on something? If if we vote to approve this um this project with the conditions as written and then EOHLC agrees with the town council, what is that?

What is that process?

It's not our fight. That's that's my point. If someone wanted to to the best we have shaping up right now is that we might qualify as interveners, but it's not our fight. It's the it's a fight between the town through its council and EOHLC. And if if those issues are to be sharpened, there needs to be some sort of legal action in order to make that happen. And there are plenty of remedies available to put us on the sidelines until there's an answer. But nobody has commenced that process. And it's December 23rd and we're due. And with the holidays coming up between now and our ultimate due date, it seems very unlikely to me that one party or the other is going to go into superior court and seek some sort of injunctive relief that would put us stopped. to stop us in our tracks.

So all I can do is advise you, you're my client, not the town, that this this is the position that we are now in. And it the safest thing to do is to take final action on this permit in the absence of some legal impediment that prevents us from doing so.

So when we started this, you wanted to talk about some additions or whatever you talked about from page one and two over. Yes. just to keep us on track before Jean falls asleep. I'm losing my voice.

I think I made it up to page four. So, if you have anything that falls in the first four pages, then let's talk about them. Um, there was a note. Now, of course, I can't find it. Um, that it felt like some of the timeline leading up to where we are today felt a little biased in that it said everything was approved unanimously, approved unanimously, approved unanimously, and that the town council approved it. Um, well, that was the

uh I think Oh, yeah, that was so two body process. Yeah, jurisdictional findings six um unanimous votes of support from the conservation commission and planning board and a vote um and a split decision um 54 vote of support from the town council. Well, I don't have any problem just saying which resulted in votes of support. I can take out unanimous. That's just co colorful. That's all. It's It's colorful in the It's correct though. It's true.

So then let's put in the true that it was a split. So that was from the town council. Yes.

I will put the word split in front of voter support from the town council. Yeah. But split could mean even. Well, it was a vote of support. So that that's that's five that's 54 at a minimum. Yeah. And then in seven, um, the ZBA did not claim safe harbor due to procedural error. No, that's not why they didn't claim safe harbor. They just didn't. You just didn't claim safe harbor, period. Yeah.

Well, we were told that there was a discussion between council and due to procedural error. Um, we were not going to claim safe harbor. When we originally found out that there was a mistake done on the butter's list

on the butters list by the assessor's office, I called attorney Barbowski. He called attorney Freeman and we didn't have another meeting scheduled. Nobody said anything about St. Barber that they wanted to declare it. We had another meeting coming up in 14 days. But no, in the meantime, uh Mark talked to Attorney Freeman and he agreed not to declare a uh constructive grant at the time if we would not declare a safe harbor, which I don't know if we were on solid ground or not because it wasn't really our fault. You know, it came from some it came from another department within the town. So, I don't know what what would have happened with that, but and this is where we are. So, this M Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, we opened the meeting on March 27th, right? And we had 15 days if we were going to declare safe harbor. It seemed abundantly clear on the night of the 27th that there was going to be no motion for safe harbor. No further meeting was scheduled within the 15 days remaining. And that's just it. There was no determination by the board to declare safe harbor. I almost think that the butters list information came out after that 15-day period.

I don't know if it made the 15 days or not, but it was uh I think it came out sooner than not because Gus had a resident ask him about why he didn't get a notice when 444 Central Street was on the docket, but he got a notice for when they were going to do the uh dog uh low surgery cost hospital across the street. And that's when when he asked Gus, Gus said, "You got to go to the assessor's office and ask them." And then Gus gets an email from Mr. Doyle saying, "Hey, there's been a mistake." And that started itself the whole time. So,

and so this is not something that you recommend we track in the decision. It doesn't need to be, he said, because we didn't declare safe pile. Yeah, that my ultimate takeaway after the 27th was that there was no motion to declare safe harbor and there was not going to be a motion forthcoming in the remaining 14 days regardless of the notice officials which I don't think we didn't even know about it at the time. We did. We we knew about it at the time, but that's when I sent the letter out. Remember, Mark, you sent the letter out before the opening of the hearing on the 27th?

I think I sent it out before the meet. I don't know if we had a meeting on before that. Well, we had to have one in April, but we Yeah, you did. You had one in May. I think it came back. We continued to We continued to think to May 8th and then we started all over again. So, I don't know if we were starting from May 8th, but by that time we had made the agreement not to declare safe harbor and they and they made the agreement not to declare first constructive grant. So, it it wasn't like there was a quote agreement not to declare safe harbor. We have not declared safe harbor. All we were talking about was the opening date. Yeah.

I've been counting the days for our decision which are limited to 180 without extension to March 27th since day one. So, okay. My next comment is on page 10. So if you want to go through Mark.

Yeah, it' be real quick. Page four, there's a typo in paragraph six in front of the PEL in line five. There's just a random F. So um strike that. Page five, there's nothing. Page six, there's nothing. In page seven, paragraph 10, the applicant has requested adding in the second line, reasonably acceptable to the subsidizing agency, the ZBA and its legal council and the applicant. So the words and the applicant. Um I don't have an objection to that. On page eight, there are no changes. On page nine in paragraph 22, the applicant shall annually prov annually provide the ZBA uh copies of any all documents uh that it provides to the subsidizing agency excluding financial information. Um and to the degree that the financial information is proprietary, that makes sense. But I actually um you know to the to the to the extent that they don't want that on the street, I I guess I get it. On page 10 in the final plan list, the three bullets at the top, erosion control, uh they just want to add prepared by Allen and Major And I think that brings me up to your next comment, Janette.

Yeah. Um, under three, I proposed on page 10, section three.

Okay. I proposed adding a letter H uh that the project shall conform to all applicable state and federal laws, codes, regulations, and standards, including but not limited to the following. Um, so we list a whole bunch of things, but then I thought we should also say H Massachusetts stretch energy code, which the town of Franklin has adopted. Mr. Chairman, I I I don't have any objection to that. Maybe you do in the form of a motion.

Motion to accept uh the changes that Janelle just mentioned. Do we have any Well, we can ask for comment from the building commission on. But anyway, motion made. Second. Motion made and second. Any discussion? Gus, any problem with the stretch code stuff? There is not. There's there's no way the developer cannot do the stretch code. He has to. Okay. The intent is to formalize it like these all these other things that are in here. I'm sorry, Joe. The the intent is just to formalize it like a lot of the other things that are in here.

They have to hire a hearse raider, which I know you know that. And they have to submit it with the plans. We will not issue the permit. And that goes across the board for every house and building in Franklin. Okay. We get audited by the state as well. Good. [snorts] Without any further discussion, I'll I'll entertain the vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. All those opposed. No. That pass.

I'm moving on to page 11 number seven top. [cough] Uh, all facilities shall be installed as shown on the approved plans. The applicant would like clarification as follows. Except piping shall be PVC rather than duct tile iron. Um, and there is a related um I'll leave that. It's on a different page. I'll I'll catch it later. That's the only change on that page. All right. problem with that. Do you mind? Hang on. We got the town engineer here tonight. No, but Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Town engineer.

I would recommend that they just have to follow the uh DPW standard uh specifications and regulations for pipe. So, sewer PVC is fine, but in the case of water, it should be ductal to iron. So, long as they're following the DPW standards u and not regulations specifications, we have no issue with it. It's shaking fine with us. Yep. Okay. So, what do we have to change in that? All right. The all facilities shall be shown. Can I can I just give a little background on the change? Yeah, go ahead.

All right. Mr. Peznoli can explain the reasoning for it. Uh or Carlton actually can cuz he he did it. Uh yes. So our our utility plan um in error noted that all sewer piping should be ductile iron um when it should be PVC and the water should be ductile iron. So we have no issue going with the town specs. We just wanted to put the condition in there to note that the note for the sewer to be ductile iron would be overruled by the condition basically. Okay. Mr. Can I just say uh at the all facilities shall be installed per applicable DPW regulations as shown on the approved plans?

Uh yesbody. Yeah, Mike's happy with that. He sat down now. He's all set. Carlton, the plans are proper. I think to be safe, it should say, you know, the DPW specs. I thought it was the plans that or was it the specs that called for the ductile iron? No, it was not the DPW specs. Uh, Peter, the plans were inaccurate. There was a a mislabe. That's what I mean. So, so if we say on the approved plans, you got a problem because the approved plans were inaccurate. So, we can't just say on the approved plans.

Okay. However, you guys need to word smith it is fine. I I I I think from my standpoint, what I'm just clarifying is it's the approved plans that were mistaken by mistake. It happens by Allen Major. So, I think Mark just simply misunderstood, can you not leave it to say as as shown on the approved plans. if you're not comfortable if if um I think that was I forget if that was uh building commissioner or someone from the engineering or DPW but if you're fine with saying you know except that it'll show you know why don't we say all facilities shall be installed as shown on the approved plans except

that the piping materials shall be modified to comply with DP applicable DPW regulations. Right. Well, and and just to be certain, because DPW regulations don't require the sewer pipe to be ductile iron, I would prefer it not to say duct I would prefer it to say shall not be ductile iron. Just to clarify, because of the plans being mislabeled. Mark, I got a question. If they got to come before if they got to come before us with a final plan before they start construction, can't they just change it then? We call that an insubstantial change.

Well, we don't want to get into that. I mean, that's an extra process and certainty. It's not an extra process. We can look at it now. That's better. It's not an extra Yeah, you can mention it now, but it's not an extra process because that's the process. You have to send give us a set of done plans. No, no, but it's just clarifying respect. It's just clarifying the mistake. It's not not trying to, you know, avoid anything. It's just that um we're just clarifying what it really is and it and it's you know what you call it uh the the susour piping remember it's allowed under the racks to be uh PVC Joel check to submit the

I get I get it I get Peter's comment and as I've said a few times tonight when we put the final together we'll word submit it so that he doesn't need to get it in substantial change and he doesn't need to put in ductile iron pipe because it's not in the DPW regulations. We'll make it work. Okay. What's next? Do you have any more, General? I have one on page 11. I have. Okay.

Um, paragraph 11. The it did say final design plans for the storm water management system shall comply with the department of environmental protection regulations and the requirements of Hancock Associates the ZBA storm water peerreview engineer and that the Hancock Associates piece was struck out and I wanted to know why.

Yes, because Hancock doesn't have regulations that's you know it. So it was kind of I was empowering them. I agreed ultimately with the applicant to a to a degree I was empowering Hancock to a degree that they don't um warrant. So you plus I would just add if I may that it's just way too broad. The conditions address all of the things that the peer review from Joe Pesnola uh you know wanted to be in the uh permit in the conditions. So we're not trying to avoid anything that Joe said. It's just this is way too broad in addition to what Mark said.

Okay. I just want to make sure I don't have another Yep. Yeah. just everything. I don't have anything else until I get to page 14. So, if you got [cough] something, you know, anything in between. My next one is on 15. Okay, we'll go to 14. Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Chair, just sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, and and Mark, just um uh clarification really. There are a bunch of things like we're we're on page 12 um number 18. There are some that are on my version. I think it's a a bluish or purplish color. I think those are things that had already been reviewed by the board at the last deliberation on December 1st. I just want to make sure that those are in there because, you know, you're not mentioning them. Well, as I said, half of the ones on this letter that you sent to me last Friday were already made, so I didn't I'm not calling them out again.

That No, I agree. I just wanted to make sure that the board has the ones that you just said were already made, which are this bluish purplish color. Okay, great. I thank you. 30 34 on page 14. This is the duct tile or piping again. So, I had added a comment that the sewer pipes shall be PVC, but I think we're this is kind of redundant. We'll we'll make this work like the other one. Okay. Page 15. And then Oh, did you have anything else on there?

No. If I have 15, but you go ahead first.

Okay. Uh, paragraph nine. This was um when we last met I made uh I I was asking why we don't include anything in the decision in the draft decision about architecture and the basic response was that we typically don't do that. And I made like a snarky comment that the ZBA doesn't care about architecture but um we do. So I I'm proposing that we add some language into section C9 um about architecture. Um so I'll read through what I what I propose um and then we can uh have a motion on it. So prior to the issuance of any building permit, the site comma architectural comma and engineering plans finalized as necessary as provided in this decision um shall be signed and sealed by a Massachusetts professional engineer, Massachusetts registered architect, comma, and a Massachusetts registered landscape architect and filed with the ZBA and the building inspector and shall include the following. And then I have um a small edit to uh section C letter from the project architect. Architect should be capitalized. Um, then I propose adding in a a section D, a new section D that says, um, letter from the project engineer confirming that the project exceeds the requirements in the Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code or the Massachusetts Specialty Energy Code if the town of Franklin has adopted it

before the time of building permit issuance. And then um I'd like to hear I just re number we already have a condition for it. Sure Mr. U through you Mr. Chairman. Sure Mark. Um when you mentioned this Janal when you mentioned the stretch energy code that it exceeds it did you also include meets it or exceeds it? I wasn't sure on on that. Um I suppose we could say meets or exceeds. That's fine. I believe that's acceptable. Mark, is that what you were

and would the would the appropriate person to do that be the architect or I don't think you mentioned the architect. A hers raider. Mark in in conjunction with the architect. It's a hers raider. It's a um Okay. certified mass insulation analysis person that has to do a report submitted with the building permit. Okay. And you're going to send me an email in the morning, right? I will. You're get it right. I just want to get right.

Engineer whatever report is required by law code. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, through you if I could ask um Miss Lane to just read the the first part. We were adding I think something from the architect. Just want to make sure I understood what you said. You said something then you completely left it behind. Yeah. No, no, I I think I in in between so it in the introductory part of paragraph nine uh in between site and engineering plans I want to add site, architectural, comma, and engineering plans.

Mhm. And then down below shall be signed and sealed by the professionals. Yes. shall be signed and sealed by a Massachusetts professional engineer, and a Massachusetts registered architect and then a Massachusetts registered landscape architect. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Y this this will be controlled construction, won't it? That is correct, Mark. It has to be. Yeah. Can you just sort of enlighten everybody as to what that means?

Sure. anything over 35,000 cubic feet as far as a building is concerned. When you pull a permit, an architect has to oversee it. It's it's a um 780 CMR requirement and there's no wiggle room at all. They have to supply an affidavit in the beginning and they have to do intermittent inspections throughout the project and then and at the end they have to submit a final affidavit and these all have to be stamped. So that's an architect, not an engineer, a design professional is the way the building code reads. But you still have access to the property and go through it.

Yes, we still go out and do the inspections as well.

Should it just be elevations? And also just to clarify, the building code can't discriminate a architect's discipline or a structural engineer's discipline. If they've gone to school for landscape architect, a structural engineer can stamp the plan. So that you may want to look at that wording as well. If if the proponent submits something that's from a structural engineer as far as the architect landscaping is concerned, we have to accept it if he has that discipline that he studied when he went to school. And that's something that we learned early on with what we do. It doesn't matter what type of registration they have is [cough and clears throat] they have to say it.

They call it a design professional. We can't discriminate. I mean, I'm finding the way if you want Dr. Change to qualified design professional. I mean, that that's fine. That's the way the building code reads, Peter. Yep. Thank you. And we and believe me, we vet them out. If they think they know, we disqualify them if they think they know what [snorts] they're doing. Understood.

Okay. Um I'm all the way up to D, uh which is on page 18. And Janelle, if you've got anything before that, please go forward. I have um uh this is still in the same architecture vein. Section C page. Um it's not on there. I am proposing we add a paragraph 24. Okay. So, this would be at the end of page 17 or the beginning of page 18.

Okay. I guess the beginning of page 18. Um, this was when we last met. I was asking um you know how how do we make sure that um the project still maintains the architectural character that we're seeing in these um elevations and uh so that's the intent of this section is uh for wording um that I'll read now If the height, bulk, placement, and physical characteristics of the project vary from the approved architectural plans and elevations dated blank. I just wanted to make sure it was consistent. I think it's October 30th. Um, the ZBA reserves the right to consider characterizing the requested change as substantial as defined under 760 CMR 56.074. Would you read that again, Janu?

Yep. If the height, bulk, placement, and physical characteristics of the project vary from the approved architectural plans and elevations dated um I I think it's the 30th, but I I would just want to confirm. The ZBA reserves the right to consider characterizing the requested change as substantial as defined under 760 CMR 56.074.

How much difference? One inch. So I'm just channeling my inner 40b regulations here. And I want to compare what you just said with what the rule says. But hang on a second. Okay. I think I pulled most of the language from the rules. Yeah.

I just wanted it in the decision. Walmart's looking through the chairman of BA. While while Mark's looking, would you be would you be okay with just adding Barry in any material respect? Because that also ties into, you know, what Mark's probably going to cite in terms of what the regulation says. You know, you do you even without it, you would still have the right to deem a change, you know, material change um substantial. So, no, I I don't have a problem with the concept you're adding here. Um, I just think adding material uh is is fair. I hope if I spelled it right. Okay. Are you [snorts] looking for the examples where it cites the process of notifying the board, you know, and then the 20 days to determine the insubstantial

because the the guidelines are actually in the HAC, the section of the HAC regulations, I think it's 56.08. 08. Um, there is I I made You may want to take me up on this, Peter. I've converted the PDF to a word document so that I can search it whenever I want to because otherwise it's a really a painful document. I I can already do that somehow. I I don't know how. Okay. So, I'm Shane.

Not only are you paying for that one, you're paying for this one, too. [laughter] They must be teaming up on control F. Control F. also putting this one up iron.

I mean it has more to do with the number of units and the change in the architectural style increase more than 10% on the height of the building increase of number of units proposed by more than 10% reduction in the size of the site by more than 10% change in building type garden apartments to town houses. So, you know, I I I suppose a board could always consider regardless of these recommendations. Um, they could always debate whether it's substantial or insubstantial. Anytime a change is proposed,

change in the color or style of materials used is in not substantial. Yeah. Um, Gus, didn't you talk about this last time? You were saying it's hard to quantify like um materials and things like that as long as it follows code.

So you Mr. Chairman Megan, we did and my description of that was there's not a lot of project products out there that are accepted by any lumber yard, any building inspector without some sort of a stamp on it. And it could be packaged with that stamp. Not necessarily a stamp, but a someone that did a peer review, so to speak, to make sure that the material didn't come out of a old house somewhere. And if that is the case, and they do bring in materials that don't have some sort of label, stamp, whatever, whatever on it, then it's up to them to get it certified. and generally is done by an architect. I can do it. I don't want to do it. Um I want them to buy a product that is used necessar not necessarily nationwide but at least in the northeast. Um on on uh the comment, is it okay if we just say subject to the regulations and the appropriate language, we we agreed to it and the lawyers can work it out and then we can move move on to the next one.

What Miss is what Miss Lane said um you know reserving the Zay's right to deem changes substantial and then indeed referred to um as described in 760 CMR uh section 56.07 07 PNS 4 PN B as in boy.

So then I I found where I pulled my language from is 56.07 3 evidence um e site and building design. The committee re may receive evidence of the following matters. One height bulk and placement of the proposed project. two physical characteristics of the pro proposed project. That's where I pulled that language from.

Well, why don't I just say that the board may consider whether changes to those two things constitute substantial or insubstantial changes under applicable HAC regulations. Yeah, that's fine with me. Again, I wasn't objecting to the things that Miss Lane listed in terms of height location, you know. So, what you just said Mark was fine. [clears throat] You okay with it, Janelle? Yep. Okay. Let's do that by motion, Mr. Chairman. Motion to approve the suggestions made by member Janelle Line.

Second it. Motion made and second. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I. All those opposed? None. Keep you.

All right. This is the last piece of our puzzle and it's the special conditions uh that have to do with other than the TAS that was prepared by VAI which are in pretty good shape. So, I uh sent the just a an excerpt from the draft decision which covers D1 to D14. I've sent it to Joe, Bruce, and [clears throat] Gus. If one of you could share screen, that would be great. And these are conditions that have not all of them but for the most part they've been uh reworked. Let's call it that. Thank you.

Are are we ready to the extent we're organizing? Okay. We're trying to get your new the new one with your changes up on.

Yep. Thank you. While that's getting pulled up, just so you so you know what's coming from me, I have um a minor thing on the VAI bullets and then which is on page 23 and then um a general question on where the notes and conditions about all of the um an allowance for additional landscape work at the abutters where that lands. that's not in here yet, but we um we've all talked about it today. And so we'll find a place.

And then I had one additional um request about and this is thinking of of the abutters and seeing a a bullet related to waste and recycling containers. But um uh wondering if we could addition. I think we we've opened up a hole here from we we've opened up a hole north of D. So we've just added 24 on architectural role. We can just keep numbering there. That's all.

Okay. the um this was just a and I wasn't sure if if it would fit in with another condition or another um bullet somewhere else, but the waste and recycling containers um are directly landed right next to a butters and I'd like to suggest a condition that those get relocated away from the eastern edge of the property. You can put it on that acre down by the river. Yeah, you put like a floating bar. [laughter]

It it didn't seem like a a huge driver on the design, but you know, along the same lines as the vein of the improving the buffer Okay. So on 25 I how about if I just say something that the uh waste container shall be relocated away from adjacent properties on the final plans.

The the major issue with this is is getting the turning radius to work for the truck um the trucks that come in for for waste and recycling. And it has to be studied by an engineer before we can actually look at relocating it. Significantly further than the setbacks building. And so are you are you speaking about both? Um or is it just one? I put in my notes both. There's

and I wouldn't have asked for it if I didn't see if there's a way you could do it with the turning radiuses. Um, but without pulling up the plans, I have to confirm. Can't fit it over behind the medical building. Don't they have dumpsters on that? I mean the th these bins service this side of the of the property and this has been a difficult design parameter for us to get around. But the the parcel is separated into two quadrants and we have to have trash and recycling service in this vicinity on the east side of the stream to service these buildings that are near the units. So, um,

I was thinking they could go on either side of building three. Right now, they're on either side of building four against the butters, and I thought if they went on either side of building three, they're still sort of at a dead end leg there.

That would block units, um, rendering those units uh, probably infeasible on the ground floor. And it would also have to be reworked with conservation because out next to the wetlands and I don't know how they're going to feel about that. Um we have done we have got gone above and beyond on mitigating impacts for the abutters. I I truly feel um we increased the the fence from 6 feet to 8 ft. Um, we uh preserved a substantial amount of existing trees that are in that vicinity by making a numerous uh design adjustments including the incorporation of a very expensive retaining wall. [snorts] We added $35,000 roughly in new landscaping, vegetation screening, and we did other design modifications like lowering the height of the building and relocating a building entirely to increase the setback. So the the dumpsters themselves are in a location that are shielded by fencing. And I don't know how far away that is, Carlton, but that might be 100 plus feet away on the top the top the top one.

It's 100 feet away from the property line. 100 ft away from the property line. So it it would I just can't com I'd love to commit to I just don't I can't do that without studying this and I don't see a place to put it. Um,

just commit that if you find a place that you can move it, you'll do it on the final iteration of the plans before construction. Okay. If if we can if we can. I guess when when I was thinking on either side of building three, I didn't see how that would be different from where it is uh on the side of building two. Well, this what that one has a ton of space in between it. Um, as you can see, uh, we would lose parking spaces if we were to do the same thing for that side of building three and parking spaces were very important to the board. Yeah.

Yeah. I think these these dumpers would be within seven or eight feet of the building face here just because of the restrictions of the right out the window. [snorts] Have a little shoot. I I I we could certainly study it. It would be hard for me to tell him him that we could do that today. Um but we have no problem trying to find a better location. [clears throat] Okay. If the condition can be worded properly.

Yeah. Well, I'm going to say uh you know applicant will make best efforts to relocate the trash and recycling waste containers from adjacent properties on final plans subject to approval of the turning radius for vehicles serving the containers. That work? Sounds good to me. Okay, what's next, Janelle? Um, page 23.

No, you're gone too far. Oh, a lot of a lot of that's changed. So, is that a TAS thing? It was it was a bicycle parking thing. This is a minor one that it says exterior biking racks. Uh it's bullet eight under transportation demand management. The last bullet I suggest adding the word covered um including weather protected bicycle parking and covered exterior bicycle racks.

So slow down. Covered covered exterior bicycle racks.

Uh is that substituted for secure bicycle parking? No. So, secure bicycle parking should be provided at appropriate locations within the project site, including weatherprotected bicycle parking and covered exterior bicycle racks situated as shown on the approved plans. That okay, that that would indic that language would indicate that every single bicycle rack and outside is covered or weather protected. Is that what you meant?

That's not what the plans propose. Um, and that would be very costly. I I don't I don't know what that would cost, but we don't sh we don't we don't propose that. Um, so I'm I'm fine with incorporating a some um certainly uh the condition it could be slightly rewarded to say cover weatherprotected, covered um exterior bike racks, but I I can't promise that all of them will be covered.

The weather protected is interior bike storage. Is it part of a garage or something? I'm sorry. What are you on? Page 21. 23. 23. We talked about this under TDM. Yeah. It's the last asterisk when it says including weather protected bicycle parking. I interpret as as interior. Right. Um and and and and then you know with J AJ's comment if it then said in some covered exterior Sure. bicycle racks.

Yes. [clears throat] We we agreed that Yes, that would be fine with me. I I just covering all of the exterior racks. I I I don't think I I don't know that that's it's not something I looked at or budgeted. Some covered exterior bicycle racks.

Can we put a percentage there? I love a percentage. including weather protected bicycle parking of which X% are covered exterior bike racks. 12. Could we do I mean if we're counting in the weather protected interior and covered 50%.

I'm thinking of all my bike riding friends. So we we are intending to locate interior bike parking and I don't know how many spaces would fit into that room. Um, but I'm sure there would be a lot. Um, we do a quarter include maybe a quarter of the exterior.

Okay. So, I'm trying to work with what I got here. Secure bicycle parking should be provided at appropriate locations within the project site. Semicolon: 25% of bicycle parking shall be in covered exterior bike racks. um at appropriate locations within the project site, including weatherprotected interior bicycle parking and exterior bicycle racks, of which 25% will be covered.

That sounds reasonable. Peter.

Yeah, it's it's saying saying that the weather protected means interior and the percentage of covered exterior is 25%. 20% of the exterior bike racks are covered. And that [clears throat] will be condition 20 C 20

six. Oh, no, no. I'm sorry. It'll be right where it is. It'll be last an additional bullet. Yeah, or part of that bullet rather. Yeah, I think we're getting That one's an existing bullet. Yep.

Then the last comment I had which you said you spoke a lot about today was um how to describe um a condition on the the tree buffer landscape screening the allowance for additional landscape work at the abutters. all of that [snorts] which I think some of it's in there now. Yeah, let's hold that. Okay. Okay. So, let's go back to the who's everybody's got the access to the shared screen D1 to 14.

Yeah.

Okay. So condition number one didn't really change much from the way it was originally uh drafted by Joe I think. Um and so it doesn't it it's it's not nothing in here is really new except I added subject to applicable law. We had a big discussion about that an hour and a half ago. So there's the middle of that paragraph. Paragraph one you'll see shall be shall deed the parcel to the town subject to applicable law. And I guess that'll trump anything in the waiver list. Uh Peter and I had a discussion about that. So if the town is going to get parcel B, then u the cost of preparing the documents and the price for the property is a dollar. If the town does not desire parcel B, does not respond to the applicant's notice within the designated time frame, and does not grant approval for the deeding of parcel B, the applicant will not be deemed in violation of this condition and shall maintain parcel B as part of the property. And that's the sum and substance of number one. Number two has been modified slightly. Uh several of the distances changed. 77 ft was 78 ft. 43 ft was 44 ft. 33 ft was 34 street. Um but the and there's a third from the bottom 8ft tall solid stockade style fence there. That's where that F came from. There you go. Um no closer than 33 ft.

Was a vinyl fence. Then of course [clears throat] vinyl fence. It was a 6 foot vinyl fence. Yeah. And now it's an 8 foot stockade style fence. Why can't it be? It should say vinyl. I don't I don't know why it did say vinyl. Okay. Yeah. Some This is what the changes evolved to. If you want to go back to vinyl, just tell me. Yeah. Vinyl. Yeah. So, is it a vinyl stockade style fence? Solid vinyl.

It's shown in the plans. Um, it's a detail. So, it's on the plans at 6 feet. We took the ZBA's comments into consideration from the last hearing and proactively made changes in the decision working with attorney Babrowski and we changed it to 8 ft. So it will be similar to the detail that we showed in the approved plans. So it can call it a fence or is it calling a stockade fence? Um it is stockade style vinyl fence like it it has planks. Um, so it's stockade style. Yes, sir.

Okay. So that's good. That we'll move on to the next one. Now, is that across the whole Exc Hang on a minute, Mark. Is that across the whole line? Go ahead. I'm not I'm asking AJ here a question. Does that go across the three houses that face? Yeah, it it goes across all the way up along our limit of work edge. Okay. Other than the replication other than other than the replication's uh house is off to the if you're looking at the things off to the right furthest one to the right. You're covering that one too.

It probably goes halfway into his lot and then stops prior to the replication. His house is tilted anyway. So yeah, that house is looking completely the other on the other side. The other house is looking the other house is looking completely the other direction. House that looks directly on your property. Correct. Okay. Yep.

Now, what are we doing for landscaping inside the inside the owner's property, you know, for for mitigation? Did you propose something to plant some trees or have them give them some money to plant their own trees? We took care of that by um adding a substantial amount of uh proposed vegetation on our site and redesigning the site plan multiple times to uh preserve as much uh existing vegetation as possible. So uh it is true I I I I try to make neighbors happy um and abutterss and um I uh have been conversing privately with a um neighbor who it's an individual circumstance um who I feel uh you know could be helped a little bit and if I can help I I will. So that's the extent of that. children

you haven't mentioned a figure to them how much you know you're going to give them are you going to plant the trees in the yard that they want or are they going to plant their own trees no we haven't gotten that far okay but I I wasn't planning to do construction in their yard no I wouldn't do it if I were you either I was planning to give them give give a a a a very small amount of money for um plantings additional screening optimal. That's a a private discussion that I had with an individual butter. I I'd rather not share that. Peter, do you have anything to add? You don't want to include the other two in

n like you said, Mr. Mr. Chairman, very different circumstances on the other abuing homes, right? That's the only thing I would repeat. Okay. Uh, where are we anyway? What are we talking about? When we last talked, didn't didn't we say run number three? Yeah. Something for all three of those abuing homes. [clears throat] Yes. Well, we got him the 8ft fence. Yeah.

And he mentioned that he was talking to one person, and I don't want to mention the name, but I I think I know which one it is. And he said that he was going to he offered to their them some money to plant some trees to to screen. The particular house that I think we're both talking about is the house that looks directly straight onto the property. Yeah.

Looking from the ground up, the house on the left aims towards Route 140. The house on the other side aims got a beautiful view of the pond or whatever you want to call it down in the back down there. So maybe they don't want that one taken away. I don't know. But I don't think they've been as cooperative as as the other people. [clears throat] Anyway, so are we still talking about mitigation money? I like this. We're getting there. Let's go to number three. We're getting there. All right.

Yeah, it gets better. U So, number three is a revised snow storage plan for the area of the 54 and 72 unit building. Uh we're talking about maintaining snow storage in areas that do not decrease available parking are located in areas that would promote snow melts and that comply with restrictions by the concom total 5% of the paved areas on site. Um, number four is connected and it says, "In the event snow occupies parking spaces so as to impede circulation as may be determined by the building commissioner, such snow must be removed from the site and disposed of in accordance with applicable regs. Any snow damage that occurs to landscaping uh will result in replacement of the landscaping in the spring. Hearing nothing. Number five, applicant will sweep East Central Street along the frontage. Number six, prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall provide ZBA with an estimated quantity of total earthwork, import, and export, anticipated, number of daily, weekly trucks, anticipated, duration of fill operations, proposed trucking routes. The information will be prepared and submitted by the GC in coordination with geotechnical and civil engineers. Once the GC has been engaged and selected, the applicant will provide the information to the building, public works, and police departments as part of the site work grading and/or building permit applications. Okay. Number seven, this is the study for the pump station within uh I think we said earlier today 60 days of the expiration of the appeal period for the comp permit. Uh the applicant will

provide the sum of $32,000 to the town to pay for the cost of a study to evaluate the municipal sewer pump station directly across the street to determine whether an on-site holding tank is required to be installed by the applicant to connect to the pump station. If the study determines that a holding tank may not be installed without additional mitigation to the pump station, the applicant will provide funds to the tent to correct any deficiencies in the pump station uh as identified in the study as at its sole expense prior to such connection. Provided, however, that the applicant may deduct $50,000 from the $150,000 payment described below in special condition 9 uh and shall not pay more than $50,000, and that's to correct the deficiencies that were identified. The town shall forth with upon receipt of said funds correct any deficiencies. Once the deficiencies have been corrected, the applicant may connect to the pump station.

[clears throat]

So, uh, there's an intervening condition here. The on-site sewer holding tank in any sewer pump shall not be considered a substantial change. The applicant may elect at its sole discretion to install multiple holding tanks rather than a singular tank. And number nine, we had a lot of discussion in the last week or so about this. Within 90 days of the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall contribute to the town pursuant to chapter 44 section 53A, the sum of $150,000 as a gift to the town, which may be extended for any valid public purpose, including funding, sewer, infrastructure upgrades. Now, that means that the minimum amount back to paragraph 7 that the town is going to get to keep as a result of that payment is 100. If the study determines that there are no deficiencies and there's no need to spend the 50,000 up to 50,000, then that's included in the gift in paragraph 9 and it would be a $150,000 gift. And by the way, chapter 44 section 53A is a gift statute. That's it says that municipalities may receive gifts and it will be expended at the direction of the chief executive officer in Franklin, that would be the town council. Well, hang on one second. Mike's got something. Mike's got something he wants to say.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just in regards to uh condition seven. Um, I guess the big issue for DBW is that that study hasn't been done yet, the initial study. So, we don't know what improvements need to be done there. So, if that's limiting it to $50,000 maximum payment, it could cost well over that. And then if the applicant's not paying for that, that's going to fall back on DPW to make those um improvements. And even if if it's you take the $150,000 gift, it still might exceed that. We just don't know until that study's done. And any limit setting a limit on any expenditure by the applicant just going to put that back on DBW. And to be honest, we just don't have the funds to do the improvements. Right. Right now we got what is it? 532,000. Yes,

that's what we got. And out of the stuff that they talked about, the 32,000 for the sewer thing and the and the $50,000 to upgrade the thing whether it needs it, the $100,000 is going to go into the into the pot. Sure. So there's $500 and something,000 which I'm intending to asking for a little bit more and it's going into a part that we can use it wherever we need see fit. You know, obviously there's a traffic problem down at King Street and whatever. We need something for that. Whether they've already promised to have uh what's the name of your traffic? Vaness. Yeah, Vaness, they were going to do a I guess a cursory quick review somehow some idea what would make it work. They're going to do that on their own. But in the meantime,

let me ask Mike let me ask Mike a question, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. So, if you go back to paragraph 7, the study, which has apparently already been scoped, will evaluate the pump station to determine whether an on-site holding tank is required to be installed to connect to the pump station. It's not a study to fix the pump station for all time in Memorial. It's just to determine whether or not they can at the end of the study connect the on-site holding tank, which seems So, so that's that's not the same thing as, you know, blowing the doors down and coming up with let's replace the pump station.

No. So, through the chair. So, my concern with that is that if uh the study will determine if an on-site holding tank can first of all, we can see if the their project can uh discharge directly to the pump station. We don't think it can, but if it can, that's great. They're all set. If they can if it can't, the next step would be to look at doing an on-site holding tank and pumping in off hours. the the study will evaluate to see if the pump station can handle that. If it it may not be able to handle the off the uh the offh hour pumping hours from a holding tank. If it can't do that, then we're going to need to make improvements to that pump station. That's a concern. That's the big unknown. Until that study's done, we don't really know what we what we're looking at that needs to be done to that pump station.

Ideally, they can do an on onsite uh holding tank and pump off hours and they'll be that'll handle it, but it might not. Pumping off hours into that right now. What's that? There's a lot of people pumping off hours into that

and that's a concern is I mean right now this the station works and the infrastructure we have works for what we have but any in increase to that we really don't know what it's going to take to um to to bring that to handle the additional flows and that's just a situation I just don't want to be in a put in a position where the town has to spend a lot of money I know you're talking about having a whole big pot of you know 500,000 and change but if it's going to be a I'm just throwing if it's a $400,000 project and I have no idea what it's going to cost that just limits what's available for the intersection ction and the limits what can go into that uh pump station and if it's even more than that which I don't again I don't know I just having a putting a limit on it you know takes the risk off the applicant and puts that risk on the town and that's my concern

if I could taking the risk off Mr. Chairman uh well to every Peter M Bruce Mr. Chairman you got a pretty good idea how this going to work Peter Mr. the chairman was going to speak.

No matter what happens, there's $532,000 in the pot. Uh $32,000. You've already agreed. I guess that's what the stud is going to cost. When the study comes back, they're going to know. If they got to put a holding tank in, Mike's still getting 100,000 to upgrade the lift station if it needs it. And if it doesn't need it, the money the other the other mitigation money that's in there is not being earmarked for anything else. It's going to be used for as the town sees fit. So, right now there's $532,000. We're not done yet. I still going to put the arm on him for another couple hundred if we get it out of him. But I know the thing's going cha-ching cha-ching and I paying all these lawyers and Quinton sitting there just smiling away. But Huh?

Carlton. Carlton. I'm sorry. Where' I get Quinton? It's my last name. Getting late. [laughter] No, that's his last name. You can call him Quinn. Yeah, there you go. Oh, that's your Carlton. Quinton. Quint. I didn't say I knew I was close. [laughter] Carlton Quinton. You notice I do a lot of people though. We we also have I think our sewer INI fees are projected to be almost $300,000. Our building permit fee is projected to be over a half a million dollar. You know, there's other,000. There's lots of other fees that are going to be contributed. 25,000 tonight, we 25,000. Yeah. 25 25,000. Yeah. Per unit. Yeah.

Yeah. So, you know, I'm just looking. I'm only going by what the last three big projects that came into town with almost the same number of units pay. You know, Gro Street paid 750, DNA paid 750, and uh I'd like you guys to pay 750. I don't know why. You know, you're really starting out early here. I'm sure that there's got to be some room there that you can come up a little bit more just to Mike's got to go home and stew all weekend, not for three days till Monday when he goes back to work. Jaime's going to get down and say, "Hey, what did you end up getting from?"

If we can get through the rest of the decision, um any other comments or considerations, I' I'd love to hear that. Um and yeah.

All right. It's only one It's only one page to go. Um, number 10. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, applicant will submit a revised plan that shows all proposed sewer infrastructure with utilities and final landscaping details. Number 11, comply with the con uh order of conditions. Number 12, the applicants shall incorporate a bus shelter. So, uh, gentlemen, you wrote this. Why don't you give us the highlights? DJ or or Carlton, Mr. Quinton?

Um, sure. This was uh in response to a uh board member's comment um about incorporating a bus shelter. We looked into it. Um we looked into a potential location. We looked into a potential preliminary design. We added it to the budget and we confirmed that with the current draft uh decision with the current proposed mitigation package we can um propose a bus shelter and this condition um governs the details of of such bus shelter that's been requested by the board.

Okay. And Janelle, did you have something you wanted to piggy back on that? No, I'm I'm just reading it now.

We We tried really to incorporate a lot of these things that cost us money at the end of the day that we have to incorporate to our budget. This bus this bus shelter is projected to be $15 to $20,000. Studying the additional signal that wasn't required to be studied was an additional $5,000. Making the fence 8 ft high instead of 6 ft high cost us $25,000 cuz you have to double the cost of the fence because of metal posts which I submitted in correspondence previously. So, I just want to say all of these things we tried to incorporate in the decision. Um, they do cost uh uh uh us money and has have to be budgeted. Um, and they should be considered in addition to the um wholesome figure of mitigation gifts that we've proposed here. [snorts]

Question. How many more? Does anybody have any comment on the bus shelter proposal? Can I go on to the next one which is the big ticket item here? Prior to the issuance of the final certificate, the applicant shall contribute to sum of 350K to the town. Again, pursuant to the gift statute to be expended for any valid public purpose, including the preparation of an application for Mass Works, housing works grant application and a corridor improvement study. But, you know, the applicable there is that you can spend it for any valid public purpose. And then the last paragraph number 14 just totals up the mitigation to 532.

Yeah, if you listen to Mike, we might need more money. That's why I wanted to just tack on some money, you know? I mean, just I'm just being consistent with what we've done in the last two projects. So, are there any further comments on the decision for now? Okay. My if I may, Mr. Chairman for you just real quick it's it's overkill editing but in this final one 13 when you say including the preparation of an application by the town blah blah blah uh why don't we add the magic words including without limitation just so the town knows it's not limited at all you know they got money whatever the amount is they can use it for any purpose any public purpose

that's fine just got to get the number up we'll be all Get the calculator. Huh? Get the calculator. I know. Uh there and there are no changes that remain to the last page that were suggested by any party. That's just the uh commencement of construction or lapse provision which is taken from the rule and um that's it. So

Mr. chairman. Um if you take the same prorated per unit um figure as uh say Grove Street which was 750K [snorts] um that's 2272 per unit. If you apply that to our project at a unit of unit count of 254 that's 577. I'll do better than that and call it 650. How do the members feel about that?

Okay. Any any other suggestions? No, I mean I think I I had said it at the last meeting that um [cough and clears throat] you know it felt like 500,000 for the traffic and 250 for the pump station, but Is the microphone on? I guess we're meeting. Yeah, Peter, you're on. No, no, I'm sorry. I couldn't hear Miss Lang system.

I I I sat back a bit. I was just reiterating I think I had said at the last meeting um the 350 for the traffic felt light, so I was assuming 500,000 for that. And if um Mike Maglo feels that 150 was too light for the potential allowance for the pump station, then if that's 250, that was where my head had been at was this like 750 range. Where are you, AJ? 650. 650. Make it seven even. We'll call it a day. Gosh, you want to add some in? I do, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. We had talked about this possibly the end of October into the early part of November at one of the meetings and it was to do with inspections that um the town would not perform when it came to site inspections out there. I believe Mike Maglo and I have worked with a couple other projects in the past six months and we've come to the realization that pre-construction meetings should be done and at that time there's talk about whether or not the proponent is that those inspections costs are put on him. Now, I know I brought it up and it I got

I think if you ask Mark, he'll tell you that it's already in the decision that we're going to hire we're going to hire a peer review to do uh when they when they they were actually in the old was talking about something that was um you know years ago and I went back into that permanent I actually found it in the old one. But you can bet your bottom dollar it's in this one. Thank you, Mark. I just wanted to make sure it covered. Actually, we already I already signed a deal with with Joe and we already got the money from Grove Street. So, I don't think there's any dispute up there. Okay. Just making sure it's Mr. Chairman, we'll re we can revise it and it'll apply to condition 13. The difference

to be what? 732. No, what you said 700. Think you can live with that, Mike? M again, Mr. Chairman. I know. You don't know. It's the unknown. And I know you spent they spent all the money a few years ago when they put the bigger pipe in. So they can pump anything through. Don't forget they were pumping through what? 4 in line before. It was an old cast iron line that was there now. 8 in 12 in. I don't know. I think it's an 8 in. Uh 8 in. I I think it's six or eight. But it's it the pipe itself is not the concern. It's the pump station itself. The pumps and the But they upgraded the pump station this time too or before that. I think it's just a really small area that's real bad access. They didn't want to donate. They want to donate. Yeah. Can you put it on the mud flats down by the river down there?

If we had the room, if we had a piece of property, have a place to put a new one when we'd be we'd love to do that. Well, yeah. These are going to be small people that might bison drive one car. Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, all right. I need to be I want to be absolutely clear where we're going here. So, take me by the hand. Tell me what I'm shaming. Uh the total mitigation $750,000. So number 13 should should be changed. Go ahead. The difference between whatever is currently contemplated um and 700,000

almost and uh paid at at condition 13. And should I leave condition seven the way it is with the 150 or should I change that and split the difference? What do you The total is not to exceed 700,000. Okay. I I I heard 750 and I now I'm hearing 700. You're at 750 for me. This is why I'm still here. Yeah. Come on, AJ. It's Christmas. I can't. Town needs the money.

I That's I'm giving already more per unit than than any other project that I mean to make the math easy if it stays 732 that's the study and then you got 150 and 550 yeah 15 so that adds up to Mr. Chairman, you proposed 700. I accepted it. I know, but I changed [laughter] after hearing all the compelling reasons why should we should get more. You know, I mean, listen, the longer you [clears throat] wait, the more it's costing you and I, you know, we got Mark here, but you don't forget you're paying both attorneys. you know,

well, the record does indicate just as a reminder, and Joe Bizno, if if he's okay with it, can chime in, that, you know, it's basically related to the holding tank, and there may be some things related to getting the holding tank connected to the pump station, but the likelihood of something so major is number one, very small, and number two, if it gets into something um that uh [clears throat] is partially an existing condition, you know, I don't want to get legalistic, but you know, the 40B law, the town needs to have a, you know, topographical or or very serious uh physical situation that makes the repair very costly. So, you know, I don't think those conditions would apply. The circumstances would apply and you're getting a big w of money no matter what it is. So that you know you they couldn't even claim um if we needed to appeal this you know that that you don't have enough money. It it just wouldn't comport with the regulation. So um I respect the you know the uh the desire to get you know as much money as you can but I think with what uh AG has done under all of the known circumstances that that's very very reasonable.

Yeah. Pet you don't have to tell me. I don't wait. So, I'm I am a certified mediator. I I want to let you know. So, here's my mediation idea. See, why don't we just say like Janelle's idea, why don't we just say 32 stays as is, 150 stays as is for the sewer and 550 for the condition. What is it? 13. Um, so what's that? The timing of the payments. So, the total of the payments would be 732. There you go. There's a deal again. He's got to get his calculator out one more time.

And this does not include payments to the abuter for landscaping because that's a side deal. He's that's a separate deal he's making on his own. Is that correct? Correct. It's kind of clumsy to put that in a permit because it's not, you know, truly a benefit that occurs to the larger public. It's more of a private consideration. Typically, a butters get what they want. Well, Peter knows how they get it and I'll leave it unsaid. So, so 7:32 a.m. Yeah.

However you guys want to condition it. Okay. You got that, Mark? I want to hear AJ say that he's okay with it. He's texting me. Texting me. Can it come out of his legal fee? Guess what my answer was? Look at all the money you saved your home today. You said you were driving up and getting up. Yeah, you you owe me one, Peter. Give me a big discount on the bill for that. I got a feeling he might be representing you in the future. We probably won't charge you for dinner.

Yeah, we got someone else for that. Good. Mark's going to hear you say it. JJ Cal wants to go home. Not going to get a meal out of here tonight unless it's at McDonald's.

Well, have you ever had so much fun before? [sighs] texting or adding on the ad machine.

All right, I'm just on Instagram. No, I'm just kidding. [laughter] I was getting a clip. What are we talking? [clears throat] Oh, nothing. AJ's still playing with his phone over there. I just texted you again with AJ. So, Peter, you're not you're not texting the right AJ. It's Peter. My phone's been totally wacky. It's It's showing my name. No, seriously. Is it showing your name? You get this one? No.

Yes. All right. Yes. Yes. I agree. Mark agrees. Mark, thank you, AJ. Thank you, Peter. Uh, I think this has been a good solution. And on we go. Yeah. I will have something back early next week after Peter gets a chance to look at it. and uh we'll release it for filing with the town clerk. How would you like me to prepare the signature page? Just the chairman or all of the voting members? Mark, we haven't uh we haven't voted on it yet. Yeah, I haven't I I don't know how to prepare the signature page. So, tell me, however it turns out, are you signing alone or is everybody signing? No, everybody. You can have at least two people sign.

My understanding is at least two. So, the motion Okay. You and I talked about the form of the motion. Bruce, you think you got it down? No, I didn't write it down. Just state a motion. No, but yeah. So, the it would be uh to approve the draft as prepared subject to the conditions that were added or amended this evening. That it move the way I would do it. So move. Seconded.

Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Been a long time, AJ. Glad we uh couldn't see some light at the end of the tunnel here. One way or the other, and I couldn't want to guess to tell you how it would go, but can [snorts] can I just say a couple things?

Sure. So, this is um I feel that I just want I know it's a long it's late, but this has been a messy process from my perspective. I know this is my first 40B going through this. Um so, I'm looking forward to working with the town and improving it from our side. Um I know there's been a lot of town opposition to this project. and appreciate the applicant's attempts at addressing some of it, if not if not all of it. [snorts] Um, and that the reasons why I've been trying to make this project a win-win for the town despite the opposition is things like I've heard that this development won't bring in as much revenue as a condo development, and that's true, but it will bring in more revenue than a vacant lot. Um, I've heard that the only types of housing um that brings value to this town is families and single family homes. And I disagree with that. There are grad students. There are um temp workers. There there are people that maybe want to live in Franklin but aren't sure and want to rent for a period of time before they buy here. Um there are divorced families and I I know multiple people in Franklin that have to rent in Bellingham because they want to stay close to the other part of their family. Um and there's more rental housing there. Um,

and I've heard that this will kill the character of our town. And I think what's been presented is um, a nicel lookinging project um, different from other recent developments. And if people really care about the character of our town, it's not to say absolutely no development, absolutely no growth. It's to write to the town council and say, um, let's revise our design standards. Let's empower the design review commission. Let's, um, take care of our town. So, I want to say all that before we finalize the vote.

That's fine. A, you got anything you want to say?

All right. I just, you know, I mean, so Bruce and I've been doing this for quite some time. I've been sitting here and we've been fighting these 40bs for the last for me it's been 20 years. Um we're at we're at our 10%. And we fought hard to get there and we did a lot of negotiating. Gus was involved with all this from step one as well. And I I I want to stay steadfast and say that we hit our mark and hold it there. I really don't feel comfortable adding this to the to the market. I I mean I have some thoughts about the location and whatnot, but really for me it's it's that we're out we're at our 10% and I can't see myself voting for it. I think we're at 10.8 at this point.

Well, she's been here 20 years. I've been here 30 years. I've been involved with most of the 40bs in the last 30 years. U you know Janelle doesn't like the process. I don't think anybody likes the process. The process on this particular unit with this particular project was under the disguise of a friendly 40B which I don't think there are any friendly 40bs almost never. You know the applicants come in they they propose what they want to propose. There's nothing we can do. And they all come in on a piece of land. You know the last one we did on Grove Street was on 32 acres of industrial property. Everybody said oh industrial property. Why can't we build industrial buildings up there? because there was a couple little strips of wetlands that ran through it that didn't make it viable to put a 400,000 square foot warehouse or anything up like that. That land has to sell for over 20 years at a reasonable price.

[clears throat]

Somebody made some money, they bought the land, and then all of a sudden, here comes the friendly 40B process, which I got to point out, the town turned that one down. And that was the that was the easiest 40B that we've ever had, you know, as far as Archie and I are concerned because there was there was no about us. We didn't have one about a complaint. We had a couple of people complain a little bit about this and about that, but there was no about butter complaints because it was on that piece of land. This is the same thing. Listen, Mr. stole. But I went I went to school with Mr. Stow. He's had that property. He's he's worked that property all these years. It was first as I don't know if his grandfather started or his father, but his father uh raised shrubs out in the back there because the ground's wet. It's zone commercial, too, but I don't think it could ever be developed as a commercial two property because of the environmental concerns that were there. Now, the first thing I asked Mr. Penzola when we were doing this I said how are they going to get by the the wetlands issues the stream issues in in a damn river running right through the middle of it he says listen it can be done under the wetlands protection act that can be done you know I'm I'm going by what I hear around town all you can't build within 100 feet of this you can't build within 50 feet of this you got to do this you got to do this you got to do this if that's the case that piece would never be built now I'm sure the abutters that live there I mean they ended up listen when they moved there you think I was happy that they moved there. My kids used to ride their four-wheelers over at Cooks Farm. You know, I could go right from my house right over to there without any problem through the woods, you know, and uh you know, and go around the golf course and get there no problem. But, you know, development happens, things happen. Those it's a beautiful subdivision in there. You know, I can understand why the people are mad, but you know, it's just unfortunate. Now, we'll see where this goes from here after the vote, but uh you [snorts] know, I just uh it's always we've never had so many people come up and complain about a 40B. We've had some little local ones that you

know, neighbors would complain and you know, not in my backyard. Well, we're all for affordable housing, but we don't want it here, you know, and I and if it wasn't a word of affordable housing, it was just an apartment complex. Maybe it would have been different. I don't know, you You know, and if you could have done something with condos, because that's the thing now, condos bringing more taxes and everything else. We got one other 40 friendly bee that was going through the town. I don't know where it stands now whether they got a letter or not on eligibility letter, but [cough] I don't know what's going to go on with that because I think Jamie sorry that he set up the friendly 40b thing, you know, because like Archie said, we got the 10%, we figured they were all set. People wanted to come in. Well, we're going to set up a friendly 4B process so everybody gets to know what's going on. Well, everybody everybody in this partic, you know, there's a lot of people that are against this, but there's only certain people that show up the meetings, you know, and the people that live there because I can understand that. I don't have any qualms with that. They can say whatever they want, you know. I don't have any problem with that because they live there. But to think that somebody else who's lived there all his life also can't keep his we kept it all this time for retirement. You know, now is his time to retire even though AJ's underpaying him. you know, but it it it'll come around. So, but anyway, with all that being said, it was a pleasure. You know, things have gone so far that uh I hope everything works out for you and and whatever. We'll see where it goes from there. [snorts]

Just Yeah. On on the butters, it's been it's been a process.

Yeah. and appreciate all the effort that's gone in because I I think because of their thoughtful involvement um that this this buffer um this landscaping the changes that were made they it's a beautiful neighborhood they live in and so hopefully there isn't an impact uh for them visibly and you know there would be a construction impact But in the long term, um, in terms of home value and the like, the intent is that we mitigated that.

With all with everything being said, uh, I'll entertain a motion for I'll entertain. Oh, we got a motion. We The discussion is over. I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of, uh, signify I. I. I. All those opposed? No. No. Two to one. Uh, motion passes. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Good night, Mr.

Good night. Merry Christmas. Guess he's leaving with his shirt. We left the shirt with him. [laughter] That was brutal. I can't I can't afford Carlton anymore. So, you can have him. That's all right. I can't quit anyway. [laughter] Maybe you can find some new We need to We need to Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn. Yeah. Have a couple things. Oh, okay.

The guy calls for ductile iron piping for your serum. It's not required, so you can have them. Yeah. There you go. Mr. Chairman, let down. We need to fund the account for this project. You need more money out. Yes, we do. All right. Can we get them an accounting? We won't know until the bills come in. We are down to $700 now. Really? And I told you it's showing up money. Not including today and probably a little bit further back as well. So yeah, I I don't have an idea what that's going to cover now. So I I wouldn't want to tell him 10. He's got to come up with 15. So I think uh when we get an accounting, we'll let you know.

Okay. Before we sign the decision, I guess we won't know anyway because Mark's late getting his bills out. So I'm sure there's a condition in there that you got to pay all the outstanding charges before you start construction. So yeah, I think there is something like that in there. But I Peter and Mark will have to check on legal fees because I don't know what 4B says about that. Yeah, I don't know. I It's got nothing to do with me. Yeah, I I Me neither. It's whatever the right. I just make the deal with the consultants and you know, they just do their magic and that's it. You know, I mean Joe is an excellent guy, the engineer. He was He wouldn't have got that duck line piping wrong.

He was an absolute pleasure to work with. Your entire team was and you guys as a board were too. So, thank you very much. All right. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas. Thank you very much. Like to make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion made and we're not closing a public hearing. No, we're not. Well, yeah, we're closing the meeting. We're closing the meeting. Journ the meeting. I'll I'll second adjourning the meeting. Motion made and seconded. Non-debatable. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Hollows a boat.