Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

that we can hear and Mr. McCusker and he can hear us. Um, so good evening. It's 7:07 p.m. This open meeting of the Grafton zoning board of appeals is being conducted both remotely and in person consisting of the temporary provisions of the open meeting law which extends remote meeting protocols through March 31st, 2027. This meeting is convening via Zoom video conference and in person as posted on the meeting agenda which can be found on the town of Grafton website. Please see the meeting agenda for details on how to participate remotely. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. All participation within this meeting will be visible to others. Please be aware that if you share your screen, it may be recorded and broadcast later. This meeting may feature public comment. Anyone that's attending virtually, if you'd like to request acknowledgement to speak, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom and the meeting administrator will enable you to speak when it's your turn. For those on the phone exclusively, the meeting administrator will enable you to speak. For those in person, we ask you to step up to the podium to speak. And all speakers, please state your name and address prior to your comments or questions. And all votes taken in this meeting will be done by a roll call vote. Uh so with that, I guess I'll turn it over to the applicant. Um we did um Yeah. Yep. I should know this by now. Thanks for It's only been 30 something years. Um, for the record, John Grineer

on this project. I'm going to retire on this one. Yeah, for the record, John Grineier, JM Granny Associates, Steve Benosa.

Um, so we did receive um the the draft. Um we uh our attorney who will be here shortly um we went through a few items actually this afternoon um on some of the some of the items that were listed in the uh in the decision. Um additionally we did provide that option that option C for the profile for the uh for the roadway for Snow Road. Um I know that um I confirmed with Jeff and I uh forwarded that along to him I think the end of the last week. End of last week.

Yeah.

Um so he could review that obviously as well. Um the one item that um I discussed briefly with Jeff is that when again what we looked at was reducing the slope for the the two turning lanes that head south to drop that slope by about a percent. I think instead of 10% we're at 8.9%. um which as we discussed that pulls that pulls the amount of cut and the amount of work further north along Snow Road. But in addition to that for the existing I'll call it the existing although it's getting realigned is that one single lane that comes from 122 heading north. When you drop the other two lanes down that means you have to drop the northbound lane down too so it can merge in. and that merges in further down which creates additional a drop in one area by about like two feet along that um along that slope. So that requires additional work outside the right of way. Um I did have

along the existing sidewalk, right? Yeah. Along Yeah. From about where that existing concrete sidewalk is and then heading further north. So there's a two-ft drop where the existing sidewalk is on the Maxwell Street side of the property on the other side. On the other side. On the stop and shop side. On your side.

On our side. Um, I did touch base with the owner of the Stop and Shop Plaza, um, regarding the ability to, um, do some get get some easements from him, um, either for reconstructing a sidewalk or for adding additional walkway around the top of his property, which will go around the back of the two houses that are on Snow Road. So it would give us direct access from on property to that sidewalk. It's physically possible to do that.

So how the conversation went was um he said he didn't really see one he didn't want the liability of having an easement. He didn't really see that it was going to be beneficial um for really either of us because I don't see in his words he said I don't see people taking pull carts and going down to stop and shop and doing their shopping down there. you know, if if they might walk down there and get a pack of gum at CVS, but nobody's going to be walking down a long distance down there to do any any type of substantial grocery shopping or or whatever down there. So, he didn't see the the benefit um the the negatives outweigh the positives. and and I in anticipation of what he might say about liability, I checked with my insurance agent before I even talked to him and he said that our insurance on our project would cover that. There's no liability to his side, but he really was whether he wasn't acknowledging it or didn't believe it, he he just said, "Yeah, well, that's not going to work for me." Um, and he he didn't, like John said, he he didn't see the benefit of uh of that access to his plaza that he said nobody's going to carry groceries up that sidewalk and around. He said uh so

he wasn't interested in. So, just to give you a just kind of give you an overview. So, we um we provided all the information. And I know Jeff can probably speak to what his his analysis of it was, but I wanted to give you the overall picture of what our discussions were and in trying to make sure that we can we could physically do it because we would need um we would need some easements from him. And on top of that too, number six and number eight snow road where that retaining wall is um we would still in front of their retaining wall with the extension would the grade would drop by about a foot in front of those which again their existing wall is within

three feet. No, it's like within a foot. I think we have to three in that's within six inches of the right away. Um, so that would drop the grade in front of that by a foot, which could, you know, it's not going to be good for the for the stability of that. So, I just wanted to throw that out, I'm sure. Um, do we want to discuss this now? And another thing I just want to say about that 8 point 8.9 versus 10% is not going to be noticed in the field. If you're driving up that roadway there and and and one road is 8.9 and one is 10%

for a length of no for 100 feet, no one will ever if it's if it's a quarter mile or half a mile, you're going you're you'll notice it. But at 100 ft, no one would even notice it. I think the 8.9 sounds good u versus 10, it's got a good ring to it, but in practicality, we're gaining nothing on that. We're gaining nothing. So I would like to say that we could hopefully we can move on from that for multiple reasons.

So the in front of the house where the retaining wall is, I thought we discussed shifting the roadway more towards the um housing authority. If again if we did that um we would still need to move all the poles the ex the existing sidewalk on that side and move everything over in addition to the grade dropping.

So right now those poles are all in a line. We go move two of those poles, three of those poles. How's that going to work with, you know, that they be adding guide wires on? I don't know how that would even work. I don't want to really speak to it, but I don't really know how that would work. And then where do you stop? You shift it over, you're going to have a a a kind of a an a a slight turn in the road. Everything right now, it's a straightway. It's a straightaway.

Very straight. If you shift it over, say you shift it over three or four feet, say for a sidewalk, you shift it over uh you know, four to five feet, that road is a straightaway, you're going to where do you where do you make it up? It just doesn't from a practical point. I don't I don't see it making sense. Um you made it. So I I thought we had a long conversation about this last time and It was about the feasibility of it and it was

it says what would the Yeah. What would that do to the grades if we dropped that if we went what would it do to the grading along that corridor? That's what we said if we drop it down from 10% to 8.9%. What does that do to the grading? How does that work with the grades and the offgrading? Do we catch up? Does it work? And well, I think we're mixing two different things, though. One is shifting the roadway and I I thought it was shifting it by a foot or something like that because it's already three feet on that side.

Well, you need curb plus off grade. You'd probably be close to five. Brian, is your question about how much they would have to shift the road to the west to accommodate the sidewalks on the east side? So, I think Jeff can probably speak to that because and I were out there in the field and Jeff did some some calculations.

Yeah, if if the grades weren't going to change, they might have to shift by about a foot, maybe two feet if I remember right. For the record, Jeff Walsh from Graves Engineering. Um, if there's going to be a lowering of the road, you need the two foot for the horizontal to begin with, plus whatever you need to make up a slope from the base of the retaining wall on number six or number eight down to the road, the shoulder where the sidewalk would be. So, typically that's about a two horizontal to one vertical slope at the steepest. So if you drop it down a foot, that means two horizontal feet plus the two feet to shift everything over. It's all the that's we're probably starting at about four foot shift. If this to make horizontal room for the sidewalk plus lower the road

and and it is is their assumption correct about the need to to lower the the grade of the road to accommodate this this option C that we've talked about? Well, this option C and the plans that John um sent over and and I know uh Katrina circulated them um recently. Um these show two profiles. The one profile we've always been working with is um the southbound lane, if you will, the approach to Worcester uh yeah, Worcester Street.

And um and what John added to the plans is it the there's two sheet set. It continues to show that profile. That profile was up updated to show the 8.9% that I had drawn by hand and presented to the board a few meetings ago. And the second sheet has a profile of the northbound lane. So, as you depart Worcester Street and climb the hill,

and that opened up my eyes, the light bulb went off, if you will, that working just with the with the uh southbound approach, it looked good, but we were away from any other physical obstacles besides the housing authority property. But what I saw on the latest plan is that the sidewalk on the east side, the stop and chop side of the snow road is partly on the private property of the stop and shop folks or whatever whoever owns that property.

And the intersection um that that road to use the 8.9% maximum grade that road needs to be droed about 2 feet where the sidewalk is. So in theory, the sidewalk's going to come down two feet. And because the sidewalk's mostly on that private property, that's where the sidewalk either becomes a fixed object and it can't be touched if in fact the desire of the landowner at Stop and Shop says no, you can't touch it. And that's if that's in fact the way it plays out or the sidewalks got to go down whatever whatever um vertical distance the road goes down so that you continue to have the same reveal from the sidewalk surface down to the road surface of about six six to seven inches. So, so you concur with John's analysis that the road does need to be sunk uh or cut that grade needs to be cut in order to accommodate this this option C that that we've asked for. The northbound lane would have to be cut 2 feet about where it intersects um the southbound travel lanes in order to make it work at 8.9%. I like the vertical alignment and all that, but it does require to make that work. It does require work onto that private property.

And that's that's where it becomes a sticking point. As far as I understand, it goes beyond engineering to put work on the private property. And it sounds like it would probably make the sidewalk on the east side of Snow Road just unfeasible because you'd need another two feet on top of the foot that you had to that we had to push this road over anyway. Right. Right. Okay. To try to shift the road more so to the housing authority property. There's pluses and minuses, but in the long run, I think the minuses weigh out.

So then it comes down to, Mr. Chairman, I think basically we're weighing the cost and benefits of both options, right? So, this option C gives us a slightly more softer grade approaching Worcester Street, but the trade-off is is that there's going to be more cuts and we make it much more difficult to accommodate sidewalks. So,

and I I do appreciate Steve Venas's point about a horizontal short horizontal run 8.9 versus 10%. It's not a big difference in vertical rise because it's only, you know, 100 feet or so. My desire would be have even less than 8.9%, but but nevertheless, that's we're fighting 8.9% let alone um grades that are even less than that. Um I did using what John Grenia sent along, I did look at a couple of points to try to see if it could be made uh to work. And that's at the bottom of the vert of Worcester Street. There's a vertical curve that that takes away the sharpness, if you will, of the snow road approach to Worcester Street. So I help I use that type of vertical curve. It's called a SAG vertical curve because shaped like that. And at station John 1 + 50, which is about at the intersection or close to the sewer manhole, uh just left of the sewer manhole there at Maxwell Drive. Mhm.

Um, actually it's where the where the where Worcester Street gets I don't want to call it the narrowest, but right below the right below the where the hand is now. Katrina, if you could go to the building and go straight down till you get to the street. No, no, I'm sorry. The other street. Snow road. Yep. Right there.

Right about there. I looked at, okay, let's try to tie the um improvements into that point right there and keep everything to the north untouched to see if it would work out and can we get somewhere near 10%. And very importantly, using the vertical curves that are already shown on the plan to work out. The SAG vertical curve is less than you would really like, but it works. it approp it it's better than what's there. It accommodates the firefighting apparatus comfortably. And the crest vertical curve which they tie into as you come up steeper and then flatten out a little bit. That's got a rate of change of it's it's a K value in the K of 19. That's the least you want to use for 30 mph design speed. Some people might go you know the 85th percentile which is something you normally use would be probably a little bit higher but nevertheless approaching the intersection. So speed should be coming down. Wanted to use that as a basis. And even to try to start with a green arrow and work the vertical alignment toward Worcester Street and start at the vertical curve at Worcester Street and work it up. I got a two-ft bust. I I try to make 10% work and it would take a 20% grade for about 50 feet to make it work. That's so half of that 10. It's a two- foot bus. It just doesn't work. Um, if the sidewalk can come down, could get the 8.9%. Is it going to make a big difference? Functionally, probably not. I really like the vertical curve at the bottom of the of of the hill at Worcester Street. That's better than what's the abrupt change in grade that's there. Um, that is that to me is is very very good. Uh, the 10% it's not so desirable, but it's for very short speed, short distance. So, so the prior version that that the applicant had proposed before was I don't know if we called it option B or A.

I think it was A. A. So, that had at most a 10% grade, but that was only for a segment of the approach to Worcester Street. That's right. And the leveling area in front of Worester Street. So, so the what is it? 100 feet, 200 feet that's closest to Worcester Street, that grade is is more gentle.

There's a little bit of that vertical curve. Yeah. And um I meant to open up option A and option B before I came here and I didn't. But I think what this exercise with option C um what I've learned from it is would be nice but it involves another private land owner and the headaches that go along with that if he doesn't want to doesn't want to you know make improvements for the neighborhood and more worried about selling groceries than anything else. But um you know I'm a little disappointed in that but nevertheless I think the uh you know I think the 10% grade and and I I'd like to ask John Grineier is it option A or option B that has some type of vertical curve at the bottom. I don't remember.

Option B was the one where we said if we went by subdivision standards we went down and we were okay that was the Callahan tunnel. I'd call it the big dig. Yeah. No, no, understood. It was A. Okay. It was option A. Yep. So, this exercise with option C as well as the sound of good, there was that one variable and that's why I'd recommended vetted out because there might be something that crops up and that's what we got here. Something cropped up that that fixed object on the other side of the street, which is a sidewalk on the woody side of the street. Mhm. So, bringing it back to option A versus keeping the 60° angle with the two turning lanes.

Personally, I like option A better than than keeping the 60 degree angles with two lanes out. And just so if I could, Mr. Chairman, just ask a followup to John. um your conversation with Stop and Shop or or um maybe this was to Steve, but you you said that the Stop and Shop owner didn't want to he accommodate a sidewalk shift. He didn't want to accommodate any easements onto his onto his property.

But this would this require an easement because we're just we're just talking about lowering the existing sidewalk. It would it would span from a good portion of that sidewalk is on his property and then even beyond that it extends it it extends up further onto his property. But it's already there. So it's not like we're asking for more sidewalk. We're just basically changing the grade on his property to work on it. Right. That's exactly right. So it would be an ement and he's not willing to give you that right. What we got hit is such situations that stop Can you actually go to the microphone?

I appreciate your desire to create these but we we have stop and shop who does not want to cooperate with us and give us easements in any kind. We have a butterers that are unwilling because we did reach out notifiably but are not interested in sidewalk and the proponent ourselves feel like it's limited value to add to the project that it's not worth fighting for. So I I understand you're idealistically you're not you're correct in what what you want the sidewalk on that side of the street. We're getting no cooperation from any of us. I was only talking about this the existing sidewalk. It's on private property. Yeah. And and so the stop and shop owner is not willing to to allow you to work in that area,

right? Yes. Okay. And I might add that if if the sidewalk's going to be lowered, there would have to be some grading on outside the sidewalk on the stop and chop side to slope back up to existing grade.

Right. And just to kind of close the loop, um, and I I think I said this at at the previous hearing, is that, um, the the sidewalk that exists on the housing authority over on the Maxwell Drive side, um, that doesn't meet any type of codes in terms of widths. There's handicap ramps that are missing. There's no crosswalks. There's it's it's um PRA from practical anybody who would need um whether it's a walker or a a wheelchair that sidewalk does not function. Um, so we are committed to making improvements to the existing sidewalk, widening it, doing a new sidewalk, doing handicap ramps, um, doing everything to bring that up to bring that up to code so that it's functional. And um the people from what I understand from our meetings with the housing authority is the the residents there tend to be the more elderly um residents that are that are part of their their um housing program. So um they would get the best benefit out of having a proper up to up to-date up to code um sidewalk side of the road. Brian has his hand.

Yeah. Uh, Bill.

Yeah. So, um, it just seems like we're spending a lot of time for something that's not a whole lot of gain. Um, you know, if if I if I understand correctly, really the only gain is just uh almost imperceptible improvement in in in the um in the slope of of you know, this section of road. I mean, I I just am not sure what we're trying to accomplish here at this point. Um, you know, the applicant looked at it, which is what we asked them to do. um they've come up with some some very real problems particularly with private property. You know, it just seems like we ought to maybe try to move on. Unless I'm missing something. I'm just, you know, maybe I'm missing, you know, where where a benefit is, but it just seems like almost a negligible benefit. Uh to Bill McCusker's point, I I don't have any other ideas about how to improve what's been put before the board with respect to option A.

Okay.

All right. Um any other comments or questions on this specifically? All right. So, is the board okay with option A then moving forward? Um, yeah. I mean, I'm based on, you know, Jeff's recommendation, you know, I'm I'm comfortable with that. And I guess the only other qu outstanding question then is do you want the applicant to shift the travel lanes to the west by a foot or two to accommodate a sidewalk on the east side of Snow Road that's within the right of way?

No. Didn't we establish it be we're talking about four feet. So there three feet in the rightway. No. talking about a 5ft sidewalk plus 2 feet to handle the grade to get up to um to get up to the wall. No, that's that was under sea. No, it it was the same. I don't want to speak for it. If it was shifting this to to create room for the sidewalk and lowering the road, we're up in the 4ft ballpark for shift the amount of the west side of the sidewalk that would have to be shifted. We're up in around four feet. So, we'd just be talking about two plus the three foot right away.

I think I think we're down around the one or two foot area if the road were to be shifted. Um I think this the grass area was around 3 ft. Um could probably get want to have at least a 4ft sidewalk, ideally a 5ft sidewalk, but even at a 4ft sidewalk, probably going to need more than four feet of shift on the opposite side. Um the curb to curb I think it's around 19 to 20 feet. So you can't skinny the road up anymore. So that means if if you got three feet and you really need about four and a half to five and a half to make the sidewalk and curbing work on one side,

you're going to need probably a couple foot a couple feet on the other side worth of shift to make it work. And that and to do that would require probably moving at least one utility pole. probably a couple at least a couple I think and then reconstructing the sidewalk on on the m on the housing authority side which they were going to do anyway but that that's part of that that would be part of that project. That's right. So the question is is it worth does the board want to ask the applicant to do that amount of work in addition to what they're already proposing under option A. So just for the record Dan John and I had a conversation with the about that sidewalk. He's adamantly opposed to the sidewalk in front of his house.

Okay, we're not talking about taking his property. We're talking about doing the sidewalk right. He's adamantly opposed to the sidewalk in front of his property. Why does it matter? Cuz he doesn't want people parking there. Parking on a sidewalk. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's an enforcement issue. That's not That's what he said. I don't think this board is going to be driven by what one of Butter who I don't think has ever shown up to a meeting. We're going to put it right in front of his house. It's a sidewalk. Doesn't it matter what he thinks? doesn't preclude his appeal right either whether he showed up or not. Um he doesn't want it. I Yeah,

with all due respect, I don't think one a butter controls the public safety concerns of a project. So that that's one piece of evidence the board can take into account, but one a butter's concern is not going to trump a public safety concern. and and especially for something that would be I think an illegal parking. Yeah. So I don't know that that that his concern is if that is his concern. I'm not sure that that is a real concern I guess.

Um per personally I would like to see that sidewalk if we're going to have this development. That would be my preference as well for the fact of just two poles. And I know it might take a while to move those poles, but talking about pushing the sidewalk over into the right. It just seems crazy for anybody that wants to walk down a CVS or whatever that they have to cross the street twice to They would still have to They would still have to cross Snow Road.

Yeah. There'll be a gap. There'll be a gap in in any sidewalk on that side. We would We'll have We have sidewalk in front of our project. Then you're talking about pushing the road over. So we have sidewalk in front of number six and number eight. Right. Right. So then they would have to cross over um at kind of at the rounding of Maxwell Drive on the north side. go across Maxwell Drive, go down the sidewalk on on in front of the housing authority, and then cross back over parallel to 122. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about extending the existing sidewalk in front of 6 and 8 to your property. There is no sidewalk in front of six and eight.

Exactly. That's what we're talking about is But then we So just for that section, right? adding a sidewalk in the right ofway in in front of six and eight to connect to the existing sidewalk that's on the east side of Snow Road. No, there's a gap there. It's connect. It won't connect. Where's the gap? The gap is is on the uh housing authorities. I mean, I'm I'm sorry, on the stop and shops on Country Plaza's property. There's a gap there. sidewalk

and and from what I could tell Jason Panos for the record practice 46 Anders o Andover street puberty Massachusetts um the the sideway picks uh sidewalk picks up on the private property so there's there's a gap there's a gap and then it picks up on private I I I understand what you're saying is is that it's but we're we're saying it would be in the public way not on their property. The current sidewalk is on private property. So, you'd need like some sort of like S. It straddles put it back into the It actually straddles the property line. Can you actually pull that up? Which one do you want? No, their survey plan their survey. Yep.

I just circled it. Oh, you did. They did a survey that shows where the sidewalk is the property line. Bill, do you want to jump in while we're pulling that up? We did or they did? Um, yeah. Let me lower my hand. I'm gonna let this play out a little bit more. Do you want to make

So, John, I you have you're showing the sidewalk on Country Plaza. That sidewalk ends at the property line. Oh, no, it doesn't. It ends It's still on Country Plaza's property. It still is on Country. Correct. That's what I was. So to do this, you'd have to have the sidewalk in the right of way, which we've talked about, and then it would align up with zigzag over. Wouldn't zigzag. It would just line up with the sidewalk that's existing.

It wouldn't it wouldn't be perfect like this. It would be like this. you would from where they where their sidewalk ends. It's it's at the on the north side. That's totally within their property where it ends, right?

So then to have a sidewalk within the right of way to join into that, it would you'd have to you'd have a 4 foot step in the sidewalk. as I see it to that at the end of the sidewalk that's it's across from Maxwell Drive. The sidewalk is almost entirely on private property. If you had a 4ft sidewalk and this is the right of way up here, they'd have to start another sidewalk like this. Right. So to Brian's question earlier, it's a we're looking at about a 4ft shift

in the road over to Maxwell Drive side to accommodate the sidewalk. Not because of the properties at 6 and 8 and the three-foot grass strip, but because of the property at um Grafton Country Plaza and the fact that the sidewalk is almost entirely on their property. That that's what I'm seeing from these plans. Um, if I remember right, that sidewalk does go up um the east side of Snow Road and there is a crosswalk that brings you over to the southern um intersection of Maxwell Drive, the the southern leg of Maxwell Drive. Um, so Jeeoff, I want to make sure I understand. So, can you actually zoom in more right here in this? Yeah. So on the on the screen you see the end of the patuna sidewalk

which on this plan shows it to be right at the property line. They both own both parcels. They own both parcels. I meant the the the right of wave line. Okay. Yes. And on this plan, it's the same. It's actually this plan indicates that this that the end of it is actually straddling it. But what whatever it is, I guess my question would be if you've got a three-foot sidewalk that's on the property line that going north to south, could it end where and and meet up like this right where the end of the of the existing sidewalk is? And would that require any more shifting of the roof of the travel lane?

Um, do you understand what I'm saying? Yes, I do. First of all, to to get them to to meet up like this physically, I don't see why it could not be done. In other words, if this is the sidewalk on the private property and here's Snow Road, the new sidewalk starts like that so that it stays in the right of way. Right. It's unusual, but it's physically possible. Yeah. Yeah, it's not ideal, but right we don't have we don't have an easement right to go onto the property. That's right. So that's why you can't butt up to the end of it like that. That would be on private property.

So first of all, it could physically be done. It would probably take about a four to five foot shift in the road. No less than four, probably closer to five, five and a half ft shift in the road. Shift in the curb line to make this all play out. Um, I'm seeing curb that is essentially along the right ofway sideline. Oh, I see. So, so it's it's narrower there than it was upper. That's right. That's right. You don't we don't have the luxury of that three-foot strip, if you will. Yep. Between the curb and the base. So, so in this location, it would have to shift over, but and that and shifting it over is actually where the Maxwell Drive intersection is. That's correct.

Okay. So, is that feasible or not? I mean, they're going to be They're not going to be working in that area, right? Option A right now would would uh not be working in that area. Option A would probably end about where we see the crosswalk on the screen right now. Give or take a little bit. Either up the street or down the street a little bit, but not not by more than 10 or 20 feet. Well, they are they are proposing a new um entrance. What do you call that? The radius when it goes into Maxwell Drive. They're creating that, right?

Uh it's there. They're improving it. They're uh defining it better and they're providing uh accessible uh curb cuts for uh accessibility that there's there's maybe one curb cut here and there's not a reciprocal curb cut on the other side. uh if there's even one here and the reciprocal being like if you were to if you were walking up the sheet of paper here as you cross Maxwell Drive even if there's a curb cut on this side now there certainly isn't on the other side that I recall clearly so they're making improvements to the sidewalk system at this intersection regardless right

so I guess the million-dollar question is what how how much work and how burdensome is this to just so the board can make an educated decision ision like how much how much of a burden would it be to do what I' I've suggested?

Um it it's a pretty significant shift because of the fact that utility poles are being affected. They're going to they're in the sidewalk maybe a foot off the road. So they're going to have to get shift four to five feet. Um there is whenever they're not straight in line, they need if if there's an angle in the wires, they need a guy. I'm not sure if there's like a minimum deflection angle that they can have with overhead wires where they don't need a guy. Um but but the shift in the angle of of the wires puts stress, makes Paul want to pull over. So that's why you'll see the um cables on the on the tension side or or the um angled poles on the on the compression side.

And we're talking about poles that are on the on the west side of Snow Road, right? That's correct. So generally speaking, it's pretty significant to shift that road about four or five feet. um if it's not being worked for any other reason. If that section of road's not being worked for any other reason, but it's not four to five feet the entire stretch though, right? It's four to five feet in this location and then That's correct. One or two feet as you go further up. Yep. Okay. And and you'd want to feather it in so that drivers basically don't have to make any abrupt turning movements. Right.

Okay. Do we have enough roadway to do all this? It takes entering onto the housing authority property to make it work. Additionally onto the housing authority by another four or five feet. We have that in terms of setbacks. Cohen, if you're going to talk, you have to come to the mic, please. Okay. Okay. Um the question was whether or not it affects setbacks. I don't believe we're there's any intention to change the right-of-way sideline, but if the right-of-way sideline did get changed, that would play into it.

And I'm that's beyond me as far as what would also play into it. They have existing sidewalks that come from the buildings out too. So then and then I think in some areas there's some steps. So they'd be reworking all of their sidewalks. um you know, moving everything over four to 5 ft and then redoing all their sidewalks too that go from the units out to the out to the road out to the existing narrow sidewalk. That's good. You zoom in. To where? To the Maxwell Drive entrance.

So that's the area Jeeoff we're talking about. If we had to shift the travel lane west by four or five feet, it would go into the Maxwell Drive driveway. Yeah, that's right. Into the sidewalks there. And then that would be that would be more like one or two feet in that area, right? No, it' be four or five feet there. I thought because that's across from six and eight. I thought in front of six and eight, we only needed one or two feet. Um, and would it still be a straightaway? You got to try to feather it in. It just it makes it a little awkward.

And how would it affect, pardon, pardon me, but how would it affect the Maxwell Drive sighteline distances and stopping sight distances and so forth? That's pretty wide open, but just makes everything awkward

for what it's worth. This is inexact on the GIS, but I've got the main building, so that closest point of the corner of the Maxwell Drive building to the right of way, I've got measured as 26 ft. So, if we're going to shorten that to 22 21, I mean, they're already in the front setback, but they'd be we'd be making it worse. Well, that's already being decreased because isn't isn't it? I I thought we're I thought the new leg is going to be it's getting rotated along the talking about the housing authority. The dimensional setback. Brian, you're talking about the building that's closest to Worcester Street.

Yeah. This one. Yeah. So, the corner at the the bottom. Yep. That corner to the right of way. I've got measured as 26 ft to this way. No. So, to Snow Road to the red line. Yep. What about the Yeah. So, aren't they already cutting into that? Yeah. What about the next corner, Brian, to the proposed new leg? Is doesn't that Well, I don't have the new leg on the GIS, but uh but I think with the new drawing, you know, we were talking about just getting easements, I think if we start talking about shifting the whole road 4T in that area, I think you got to talk about shifting the rightway. Um,

well, we already are shifting the rightway, right? With Well, I'm saying the difference between shifting the road and shifting a sidewalk that's going to encroach I I see as two different things, but that's just me.

I mean, the shift in the right of way is way down by Worcester Street. It's nowhere near this. No, it's not. It's It's right in front of that building. the side of it. Can you move over doing this? It's a It's right around here. Yeah. But what does that do for us up there? If if you're able to bring up plan C or even plan A. Um, we can see what appears to be a possible future rightway line. Yep. There it is. There it is. Mhm. Right here. So, that right dash line includes back side of the curb, right? Is that a sidewalk, John? That's a sidewalk.

That's There's the the the thicker line is the is the curb and then we have the sidewalk which is there and then that dash line would be, you know, the modification to the whether it's an easement or a rightway. Is there an existing sidewalk on Wester Street going north? Yes. Yes. Yes. So that's tying into an existing that's tying into that existing correct one. There's a little one right here that goes down like Okay. It goes down to what's the name of the landing, Peter? Tech landing. Tech landing and stops. Yeah.

Yep. Yep. Yeah. And I think that was added with the last DOT work on Worcester Street that occurred just a few years ago. I think they did sidewalks in that area and they extended the sidewalk farther north past uh Snow Road. Yeah. Um I think before Yeah. Before that recent work, Snow Road uh was where the sidewalk terminated, I think. So, Mhm. So, Ebis Landing is not all the way down to Wheeler Road. No. No. Eb Landing is There you go. Yep. Um right right there. Yep. Yep. There you go. Maybe not quite that far. Right about Hey, there's a crosswalk.

That's the end of the sidewalk right there. Yep. Mhm. looks new.

I did reach out, by the way, to the housing authority director. Um, Amanda, is it Amanda? Yes, it's Amanda. Um, I I haven't heard back yet, but um it would be helpful if we could get them engaged in some communications so we can confirm. I don't know if you've talked to her, but uh John has uh did a presentation on the proposed taking for the DOT work. Um that was about two months ago, right? Yeah. And that's when I told we had the conversation. They said their attorney was the EOHLC. Yeah. We said no. So hopefully I can speak to her and maybe convince her to hire a lawyer. Um I'll take care of it. So want to sign a conflict.

So So for now, Mr. Chairman, I think we're presented with this decision to make whether you want to ask the applicant to perform this additional work. Um, understanding that it would require shifting the road four to five feet in in the location of the Maxwell Drive intersection one to two feet. Jeff, is that right? In further down the road. Further away from Worcester Street. No. So, it'd be some additional work that they would have to do in connection with the work they're already doing in Snow Road to to add to be able to add a sidewalk on the east side of Snow Road. Anyone?

Obviously, the applicant doesn't want to do it. I think that's pretty clear. Yeah. So, their position is we don't want to do it. Um, and it would involve more work. It would involve more negotiation with the housing authority. But you can't just change that radius. Anyone have thoughts on that? Yeah, it is getting pretty tight. I got to admit that. Yeah,

we we originally signed up to do an additional lane. Now, since then, we've changed the grade. We've changed the alignment. We've getting easements and now you got a shift in the road, moving poles. We don't even know what the what the what the utility people are going to impose upon us and what it's going to take to do the stand. But I'm sure that if there's anything extra um who's expected to absorb that us, right? Obviously, um we don't even know what it is because right now this is just keeps going further and further and further. So, I think we're we're building a sidewalk that the abutters don't want, proponents don't want. Um, but you want it again. I get it,

Bill. Yeah. I, you know, I just seem like it's it's we're asking a lot here. And, um, you know, they agreed to build a sidewalk um, uh, with the selectman as part of the lip. Um, you know, we we know that the lip said the sidewalkers be where they're proposing to build it. They're proposing to build it. And, you know, yeah, it would be nice if we could put it all on the same side of the street. But, you know, I think we've, you know, it would be permanent. It's just it's it's going to be really expensive to do it. And um I I just it just

I I I'm I'm fine with building a sidewalk on the other side of the street. It's not ideal, but you know, we've done the cards. So, what did we do with Pleasant Street um with like blinking pedestrian crossings? Didn't we have those added? Anyone? Is that just to go over to Christopher Drive? Yeah. Yeah, I believe so. There's a few of them. Oh, I don't I think it maybe one pedestrian crossing and there's a few slow signs and things like that. Is that proposed here? I thought you did. You agree to do that? That was never brought up to my knowledge.

The pedestrian crossing? Yeah, like a flashing light. Oh, like a beacon type thing. I don't think that you haven't you didn't propose that. That was never discussed. Okay. I I think we hadn't gotten that far because we were trying to figure hoping we'd be able to work it so that it would all be on the the same side of the street. Um I mean is this a point if we are moving in that direction with regard to flashing beacon and and maybe a speed sign that type of thing is that something we can table so that we can have an internal discussion? Yeah. rather than take up the board's time with that. Sure. I mean it. Yeah.

Well, I think we first need to understand from the board what their prerogative is and then of course if they want to if they want to stick with the west side then we have to talk to you about mitigation. Of course. So well wait what mitigation? Flashing like a flashing beacon bill. Like if if if sidewalks stay on that side what's that crosswalk going to look like? I know we had a letter from tech, not tech. Tech. Y tech. They did the traffic. Yeah, they did the traffic. So, I'd have to go back and see what they had recommended for that that intersection, that crosswalk. All the more reason why we should table it and get some more background information.

From my point of view, I think it's I would have liked to seen this second sidewalk built all the way up, but I I think it's just getting too complicated to

from an engineering perspective. Um, we've been talking about the off-site improvements for quite a while now. Um, vertical alignment, horizontal alignment, uh, the new layout as far as two lanes, um, getting closer to square with Worcester Street and the sidewalks and and you know, the board's been provided a lot more information than what we originally had when we started going down that avenue of off-site improvements. And from an engineering perspective, I think we've, you know, shaken the tree as much as we can to try to find solutions that would um make it better for the situation out at this intersection and nearby and and for the people who use the intersection and and you know, we've spent quite a bit of time on option C and it was great until we came across that other fixed object that's that's caused us a problem. and and and we clarified to tonight to my knowledge, I didn't even think about it, that strip of Grafton County Plaza land that really has the right of way right up against the curb line. So I I I think the information's been pretty well vetted out from an engineering point.

Mr. here. I I do feel as well, I mean, we all would like for people to be able to leave this complex, this development, and walk down the east side of Snow Road, but it does seem it seems very complicated. And they've done a lot for off-site um improvements on the west side of the road. Um and if if people have to use a crosswalk for those that walk, um a lot of people are still going to get in their car and drive from that development down to the plaza. So, I feel like we have kind of pushed this as far as we can go as well. That's kind of where Yeah, I'm just as well. I just want to

All right. I think we should move on with option A. Okay. So, I think we need to go back and see what Tech had recommended for the crosswalk and I can do that while we Yeah. talk. Okay. And and if I might throw my two cents in as a non-traffic engineer that um with respect to pedestrian crosswalks um I am not a fan of the beacons that flash all the time. I'm a very big fan of the beacons that are actuated when the pedestrians go to use them. Otherwise people get blind to the flashing lights very quickly.

Yeah. And then the other thought is this is snow road is in fact a side street versus uh worester street and people are trying to cross snow road at wor at worester street. Um vehicles approaching on worester street may or may not see the flashing beacons as they turn to get onto snow road if someone's using the crosswalk. So I'm just tech will probably address that. But my point is with respect to people crossing Snow Road, you've got one approach for Snow Road, if you will. People people turning off of Worcester Street taking a left or a right probably won't see the beacons until they've negotiated most of that turn.

You mean like at the Maxwell Drive crossing? Um, no. I was thinking of Worester Street and Snow Road. if it was going to be actuated. I was thinking more where there's no intersection. Well, I guess Maxwell Drive is where I was kind of thinking of the But I like the actuator. Yep. Abs actuated. Absolutely. If you know with his um at at Maxwell Drive and I think is what two crossarks. Yeah. Two crossarss. Yeah. But but the point I want to make is actuated versus flashing all the time. Mhm. And we can we can table this as you know it's a it's a new issue but all right. Um

so are there are there other besides the option C discussion? What else did you guys have uh from an engineering standpoint? I think you were going to talk about a couple of cleanup things or um or programmatically do we want to go how do you want

Well, we we had an accumulation of plan issues uh I think John I'm speaking for you now but jump in uh that once we settled on some of the additions I think one of them was for example uh moving some parking in front of the clubhouse to accommodate for temporary parking of loading and unloading. Uh there were a couple of other uh items that we talked about. I think once we decided on the items, John was just going to put them on a plan and present it to the board rather than do it peace meal. Yeah, I think that's

is that right. Okay. Yeah. And and my rationale behind that is okay, we show you a new layout, which we don't have an issue with making those those delivery spots deeper, but then okay, we'll change we'll change the sidewalk and then that's going to change the landscape and it's going so and yeah before peacemail peacemail peace mail. We'd like to just throw it on one say are you okay with this at the final and be done? That's yeah I I I think that's fine and I think that makes sense. Anyone? No. Opposed to that. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to Did you receive this email from the fire department April 14th? To you guys, the latest comments from No. Mike.

Okay. Just might want to make sure this is on the radar. They had some turning radius issues and questions. Um, I'll get it over to I thought I had sent it. My apologies. No, no, never saw it. Um, so what was that dated? I'm sorry. Department. I'll get it over to you right now. Okay. April 14th.

April 14th. Add that to the list. Okay. Um, so can I just clarify, John? Are you gonna are you going to give us a plan that shows these part these spaces being deeper or Yes, but that's going to be a condition of okay with the final stat give it and then I think what the you had a condition in I think you had a draft condition in there to that effect about the clubhouse. I think so. I'm sure you did. I did. Yeah, I think so.

It was it was uh it was highlighted. It was one of the highlighted items. Dan, I think I have the same question of you as you is. I just want to I'm just trying to understand whether I should expect to receive another set of plans that monuments everything to date like was done about two months ago

or if it's going to be addressed as a condition now expected to be seen on the construction plans that'll be reviewed before the before they go to construction. I' I'd like to walk away from this meeting clearly knowing whether it's I've got to look at plans now later. So I have a programmatic question about that because in the decision you basically have the comprehensive permit plans that are referenced and then you have the so-called approved plans which would follow and then you have the MEP structural building plans. So there are three layers of plans that are contemplated in this uh decision if I read it properly. My personal preference would be to collapse that into two stages. You have your comprehensive permit set. So whether or not you do that approved set with the comprehensive permit,

you can make them too. I mean you can make the second the make the approved plans and the final what you call them the well you have the comprehensive permit plans. Well that's your and then you have those are done. Those those are those those are the existing plans that filed and then you have this concept of approved plans and then you have your building permit set the MEPs the structural the building plans that type of but that those two things can be collapsed together. We don't we don't care about that. Okay, that that'd be great. Yeah, to do it that way. Um I'm just trying to eliminate there's only one plan submitt to the board after this after tonight. It's the approved plan set that incorporates any changes. There may not be any, but if there are any changes that required in the conditions,

yes, then that approved plan set would include those conditions. So, for example, for example, the parking spaces being longer, that would be something you'd include in the final approved set. Okay. Yeah, that's what I'd like to do. But I think it's I think we need to understand what you're talking about. So, I Yeah, I was kind of hoping there might be a concept sketch or something that you show us. Um, all we're going to do is obviously make those spaces the 22 feet deep as opposed to 18. I think we're 18 to 22. Can you tell us what spaces it's going to be? It's going to be the the spaces that were designated as delivery spaces. Can you pull up that sheet? Yeah.

So, there's three spaces on either side. John, what sheet is that? Um, it's sheet C4. Thank you. On either side of the clubhouse, we had three spaces, a total of six spaces. Well, there's a handicap and and two on the south side and there's three deliveries on the north side. So, we were going to make those deeper and then we were going to realign the sidewalk so it wasn't so funky. We'd probably put a little grass strip in there and blend it in better. Mhm. So, the five delivery spaces would be lengthened to 22 feet. You said

22 feet. And then we'll realign the sidewalks so they blend in better and update the landscape plan accordingly. Jeff, is the width of these spaces still okay for for delivery trucks? They're 9 by8s. We're going to go 9 by for deliver 9 by 22. Ideally, it would be nice to get a little bit wider because those vehicles are a little bit wider than a passenger vehicle. 10 10 would be fine. You could do that, John, because you've got all that space in front of the clubhouse. We do. I think one one foot would make would make a difference. So, that would be a total of cumulatively it would be three feet,

five plus two. There's two delivery vehicles on the north side. It would be three feet. Three. Three on one side and two on the other side. Yeah. Okay. They're on They're split, right? They're split. Yep. You got plenty of grass to do that. Oh, you have plenty of grass to do that. What's the What's the length of a UPS truck? 22. 22. It's got to be longer than a pickup truck. Oh, yeah. Yeah. It's like 22 feet. We looked it up. I looked up. We were anticipating this conversation. A UPS truck is only 22 feet. No, no, no, no. Standard box is 22.

Yeah. Yeah. There's I looked it up and and I got a range from like 22 to about 28 and I keep wanting to chase down one that delivers to our place and but that's but seriously they've got the manufacturers's got a number of different ones and they sell the FedEx, UPS and all that type of stuff. Um I agree with you. Probably should go about 24 foot deep. 10 by 24. 10 by 24. All right. That that should accommodate UPS. Not all the UPS and I've seen UPS even around the real Whoa, that's a long one compared to what we normally see. Yeah. And we don't see the those real long ones delivering typically to Can you do more to larger commercial areas is what I've seen. We did that then.

So if the board's comfortable with this, I can draft the condition that those delivery spaces will be increased to 10 by 24 the sidewalk or the the the pathway will be realigned and then that will be put into the uh revised plan set that they give us down the road. Yeah. Yep. Mhm. Okay. That's that's fair. Mr. Chair, will the extra width in those spaces create issues with the two crosswalks on either side? We're going to have to realign. We're going to have to You think you can do it? Oh, yeah. That's how everything change one thing and then

the um the crosswalks could be put instead instead of at the terminal end of the ax, they could be put on the ax if they had to. Yeah. Or I can even do a little shift. I can split the difference and maybe take a little bit off of the island that's on the north side radius. I don't want parking spaces at the radius, but I could cheat a little bit a foot or two on that north side of the if you go along that drive across from um the townhouse number uh number two, you know, on that curb. I can cheat a little bit on that one just if if it makes things funky over by the crosswalk. There's a little bit of play there.

Just might have to bring the sidewalk curb line onto a radius as well. So that um just just be careful that you still have the minimum length um if you extended the curb line across I know what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But I I have there I have a little ability to tweak some stuff over there at the end of the day. Okay. All right. Let's um we know let's get things moving for Bill. Does Bill have to jump? He's got a hard stop at 10, but at 10:00 now it's only quarter

quart 8. Um but uh I'm sorry. Go ahead. Did you have something to say? There was a couple if we're going to be going over site related stuff and engineering stuff as opposed to

Yeah, let's Yeah. So, space in front of clubhouse. Check. Um, there was one of the items that I saw was uh regarding the the accessory garages and before it said, you know, 20 spaces 20 ft between structures, but I think we had this conversation at the last meeting um with the garages. We have the garages, you know, one after the other. We do have a break in them. So that at least we're breaking up the the right there. There you go. Um, so didn't we discuss that that was going to be fine with the the way the garages are because they're basically accessory, you know, accessory garages. They're not like habitable. Obviously, we're talking about the separation between them.

I think the the question was to check with the fire department, right? And I think one other thing we talked about too was uh Colin Babcock. Um the other thing too we talked about I think was that they were screening for those for those houses over there. So that was one of the other concerns that we had. So technically we could build all those garages right in a row without any gap in between them. They could all be one after the other after the other. We just or it could be one continuous building. Correct. Yeah. By code. Um we just split them up because it just it looks nicer and it feels nicer. What is the distance? Do you know between the three structures? 5 ft. How much?

Like five feet. It's not much. Okay. So, um I guess is that is that okay with the I thought we settled that last. I thought so too. I thought we already discussed that. I just wanted to be sure Mike Colleen Oh, and just having spaces between the garages. If he had any concern with the lack of space between the garages. Oh, lack of space. Yeah, it's it's still usually they require 15 feet in between and I remember that from Fischerville. They require 15 feet or either 15 or 20 feet and if it's below that because they have to get if they've got to do a ladder or anything. They've got to have the space to be able to put it up. Now granted, it's a one-story garage. It's a one-story garage, right? Yeah. So,

so or you do it all one build, one whole building. It looks better this way. That was it was more for aesthetics. It's actually more difficult to do it this way because now you'd have one continuous foundation wall as opposed to breaking and ending and do two end walls. But it'll look nicer. That's that was the purpose. And my my experience with fire code and putting residential buildings together, they're more concerned about houses and and habitable structures than they are accessories. Mhm. Um but by all means get the fire department's weigh in but it is still addressed as a requirement in the

Mhm. Um the other thing you were going to show um just to add to your tick list uh snow storage areas on the plants. We're going to show them. Yeah, we we discussed I think that there was one um one of the items was that we wouldn't have any snow storage within any parking spaces. And I think the discussion at the last meeting was that we have there may be um the to do some temporary storage in there during storms and then if they need to move it, they'll move it or truck it off if if need be. Um the reason being we have um plenty of parking and and it would only be temporary. Um so that was the only that was the only item we wanted to say. So temp we could have some temporary storage of snow within some parking spaces. Um

and I think I don't think that was a I don't No, it wasn't a big sticking point. I don't think at the last hearing. And and if I may, the condition might read something like um to the extent in in our determination that uh um snow storage areas exceed capacity, then we would truck it out. Yeah. And we would be willing to live with that kind of Yeah. condition. I mean, you're basically going to store the snow in the parking areas. Well, we're going to designate because there's no place else. You're not going to put it on the lawn. Well, if they had to temporarily, they would. They don't want to obviously then then it becomes in the springtime you have a mess with

I mean the only lawn you have is dog pack and the uh kids playground. Oh, we have a big lawn area. If you're looking to the south of the building that's behind the uh the clubhouse. What number is that? Building uh four. Three. Building four. Oh, I'm sorry. We have that whole area to the south of building four. That's rather large. Where is that? Where's my right right here? Right. Oh, building four. Right there. Isn't that the dog park? The dog park is only about half of that. Half of that. Zoom out. Zoom out. Where's the dog park? Where's the front of it? That's okay. Don't you have to jump a uh You have to jump a curve

curb and a sidewalk to get to it. Yeah, but I mean they could take a loader and dump snow there. They're not going to. If it comes down to it, they're going to truck it off site because then it's just going to be a mess in the spring and the landscape's going to be the grass is going to get No, they're going to pile it in the in the on parking spots and truck it out. Exactly. Exactly. Temporarily. It adds truck traffic to snow road, but we talked about that at the last hearing, you might recall about, you know, basically when we're in the middle of a winter emergency, you got to do what you got to do, right? Yeah. Okay. I think that was the conclusion

and the only other couple of things um that were noted in there um with the Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, for the the limit of work, we did show a limit of work around the perimeter of the project. Um that sheet C5,

I'm sorry. Yeah, on the grading and drainage see sheet C5 which you can see that it's it's a control and erosion control area and limit of work. Um there were a couple of spots in the the conditions where um and I think this might have gotten pulled from one of the other project. It said if there is an existing tree along the property line and then wherever the drip line of that tree is, you want to stay 10 ft beyond the drip line for um a limit of work. So um in some instances

and that dictates the uh limit of work that dictates the limit of work. what we're saying the limit of work line that we have is is pretty much a hard it's a hard line for the grading that we need to do for whether it's for grading swailes storm water etc. We did go out. If you recall, Jesus is going back a little ways on the if you look on the on the landscape plan, we we had gone out to see areas where there were trees that we could save. And we do have notes on the landscape plan.

What page is that, John? I'm sorry. It's uh L1. It's kind of near the It's after the details. It's kind of near the end of the silver. You're talking about the landscape one. Yeah, that's it. That's it. Back back. Oh, not that far. Too far. Computer's touch. Right there. Right there. This one.

Yeah, that's it. And see at the kind of near the top of the sheet under near underneath where the the detail is for that tree planting along the northerly proper l property line. We said in the areas of the rear property line, trees to remain shall be flagged. Once flagged infill with evergreen trees and/or shrubs as needed. And then further on the easterly side kind of in the area of the basin, it said that in the area of the rear property line, trees to remain shall be flagged once flagged and fill with evergreens because there are the ability to save some trees over there. But um in the area that's kind of near where the the I'd say the driveway that goes down to the to the parking garage underneath building one in that area because of the water quality swale and the storm water there. We do need to be right up tight near the property line and that's where we

we have quite a bit of of evergreens. Um, we had 30. What's TN? Um, giant green aravati. Giant green. Those are the ones that grow big. Big big. Okay, John. I

So, so the my point is we didn't want to be saying, okay, we're going from a drip line of a tree going another 10T. We kept as we're going to keep as much as we can, but in some areas where it's tight on the property line, we need to have the limit of work where we show the limit of work. That's the point. And just for reference by the board, he's talking about um condition D1, open space page 17. So So John, I wanted to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, um the condition D1 was was speaking about trees that are offsite. So we're talking about trees on buttering properties. Yes.

That we're asking you to stay 10 feet away from the drip line of those trees. Right. So, so the point is if you have if there's a tree that's one foot off the property line, y and then it has uh a drip line that's 15 feet hypothetically extending on and then go another 10 feet. We could be 25 ft into into the project. So, do you know if there's any trees in that category? I mean, you know, a lot of the trees because we're only talking about one, two, three. Well, I guess it's really only along I mean the area that

on the southerntherly side by stop and shop. It it's definitely not much there. There's some pine trees over there along the northerly property line there are a few trees that we we want to go and flag and save on our property. Um, I know that in the area of the in the back towards the basin, actually back towards Danielson and Valentine and Danielson, there's a nice big like it's got three veins of big oak tree. There's three veins like this that we know we can save over there. So we um so we're going to flag the trees we can save, but really the only area that's tight is really in that um I'd say that north center section. And again, that's for grading for our our our storm water quality, swells, etc. in that area. So we need to be tight in that center area.

So you're going to be cutting in that area? Yes. Okay. But then we're going to be replanting it. But I just don't want to be again if there's a tree that's a foot onto the abudding property but then has a drip line that's 10 or 15 feet hanging over onto us and then go 10t away from there. It it it doesn't work. Okay. Do you guys understand that? And I was just clarify too. I think Attorney Hill reading of D1 was that it's talking about 10 ft outside the property line. I don't read it that way. within 10 feet of the perimeter of the site. I think that's that reads as 10 feet either way to me. That's the way we read it. Okay. Right.

Then that's poor draftsmanship. That that that was intended to be 10 feet on the other side. Oh, okay. Okay. I didn't I just so offsite. We're not trying to save your trees. We're trying to save the butter trees. Right. Right. Right. Right. Okay. I I just wanted to be clear because I was saying, okay, how is this physically going to work? Still, your point is that even even a tree on the abudding property if the if it's a foot on the on the other side, you might not be able to you're going to excavate up to the property line potentially. Correct.

And I I think that's that's a reasonable concession I think the board needs to make. I don't honestly I don't think we can actually enforce this. Um I mean it's it's a nice condition if we can get it, but where they're showing grading right up against the property line, right? Um, so that would probably have a major impact on

if I may rather than go through the decision peacemeal uh like this there are uh many issues like that. I I had an opportunity to go through the decision really carefully with the project team. Um, and for efficiency purposes, what I might recommend, what I do recommend is give me an opportunity to redline this and get it over to Dan and Katrina and then maybe have an internal back and forth, vet out some clarifying issues just as we did uh with D1

and then present a comprehensive kind of set of discussion points for the board subsequently. which would rather than go through this and have this discussion and be all over the place. Exactly. Is that something that suits the pleasure of the board? I think that makes sense to me. Dan, does that work for you? Well, it sounds like they want to postpone discussing the conditions tonight. Is that uh Yeah, just because I have I mean I have issues on almost every page. Some are not that significant. Some are questions, some are um some we need to talk about.

I mean, we could talk about waiverss next. Sure. And if we have time I mean I I would think we'd want to try to get through these. I mean, you have notes, so we could talk about things and if we could make some progress, I think that'd be great. But we could start with waiverss and see how far we get with waivers. I mean, I don't know, Dan. I can defer to you to Yeah. what your preference would Well, I think their preference would not to would not would be to not to talk about conditions and it you're prepared. It's not that we don't want to talk about them. We are we we want to talk about them. It's just I'm not sure going through

my my hands scribbled notes with the board and trying to go through a stream of consciousness is the most efficient way of doing it. I'm I'm just trying to be respectful of the board's time. Sure. Are are you do you want to talk about waiverss tonight? Yeah, we can do that. Bill, do you want to

Yeah, it's you know, if um if the applicants council is saying, you know, he's got red lines on everything, then I I I think there's some s some like systemic issues that maybe he and Danny need to work through. Um so, you know, I I don't think that's the type of thing that that we're going to be able to help much with. So, I I I I would like to see Dan and and council um kind of resolve a lot of these issues. You know, I caution the Appkins Council that you know, the decision that Dan has drafted is one that we've used

um you know, in in probably seven or so um recent 40bs. So, um, we're going to be reluctant to make many changes and, um, so it's I think it's more a case of just understanding what what the intention is, what we're trying to do. Um, yep. So, let's work through those. I think I think for them to work through those offline would be much more efficient. And I given the level of work we've done, I can promise Dan that I can get this to you no later than midweek next week.

Okay. Okay. to just keep it moving and allow enough time for the for the next hearing. And uh to your point, Mr. Chair, a lot of uh the issues are specific to the project. You know, making the decision a little more specific to the project. They're not uh changes necessarily to broad uh conditions that you um that are tried and true. It's it's more uh how how this fits in the context of the plans you're about to perhaps approve with conditions and that type of thing. So I I I think at the end of the day when we go through this process um it's going to result in a in a in a tailored decision if you will.

I have no objection to it. Just if you do change something in this, will you give us a new one showing Mhm. what the changes are? Yeah. So we don't have to go word for word. Oh, yeah. Red line. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Okay. So, waivers. Yeah. Waivers. Waivers. Yep. I have it ready for you.

All 35 pages open. So, for the pleasure of the board, the waiver list I'm going off of is the one I actually submitted. There was an attachment and I suspect it got it dropped off because it's an attachment by PDF that was embedded in a word document and maybe you couldn't get it. Are you talking about the version from last night or

the version from last night, but even from April 8th did not have the attachment A, which is basically the zoning table from the from the uh plans. I I may have taken that off because I didn't think it was necessary. Um well, it's referred to in the waiver table, so and it's an ease of reference type type issue. Okay. Um, did anything else change? I didn't compare it. Ward for I didn't touch the waivers. So, the version that was sent out last night didn't have any changes to the waiver table. And in fact, I don't think I included it in the email. I just included the conditions.

Got it. So, we're working off the April 8th version. April 8th. Right. All right. And I'm sorry, the attorney panels, the the waiver request that you had submitted, what's the date on that? Is that uh March 25th? Got it. Thank you. Yes.

Oh, before we totally hop off the decision, are we while I'm working up the red lines, Dan, can you do the findings? Yeah. All right, perfect. All right. So, how what's the pleasure of the board? How do you want to proceed? How do we usually do this? You know, we just go line by line. Um, I think we typically a lot of these a lot of these waivers are are ones we've seen before in past projects. I'm going to pull up what was our last one? Upton Street. captain and pleasant for both. Yeah.

Yeah. So, I'll pull up that decision while we go through this just just to compare what we did in that decision with what they're asking for here. Um because I'm I'm assuming it's, you know, going to be a lot of the same. Some of it is. I think this is a little more comprehensive than that. Um, you know, we really went through the zoning bylaw and every other bylaw, rule, and regulation applicable to this project and vetted them really carefully. Uh, I'm not suggesting that you didn't do that on Upton Street, but um I know that what we started out with

uh was a lot shorter than what what got submitted to what we started out with with the application, I guess. Yeah.

Um, let me pull out my zoning. I don't have the other body. So I you know my my practice preference I think is to not include waiverss that aren't really necessary. Um I I think that this first category um we I we've never I don't think we've ever included this waiver. I don't think anyone's asked for it. Um, this is this is it says a zoning permit shall not be issued for any use until a site plan has been submitted or reviewed by the planning board. Um, so I I don't I'm not sure this is even applicable. And may maybe you're including it just to be over inclusive to make sure you didn't miss something, but um

to me this is not something you need. I mean, it kind of ties in because we're not in front of the planning board and more importantly, we're in front of the zoning board of appeals, which is the permit granting authority acting for all other boards. So, a reference to uh a site plan review by the planning board would be inappropriate in this context. So, that's why we sought the waiver. We we would respectfully disagree. And and it also says that a zoning permit shall not be issued for any other use other than those specified.

This use is not allowed in this zoning district in either zoning district, community business or R20. I mean from the I mean as you just said, we're we're sitting as the planning board essentially. You're sitting as the zoning board of appeals instead of the planning board in their place in theirstead. You are not the planning board. Agreed.

Yeah. So, you would have to go back and and look at the zoning bylaw section that's being referenced. And so section 1324 needs to be read in conjunction 1323 because it says that the zoning permit should not be issued for any use other than those specified in sections 1323. So 1323 says the inspector of buildings may issue a zoning permit without further review by the planning board for any use in a district that's designated as a Y. Right? So you've got your your table of uses. You've got certain uses that are designated Y. Yes. allowed. And in those cases, the building inspector can issue a can issue a zoning permit without further review by the planning board. So the next section says a zoning permit should not issue for any use other than those specified in 1323. Well, what they proposed isn't even on the table. So it's not in my view, it's this isn't something that is covered under these sections. Um it's it's a you know, this is a unique project. It's 40B. It's not I I guess I'm not like opposed to granting a waiver from it. I just again I I tend to try to keep these tables shorter than longer, but if the board wants to grant it, there's no harm in granting it.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Mr. McCusker. Yeah. I guess I I'd say to the applicant attorney, what use is it that's specified in 1323 that's that requires the the planning board to issue a zoning permit in this case because that's exactly what you're asking for a waiver from. So, so there's some use in 1323. that may, you know, out for the review and and and I'm I guess I'm I'm kind of with Dan. I there isn't one. So, you don't need this. Well, wait a minute.

It says if it's a Y, the the building inspector can issue a permit without going to the planning board. Yeah. The exact language of 1323 is the inspector of buildings may issue a zoning permit without further review by the planning board for any use in any district that is designated by a Y in the use regulation schedule. What does the Y mean? Yes. Y. Yes, it's allowed by right. It's allowed by right. So obviously this use is not allowed by right. It's not a Y. So the building inspector can't issue a permit which means it would have to according to that go to the planning board

and is that right? But the referenced waiver request is a zoning 1324 is a zoning permit shall not be issued for any use other than those specified in section 12 uh 1323 which is the one we just read until a site plan has been submitted to reviewed and approved by the planning board. But our point is that this use is not even in the table. It's not among the uses 1323. So, right. We don't think you need it. Okay. Um,

Mr. Chairman, if I might add, um, we're going to get down to a waiver for the multif family use and the non multif family zoning district. And I think that's that's the meat and potatoes that that needs to be addressed. And I don't see the need for the waiver request here, but I'm an engineer, not an attorney. So it's the next one. It's the next waiver.

I'm I'm I'm It is the next waiver. I'm willing to forego it. Okay. So, so the next one is 3231. Multif family dwelling use not allowed in the uh agricultural zoning districts. Medium density residential. Yep. Well, two and three kind of go together because we're in two districts. We're in an R20 and then we're also in CV. So, it's a a waiver from Yeah. And this is a waiver we've always granted if we're granting a conference permit.

Yeah. So, two and three are fine. We we would we would grand, right? Mr. Chair, just a form over substance question. So the the last two paragraphs of the waiver being sought are repeated for virtually every waiver request. um which I don't think we've ever done in in our prior um decisions to to specify with with almost every waiver that the zoning board of appeals is acting on behalf of other boards and that the comprehensive per permit, you know, provides all permits or can provide all permits necessary. So, yeah, I think maybe we say it once or maybe we say it as a footnote to the table. Um and you know, I think it would cut half the pages out of the out of the waiverss.

That's amazing. I'm I'm I'm happy to do that. Yeah, I I I agree.

I mean, to be honest, you don't even need it at all. I mean, it goes without saying. It's what we're doing. We're acting under 40B. So, do you really It's your request. Well, it I I put it there because there are many areas in the zoning bylaw where the zoning board of appeals again is not the permit granting authority. um under under your bylaw for some of the relief necessary to allow this and I think it's important um again putting it in a footnote in one place would be very efficient and happy to accommodate that but I think it I think it should be referenced. Okay.

All right. So moving on to number three. Uh four. Okay. Uh intensity of use schedule 3232. Oops. That's the table. Yes. Um, two.

There we go. It's just It's a zoning table. It's a zoning table. How How does four differ from two and three? Uh, this is um four is a This is your dimensional release. You call it intensity of use. It's the dimensional uh controls. I think the other ones were for the for the use. Yes. This is for the dimensional controls. Correct.

You know, minimum lot area, front yard, sideyard, rear yard, etc. So, you have the same section twice, actually more than once. You've got four, five, and six all have to do with the same section. I'm wondering why that can't be consolidated.

Well, you have different different uh sections of that of 3232. Uh and the reason why they're broken out is because you have two different zoning districts. Number one. Number two, we broke out the exact um you know applicable offsets and dimensional controls. But I guess I'm confused as to what number four does. I I understand five and six and that that's what we normally do is we break out where you don't comply with the setbacks and and other things. I remember but what's four?

What I I'm confused of what four does. What does four say? Uh hold on a second, Mr. Chair. from I had a similar question and this pops up numerous times throughout where we'll kind of kick off a section with a generally waiver. Um and I I don't believe that's been the historical practice of the board. I think you know the practice of the board has been to grant specific waiverss which is what we get into starting with five six and so on. But these these kind of generally um you know waiver requests I think would be too broad for us to really entertain.

Okay. I I agree with Brian and and unfortunately my my notes are home but I I think I had actually when I went through this now I remember I had a denied on four four is we're not going to wave we're not going to get the grant the number four waiver but uh because it's general basically he's waving the whole table uh in um you know we're not going to do that whereas five six gets into the details so I I think that's really what we want to focus on.

That's fine. So should we remove four? I'll remove and obviously I'll re number accordingly. Um five and six uh obviously are right off the zoning table from the plan but are specifically referred to

and those dimensions are shown on the the that sheet. um what is it C4 dimensionally and the I'd note that the the foundations are 30 feet off but for those town houses we have a little and again this goes back into the definitions of what what's a what's a structure what's a building it's just for a little covered porch that's over the front door at the front yard so it just gives it like a nice little front door makes it look real so that was 20 it. We went unit by unit. Building one, building two. Those are 28.7 27.5. And again, it was just for like the little covered the little covered overhang over the front door, not for the foundation itself.

But that's what we have historically used. The foundation? No, no, no. The the overhang. The overhang. Okay. So, you got it right. Or did you? Yeah. No, it's No, it's it's called We called it We called it out accurately, but just for the distinction. It's It wasn't for the the foundation. It was just for the little covered um landing in front of the the front door. Yeah. And it all applies to the townhouse buildings. Yes. In both instances, five and six. And then so yeah, five is within the R20 and then six is within the commercial business. Right. On the town houses, you have to park behind them,

but to get to the front door. So, you got to walk all the way around the house to get to the front door, which it's I mean I mean it's all for it's kind of a dummy front door. It's just aesthetics. Not that you can't get out there and walk out, but I don't want to call it a dummy door, but it's not the people coming in and out. They're going to be parking their car within the project and but it's to you can go out that door, but it's to make it blend in and make it look like, you know, it It's more of the residential, you know, look and give it a little more dimension in the streetscape. On the street on the streetscape, they'll be entering the townhouse from the back. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Unless you park out in snow road.

True. On somebody. There's no signs. There's not And don't park on our new sidewalk. Well, people do park. Well, this is going to have a lot of parking, so hopefully they won't. Yeah. This is really an overpark. Yeah. So, hopefully people won't need to park on stuff. So, they've got Can we get focus back on the waivers? Yeah. Okay. So, they got front yard setbacks. Front yard setback waivers. Um 30 fts required in R 20, 40 feet required in CB. Yeah. Um so, they they go down to, you know, high 20s, low 30s.

Yeah. Um sideyard what's required is 15. Uh they've got 10 8 10 for certain buildings. So that's for garage for garages. Garages. Yeah, that's number seven.

And then for eight, for nine, you've got height. And so now the max is 35 feet in R20, 35 ft in CB. They've got the apartment buildings are as tall as 56 feet. Um that's you know building one is 56 feet, building two is 50 feet and the 50 we talked about this the 56 ft is from the rear it's how it's left it's measured according to the requirements in the bylaw. But that's mean mean height, right?

The mean height. But don't forget that drops down in the back where the subsurface. So that's why it drives when you do the calculation because it drops off that drives up the drives up the height. But it's the same height as building number two, which is 50.25 from the front elevation. All things being equal, right? I had a point. I I know we tend to get fairly specific. Um but I didn't know if we wanted to specify that dimension is only for the left elevation. Um it's not the front or the back. It's just where the driveway goes into the garage. From that elevation, it's 56 ft. Well, it's the mean. So, right. So, it's not necessarily

that's the only spot where that measurement applies is from that driveway into the into the garage. It's the mean between the front and the back, which is the middle. Not necessarily. No, it's the mean of the roof height, not the mean of the front to back. From the grain. From the grade. It's still I mean, if you look look at the plans, that's the only elevation with that dimension is the left entry into the garage. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Physically, if you're unless you go from the back, it goes down then it steps back up heading towards building. Yeah. So, yeah, the the biggest elevation is at the garage. But you guys aren't saying the same thing.

Well, no. The calculation isn't the calculation isn't from the ground at the garage all the way up. It's the mean between the garage and say the front elevation. Your mean is the middle. May I read the definition? Would that help? Sure.

Okay. Height of building uh page six out of 15 in your zoning bylaw definition section two. The vertical distance from grade, which is the average finished ground level to the top of the highest roof beams of a flat roof or to the mean level of the highest gables or highest point of hip, pitch, or sloped roof. When a building faces on more than one street, the height shall be measured from the average of the grades at the center of each street front. So, so if you just look at plan A102, the architecturals for building A,

uh, the only face that that measurement apply, I'm not disputing the measurement. The measurement's right, but the only face with that measurement is the left side elevation with the garage entrance. All of the other dimensions match building two from the front and back and the the right side elevation. Then that can't be the mean. Well, it's it's the mean of it's but if you look see where it says left side elevation um we're looking at sheet Yeah. A102. Well, no, because it's a mean of the roof, too. Okay. Uh, and see where it says average grade. I'm reading it slightly different. I'm sorry.

Go ahead. Uh, highest roof beams of a flat roof. Irrelevant. It's not a flat roof to the mean level of the highest gables. Irrelevant. It's not gabled roofs to the best of my knowledge. So, that leaves us with the highest point of a hip, pitch, or slope roof. I'm reading that to be the the peak of the It is gabled. So it should Oh, it is gabled. It is gable. I apologize. So, okay. Okay. So, that one applies. So, read the the gabled one again though. Okay. Um to the mean level of the highest gables. I'm not sure how to interpret that. Yeah. The mean the mean is the middle because the level of the gable, if I may,

the top of the gable is going to be level building code expert here. So, so in in Grafton, the way they do it, it's it's the mean average of the grade and the mean of the highest gable. So, you take your highest gable and you take your average grade. So, you take your grade. So, if it's flush 3/4 of the building and 25% of it is down these are the highest gable goes 6 8 10 12 that all gets averaged out to that height. Whatever the height may be 67 ft, but the average becomes 56. And I don't know if that's the actual number. I'm just using those for 56 points for reference.

And and and by the way, for context, when we went through this, we actually initially misinterpreted the the the bylaw. We actually had a much higher building. We were actually asking for a much uh uh larger waiver of about 10 of about 10 ft. Yeah. And I worked with the architect to to get these numbers for Thank you. But the That measurement on the right, right? Yes. Well, I guess either side the where it's marked at the top and the bottom is the mean that's the mean height of that gable. So, this is the mean of the foundation

and then the average grade bottom. Yeah. To the and that's the mean of the of the grades. There's a mean on the roof. I thought it said the highest part of the roof pitched for a pitched roof for a gable roof it says to the mean level of the highest gables. So the average level of the highest gables. Okay. So my my interpretation now I'm a little less confused. You can have different gables at different elevations. Mhm. But it says the the mean level of the highest gables. So you're averaging them out too. Yep. independent of the average ground grade and then comparing the difference between the two.

Okay, I think we're sufficiently confused. I think we're good. Yeah. And number 10 is there's a typo. Yeah, I just saw it. Okay. Maximum, not minimum. Unless you found another one. All right. And then 11. 11's another generally. Yeah. What is 11? I don't

Hold on. As long as it doesn't require me to do any math. Intensity regulations. Yeah, it's a general one. So, I can take that out.

Oh, and then we get into the more specific ones.

Whoops. Oh, wait a minute. 12 33 intensity regulations. It's this one. 3331. Right. Hold on. 3331. Yes. Yeah. You had a problem with this one. This was the functionally equivalent one, remember?

Oh, so it's saying the Yeah. So for for context on 3331, this is kind of kind of a confusing provision, but in for Upton Street, we we we responded by saying we're we're waving this provision to allow seven structures to be erected on the same lot. The development parcel will have X acres, X, you know, Y feet of frontage and and Z feet of width. Um I I think we can handle this the same way. I don't think we need to go into the litany that you went into. Well, we do have some specific measurement. Uh actually, what do you object to because we do

I'm actually suggesting that we can more broadly wave this because that's what we've done in the past. Okay. But rather than going to we don't need those specifics. Okay. Unless the board wants to but in this was your issue. Our precedent is Oh, was this was this did this deal with the separation between buildings too? No, that's comments. Okay. No, fine. No, this addresses separation. It does. This does. Oh, is this a separation? No. There was a there's a provision in your bylaw that says that the tallest building dictates. Is that this one? Yeah. The distance shall be the the the minimum distance shall be Yeah.

the sum of So, you've got five buildings, six buildings. Whatever the height of the tall tallest building tallest building is, that's what the separation needs to be between structures. So that's this one. Yeah, you and I picked up on that. So I I stand corrected. We we did actually address that specific issue in Upton. So we did say we we allowed a waiver of the spacing requirement. Yeah. To allow 25 ft of spacing between buildings three and four. So to be consistent, we could we could include these specific spacing. Right. Right. And we give you the exact Okay, that's exactly right. We give you the exact

distances between the buildings because read literally we would require distance spacing of 59 56.25 ft. That's the tallest building as you just saw. Is is that how the board interprets this? I'm reading the last section of 3331 as the minimum distance between the structures shall be the height of the higher building not highest building higher as in between the two structures. So read that way. I don't think you need B because you have 50 ft between two 40 foot tall buildings,

right? How it was it was interpreted in the most conservative way. So what he said, okay, the highest building what we dictates all of it. We saying the highest building which is building one that we just went through the that was the tallest building. So I know what you're saying. I don't disagree with you. It's it's if you're looking at one building and another building, why are you saying the separation should be for the height of a building that's down the street? So, but again, that was the most conservative reading of it. And we're talking about 10 principal structures here. Oh, yeah.

So, it's a distinction without a difference. We're just to give it We're down to an hour. Just letting everybody know. Well, my read on this is there's also another part of it that's important to their waiver request and it's the minimum lot area, the minimum lot width, the minimum lot frontage shall be the sum of the requirements for each individual structure. So, you take the 10 structures times minimum lot area times minimum frontage and all that. They may or may not be compliant. So, if there's a waiver request, the waiver request does address that and and we give you that that number. Y okay.

Waiver, it's in the second paragraph. Waiver requested to allow all principal structures to replace on one lot, 14.6 acres, 492.4 ft of frontage and 58.54 ft of lot width. I think the way they've written 12 is actually correct. I was I was mistaken before. though I think I didn't want to chime in but I I there was a lot of discussion about building dimensions and then I saw the land area requirements too. Yeah. And is the board okay with our interpretation of the height applying to all 10 structures the distance between them?

I know there was a little bit of a discrepancy but again as John indicated I'm not sure it really Yeah. I'm just speaking for myself. I don't think B is necessary, but if if we're comfortable granting it, then yeah, it's Yeah, it's just the distance between buildings three and four, which is 50 ft. Right. So, you've got 40 ft and you'd only based on my buildings that exceed those two buildings are only 40T tall. Right. Right. Yeah. Six.

So, yeah, I think we should strike that strike B because you don't need it. No. Well, all right. So, number number 13. Well, it's measured by the height of the building that we Okay, present. So, he's saying we don't need B. So, this is saying that no building shall exceed 40 ft in height except for certain structures. So they need a waiver from that because they've got two buildings that are over 50 feet tall.

Yeah. Respectfully, I think we do need be because you're talking about one lot and you're talking about several structures. So what's to dictate which is which is the the defining structure and what are the two structures for comparison. I think it's easier to say tallest building applies to the distances between all of them rather than parsing the the language and trying to figure out what you're comparing the two. But that's different than what the bylaw says. Yeah. The bylaw says this the separation between each building, right?

The minimum distance between the structures shall be the height of the higher building, right? Higher. We're talking about two buildings higher. But which two buildings? The two government question. Yeah. The distance between the two buildings, the two subject buildings. Got it. And you think that only applies to B because we're those those town um the the smaller buildings in the quad are only 40. I don't want to misquote, but I think they're like 40t tall. So basically you're giving us 50 ft. They need to give us 50 because the tallest building is only 39 ft. They don't need a waiver. Yeah. Right. 39.

You don't need a waiver. Got it. Okay. So just take out subsection B. Yeah. Right. And the town houses are 28 ft tall and you're only providing 25. So that one, you know, you only need 3 ft of clearance, but you still need to live. Correct. Yeah. Right. Yes. So we've got that indeed contemplated. And it goes without saying that all my lettering and numbering is going to change as I delete things. So we're at 13. Yes. Okay. So we have a height that exceeds 40 ft. You've got two buildings that are over 50 ft. So any problems?

This is another general one. I'm happy to take it out. So, now we're to off streetet parking. Uh, we require 2.25 spaces per multif family dwelling. And I know we beat this to death at the last hearing. You're saying you have 436 spaces for 200 units, right? Correct. And is that what we decided last time? I think we wanted to carve out townhouse versus apartment building. Oh, okay. Um, sorry to interrupt, Ryan, but

yeah, in my analysis of the parking for the large buildings versus the town houses. I separated the two and and that was a lot of the discussion you've heard from me over the months. With respect to this waiver request, they're looking at sitewide and it's up to the board if you're good with sitewide or not. I can tell you sitewide I'm good. and the subset of the town houses and the subset of the large buildings I'm good as well the waiver request comes in and just looks at it one way the overall site

yeah so I think we can say in our column so we have their column and our column and so in our column I would say for the townhouse units they meet this they don't need the waiver from it but for the other units the rest of the project we need we need the numbers so I I know we talked about it last time I don't remember what they were but whatever the total parking is and it only negligible believe it takes down the ratio. It It doesn't change the It's just more detailed in our in what we're granting versus what you're asking. Sure. Indeed. I can give you those numbers if you want them for the large buildings. Oh, that'd be great.

It's a total of 404 spaces at a rate of 2.10 spaces per dwelling unit. Could you repeat that? I'm sorry. Uh 2.10 spaces per dwelling unit. I I looked at the the was it four large buildings. I looked at them as a group. I didn't look at the parking round. So again, it's a total of 404 for the large buildings. 404 parking spaces which breaks out to 2.10 spaces for dwelling unit and that includes the garage spaces. That's correct.

Okay. Do we want to spell that out in the in the request? I can put that right in the request if you want me to. You can leave the request. I don't think you need to change the request. We'll just we'll spell that out in our column to the right. Oh, I got it in the Okay, fine. I mean, I'm happy to put a parenthetical. You don't need to. So, it's just going to Okay. Yep, that's fine. All right. 16. Um,

no parking. Ah, this was something we looked at carefully. All right. So, no parking area serving a multi family dwelling should be located nearer a lot line than the distances required for minimum yard. Basically, you can't you're not supposed to have parking within the setback areas. Correct. Okay. And this only is for the garages on the side guts every 10 ft. Community business for the garages which are but stop and shop, right? Um let's see. Garage 7, garage 8. Yep. It's all the garages. Yeah, it's the garage.

Um no, it's on both sides, isn't it? It's garage 7, garage 8, and garages four, five, six, and seven. Oh, do we have garages and split? We have garages in split zones. Yeah, we do. Oh, yeah. So, seven. It's four, five, six, seven. It's 10 ft and seven CB uh community business. Uh 8 ft in community business for eight garage eight. Which one's eight? We're reading off sheet C4, by the way, for purposes. This is again, this is on the stop and shop stuff.

Yep. And then sideyard of 10 ft in the medium density residential R20 zoning district for four, five, and six, and seven. And yeah, cuz that splits between. So, it's everything. It's all the garages on the south side. On the south side. On the south side that And not this. Yep. Except for number nine, which is over 10 ft away in the commercial business district. Number nine. The number is yeah, yep. Not trying to be nitpicky, but

that's that's our job, right? I'm not a lawyer. I'm a pain in the butt. Are you sure a garage is a parking area? At the risk of you know we kind of just went through what a parking area is on a whole different case. Dare I ask? No. No. No. Don't. But it is a good question. I don't know. I you know I I I don't Is are the garages considered parking area? I I think they are because they're intended for parking. They qualify as a structure. So would they

well park the definition of parking area is an area other than a street used for temporary parking of more than four car automobiles. An area. It doesn't say a structure. It says an area. But a structure is an area, isn't it? What's the area in the structure, right? Really? So, garage garage number eight is only four spaces, but the other four sets are six spaces a piece. Whoops. Hold on. Yeah, I think collectively it's 24.

There's no definition of area, but I I don't know. I I I find it hard to believe that a garage is considered a parking area. Yeah, I agree. I I think it obviously violates the the building setback. So, it wouldn't make sense they'd have a separate setback for for the building. It's it's duplicative.

Yeah. Um, parking an area other than the street used for temporary parking of more than four parking area. Well, that begs the question, do we have any parking spaces open parking area that Well, these are violates the setback. No. No. So, we could leave this request here, deny it, and just say that it's not necessary. It's not Right.

Right. And that protects you because you asked for it and we said you didn't need it. So, if someone comes back later and says you needed it, then you could just point your finger and say, "Well, I asked for this." Okay. Right. So, at least it's documented. Right. Um, is that 16 you're saying take out? Yeah. I'm not taking it out, but we'll deny it. They'll deny it just so it's documented that it doesn't count. So, just so I'm clear, I'm removing certain sections to keep it nice and clean for you guys. And I'll do that in red line. Sure. Instead of keeping them and have you deny them,

right, it with the exception of 16 so far. So far, right, perfect. I guess I'm not clear why we're we're denying 16. And I you know we if if we if we think that it applies we think a garage is a parking area then I would vote to grant it. I think the issue is I I don't think that a garage is a parking area. So I I don't think you need it. I think it's similar to what we had with other ones where you just you just flat out don't need it. Right. So, so what we're doing is leaving their request there, denying it because and saying that they don't need it because it's not a parking area, but just so there's, you know, we can refer back to this if this issue comes up.

Okay. But didn't we didn't we have them remove some other ones that weren't needed? Yeah, but those I think were repetitive. Well, they're ones that we would have denied and I I don't think It's a different category. I don't I don't feel I don't feel that strongly about it. It just seems like it's not It just It felt like we're doing something different on this one. But if we if the board wants to leave it and deny it, I'm okay with that, too. Cuz I think the difference here is that we disagree on the definition and this just get protects them that you know, yeah, there was a request and we could always

go back and amend it if needed. Without going into the details, is this being debated or litigated Warsaw in town? Is this definition being litigated with regard to or debated?

No, there was there was a um a neighbor was complaining about a parking area. uh the building the zoning enforcement officer um basically disagreed with the complaint, you know, and then the neighbor appealed to us the zoning enforcement officer's decision and ultimately withdrew um their appeal without prejudice. So, I think it's over, but as part of it, it was a question of just what is a parking area. Okay,

Mr. Sure. Just check back to the Upton Street decision and we had at least one um waiver request where our column said allowed although technically not uh not technically applicable and we went into why. So if we wanted to we could take that route and say you know it's allowed not technically required for we don't believe this constitutes a parking area. Same different I think whether we allow it or deny.

Yeah I think publishes the same thing. Okay. Okay. Dan, do you want me to fill these in? Approved. Allowed rather. Allowed. Allowed with the power. Yeah, we can compare notes. I'm taking notes, too. So, okay. When we talk, we can go through this. Okay. I'm happy to do that. All right. So, that was 16. We're up to 17. Mhm. Yes, this has to do with your parking items.

So, it says no street access drive for parking areas containing six or more spaces on a or a loading area shall exceed 30 ft in width at the street line. So, where we have the boulevard entrance, is that what we were considering that the boulevard entrance? Correct. So, the total width because we have a center island in the middle and we have two 18 right foot driving aisles on either side. The total width of that boulevard style is 44 feet because we have two one-way aisles with a center island at 18 ft each with an 8ft center island. Okay, makes sense.

Plus the radi at the street line plus what? plus the radi the two rad there's there's a 30 foot radius that gives you I forget what the the I'm looking at the street line being the rightway sideline so it's it's 44 plus plus um 30 radius is that contemplated in this bylaw provision that's a good question because um I really don't know but I'm reading it street line. I'm looking at what's what's the width of the driveway at the street line. It's 44 plus could be the end of the radius.

It could be 44 ft plus the radius if that was Dan. I don't know if that's appropriate. Not defining the width at the street line. I have no idea. I'm going to defer to the engineers on that. So that would be another that would be 30 and 30 because it's a 30 foot radius. I I think it's fine for us to we don't need to get into this level of detail and just say we're granting the waiver to allow the driveway that's shown in the plan. Sure. Okay. But if we say a total width of 44 feet, that doesn't cover them at the street line. I would just say 44 feet excluding the the street line radi or whatever the technical Oh, that's a good idea. Yep. What's that called? There you go. Well, there's a radius on each side and the plural is radi. So, I've been calling them radi.

So, where would we insert that after the 44 ft at the street line? Uh excluding what's the excluding the radi excluding the excluding the radi the street line radi that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It it it at least that description makes the intent very of the board very clear in my opinion. Yeah. I agree. Unless you wanted to add 60 ft to it. No no no that's All right. Um, 4245. Yes.

Parking areas containing more than five spaces must include must shall include or be bordered within 5 ft of by spaces by at least one tree of 2in caliber for each five spaces. Um, that's a lot of trees. So your your your waiver request is is similar to what we approved in Upton Street which is and we make general reference to the landscape plan. Right. So is everyone okay with the landscape plan? Yeah. Okay. 19.

Just to be clear, you're not you're not proposing any illuminated signs, any electric signs. Well, yeah, the project site might might be illuminated in like back LED microphone. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah, the the the project site in and like at Snow Road will could could potentially have back like be back lit LED. I think that's fine because that's not like illuminated letters. It wouldn't have like spotlights or flashing, right? Yeah. That's not an electric sign, right? It's not it's not a moving move moving sign. I think we I think we had a specific waiver for this for Pleasant Street.

Yeah, we did. I'm sorry. Can you explain that again? is is the sign. So you have a sign. So I don't know say like so we did one in when Milbury says 19 canal. So it's the symbol it says 19 canal and the letters are like pushth through plastic LED and they're they're illuminated white like at night. So it's not external illumination shining on it. The sign itself is correct from the inside out. So that is I think a electric sign under our definition technically. Yes. 44211. And I think which you didn't ask for a waiver, but I think you probably need We definitely do. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But under 441, but I'm not sure what the board's going to think about this. Hold on. Well, that I have the zoning by. Did we allow that in Pleasant Street?

Yes. That kind of sign. With the exception I don't know really a backlit sign I mean a a electric sign like that. I think on Pleasant Street what he's describing was almost the exact same sign because they knew Pleasant Street was dark and with the the lights there it didn't want to cause they didn't want to put spotlights in so it was going to be back lit. Can you can you find the decision for that? Yep. But yeah, it's a very subtle approach to to create attention to where the drive is. I think it needs something idea I as they did at Pleasant. We denied it for both Pleasant Street and Upton. Oh, did we?

What? Well, for Upton, I think we said um it wasn't necessary because it was right where it where it's located. I think Upton Street, I'm reading the Upton Street decision and it said that the um the waiver wasn't required because it was not an electric sign. But Pleasant Street It's externally lighted. So that means spotlights on it. Yeah. So I do have a I have a picture of of it if you'd like to see.

Yeah. There's no lights. So, it's like a glove travel. And I think that's at Pleasant Street. They had it I think along the Really? Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's going to be on the wall. It's going to be on the wall at Pleasant Street. So, I think it was the opposite um from the back. Well, what's what's an electric sign? But we didn't we said in both cases that that these were not electric signs because they were externally illuminated, right? Whereas this is internal. Yeah, this is internal. So, this is different from Upton and Pleasant. It looks nice, though. I mean, I like the way it looks. Well, to be honest with you, this this has less impact than an externally illuminated sign. Yeah, soft.

It is contemplated here. It says internally illuminated signs, luminous signs, and signs illuminated for an ex from an external source. So, they're all wrapped into one. Directed solely towards said sign are the only permitted methods of illumination. So it is permitted as a method of illumination. The light from any sign shall be so shaded, shielded or directed or shall be maintained at a sufficiently low level of intensity and brightness that it shall not adversely affect the neighboring premise premises nor the safe vision of operators of vehicles moving on public ways. Only white light shall be used for external external illumination of a sign. And this is not an electric sign because that's talking about message signs I think.

And what he just read is pretty typical about just about any sign ball in just about every town I've ever worked in. Yeah. And obviously is to be approved by the building inspector upon applying for a sign permit. Yeah. So we do need another exception. We need an exception from the uh building permit requirement or the signed permit requirement from the inspector of buildings. You would be acting in hisstead to grant such a permit. Basically, we don't grant permits.

Yeah. And that's typically we we've got them through the board. It would be wrapped in in 40b as a the building inspector for purposes of this bylaw provision is a local board you'd be acting in this state. So what's an electric sign if it's not that? Is there a definition somewhere? Uh number six 4421 illumination six. an electric sign on the on which the message is visible only when the sign is illuminated including by but that's not the definition of electric sign. Well, I'm just reading from your bylaw.

Well, no, but we then you could read number one and say that's No, that's not the definition. Hold on. Hold on. Let me find the definition. Pardon me. I'd be shocked if they had it in the definition. Don't look. Let's see. Sign. Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Signs. C section 2.3. Even who wrote this catch 22?

Yeah. Even without a definition of electric signs, I think the description in five for internally illuminated signs, yada yada yada, is more aligned with what we're talking about. Correct. Sign. Okay. So, the conclusion is we they don't need a waiver. Oh, wait a minute. Right. Well, you do have an electric sign definition. You want me to read it? It's it's in section 2.3. There's a whole section of sign definitions. Wow.

Uh, look at that. Electric sign. Any sign which is internally illuminated by incandescent or fluorescent lamps, lighting emitted diodes, LEDs, electric electroluminescent material, luminous tubes or other means of converting electricity into light. So we have an electric sign. Technically, it is. Sure sounds like it. Yep. Anything with a plug hanging out of it.

Okay. So, going back, it's not a moving sign. Okay. So, going back to 4411. 4411. No sign shall be erected except as provided in the bylaws. No, it's 44211. Electric signs are not permitted in any residential district. The sign 421. The sign would technically be in the community business district. Is it? Yep, it is. Good point. Huh? That's why you're here, Brian. Good point. Blanch Monk finds in every once in a while.

Yeah, because we'd be putting it right there. No, we're Yeah, we're putting it. We We actually showed it that we said development sign 100. Oh, right there maximum. And we looked at it's before the radius so that when people are driving up they can see it. They're not it's not in the radius of for the radi. What plane are you looking at? Um I'm sorry. C4. It's kind of We have so many Yeah, it's spaghetti. It's spaghetti in there, but we got it. If you look at Snow Road and you It's right next to uh townhouse unit five a little bit.

Okay. And we have it 5T off the street because we have the edge of the road, then we have that sidewalk, then we have the landscaping in there. So, it's kind of blended into the landscaping. And so, you guys are good. But I I think I need to add a waiver, don't I? Well, we have it 5T off of Oh, no, no, no, no. We're good because we're in the right zoning district. We're in a zoning district that doesn't prohibit it. Is that correct? Um, wait a second. Well, no, no, no. because it says with the exception of freestanding signs, all freestanding signs in the NBCB, which that's where we're in, right? Mhm.

Shall be installed no closer than 12 linear feet from the front inside lot line. So, we're It says we have to be 12 feet back. We're proposing the edge of it to be five feet back. Uh oh, you're talking about waiver 20 or 19 19, right? Pardon me. Yes. And sign is not in the sight triangle. It's just on the edge of it, but it is out of it. Yeah. So that's why we're kind of I'd be more comfortable to push back like one foot six feet

just to be out of the sight triangle. Okay. Can you add that? Yeah. To your notes. Put it on your notebook. Been keeping notes. Yeah. It's right on the edge of the sight triangle, right? Yes, it is. So you want to push it back how far? One more foot from whatever they're proposing. 6 feet instead of 5T. Thank you. You're welcome. Oh, okay. And I'm going to reference that in six. Okay. Otherwise, we good with 19? Yeah, I think we're good with that, right, Brian? Yeah. We have a half an hour.

I was just looking at So, now for number 20. Um um directionalformational we point to the plan. So yeah, it says the the the square footage of a directional sign can only be two square feet in overall dimension, right?

And when we when you pull into the site, remember we wanted the the um the directional signs to go to, you know, whatever, building two, building three. So we wanted it two square feet is, you know, tiny tiny. So, we said um to make it a maximum of five square feet in overall area. These are like the wayfinding signs inside the site. Yeah. So, when you pull in and you're facing the clubhouse and somebody says, "Oh, okay. Where's building whatever the address gets assigned?" Oh, go this way. Go that way. So, just five square feet. So, we can make it Does this have to say where it's going to be? It's

They're on the plan. It's on the plan. It's on a plan. When you pull into the site, Peter, it's uh across the driveway. Just the drive would look a little bit to the right and the sign would be Yeah. So, it's the label is in in the area of the clubhouse. This is wife wayfinding sign. Five square feet max. We may have to move that. Do we have any comments in the planning department on these waiverss? No, because I don't have a plan. Jeeoff, do you have any opinion on this one?

Um, I I I agree that two square feet is awfully small for the number of buildings and the sign of the letters probably needed. Um, I'm fine with it. Um, if it was pushed a little bit more up the sheet, it's still within the commercial district. Not that that matters, I don't think. then the driver would be more looking at it more straight instead of over to the right. Yeah. Um but nevertheless, I think it's, you know, I know there's balancing that with the aesthetics of looking at the a nice looking building and then sign, but um I think way a way finding sign is is a good idea um for those people that come in just to keep people from wandering, if you will.

So, yeah. and five it's two and a half by two you know it's not right yeah especially when you got you know half of it on one direction going right and the other half going left that sort of thing I mean people need people need to know which way to go otherwise they're going to circle the whole the whole place right y agreed okay do you guys have any concerns about the height at the very end of that section nor three and 1/2 ft above ground if freestanding Nice. I don't I don't know if that three and a half is to the bottom of the sign or the top of the sign. I was just about to ask that question. Um I think it's to the bottom and it's maybe so cars can see under it or something like that. Okay.

And I don't even know which section you're referring to, but um it's 44342 waiver 20. Waiver 20. What's it directional if mounted on a building? nor three and a half feet above. Oh, so it can't be above three and a half feet if it's freestanding. Right. So, well, that's not going to work too good on snow in the weather. No. Eliminates our freestanding our way findings on, does it? I I see these being as about, you know, five to six foot height somewhere around that area. Five feet.

The four four bottom bottom being about four feet plus or minus and the top being six feet plus. Yep. So you want to add that to your Well, that's Yeah. What's that's a strange requirement. What's the high agree? I'd say max six feet of height off the ground and a height of six feet. So we would you just be consistent with if it's a a wall mounted or building mounted because it says those can't be over six feet above the ground. So it would just be consistent with that. Yeah. Right. Okay. 5T

21standing sign maybe. Yeah. We were asking for 100 square feet in the CB as opposed to 75 ft. I don't understand what this Yes. talking about. A freestanding sign may have one square foot of area for each four linear feet of front lot distance up to a maximum of 75 square ft of sign area. I mean that to me is the dictating sign I think.

Yes. What sign would this be? What um the sign that is going to be eliminated the entrance sign. The entrance sign. So it maxes it. It depending on your frontage you can go bigger and bigger but then they max you out at 75 square feet. We're saying we want to have the max size at 100 square. You want a 100 square foot sign. That's huge. Right. Well, again, is it the Upton has 25 25? Yeah. What do you count? What I guess are you counting the sign face? Is that it? Sign area. Yes. So, we're typically around 50.

That is defined. I'm sure it is because we're typically around 50 square feet. Hold on. We do have a base, right? That's with the base. With the base it is. Yeah. So, the the last sign I did at trailside was um 103 inches long, 66 in tall. Do you want to come back to us with the dimension that you're thinking of? Yeah, I need to come up with what we're dealing with as far as what dictates the dimension. It wouldn't Yeah, we could do that. Do you have a sketch of the sign that you Not at this point? No. I've seen trailside and it's not I mean it and that's a much smaller development,

right? It's it would be very similar. Yeah, that's a that size. Seems to fit that development. It's not as big as that's 50. Yeah, it's 103 in long, 66 in tall. Can you show us bring something that we can see what it would look like? So, it's almost 9 ft. Yeah. You know, you know what? N by we could submit I could submit a few different designs. So, I got I got one in design right now for for another project. Um I can I can give you the trail head design and I can also give you the 19 canal design. They're all very similar distance. I think it's a good idea. Yeah, they're they're nice. They're clean. They're not Yeah. modern same approach. You take the front similar sizes,

right? Little side rules. Let me get my pocket sitting on That's like a billboard. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Coin, what was the dimensions of the trailside sign? Uh 103 long, 66 tall. 103x 66. Thank you. So it's like, yeah, it's got that memory. 50. I'll go buy it tonight on my way home. You must have written that down. How do you know that? How do you know? I go back to it every time I do it another. So that's I mean I'm working on where or what is trail by 140. So 140 in Boilston. West Boilston essentially the big building that we're doing. It's that building. Yeah.

So building Yeah. North of Shrewsbury. Oh, I know where that is. Yeah, I've driven by then. I'll take your word for it. Guys, we got 20 minutes. Don't forget, we're going to have to also try and continue this and we have to pick a date. So, yeah. So, yeah, exactly. So, you want to cut it off now? Maybe. No. 10 minutes. No. Keep going. Let's keep going. 46. 46.9. We're I got 7. I'm off an inch, too. They're going to come back with 21. 22. Yeah. Yeah. Jason, that's Yes. What is section five? Section five is 23,

right? 23 special regulations. Let's just delete.

Yeah. Yeah. This is a waiver from pre-application review. I You already have this contemplated in your decision. Yeah. We don't we don't wave that. We don't No one asks us for that waiver. We don't wave it. So, it's not it's not applicable. So, 24 is one that we see every time. This is the um the lot size requirement for multif family dwelling projects. Um, wait a minute. What happened to 23?

Wait, that's a generic one. It's getting deleted. Well, it's not applicable because it applies to special permits and this is not a special permit. All right. There should be at least 1,500 ft of land area for each dwelling unit. So, we've kind of already agreed to 24, haven't we? Just based on the project. Yeah. This is the one that gets granted for everyone. Yeah. Done. Yeah. So, yeah. So, we all gave up. I I had a difference in the number. Um, you did. Sheet 2 has 636,229 ft. 200 units. I get 3,181.145. So, you might want to increase that to 31.82.

Discrepancy of three feet isn't bad. I'll take it. my friends. Do you want to make that a change? Yeah. Okay. All right. 25. Yeah. This has to do with length. The length of the building cannot exceed 140 ft. You've got apartment buildings one and two having 278 ft. 3, four, and five. 3, four, and five are 151 ft. Mhm.

What about the garages? Each building? Well, it depends on whether we're breaking them up or making them one. 140 ft long. Those are they're in the 72 foot 96 foot range. Okay. Yep. Good. Yeah. I mean, you went through those fairly carefully, but Yeah. You want to review them again? They're not They're not 140 ft long. Yeah, they look short. Good. Good.

Uh 26. Um All right. So, this is the uh water supply protection overlay district. No more than 25% of the lodge shall be rendered impervious. except you can go up to 75% um when you satisfy the recharge requirements of section 7.5D. Um you're asking for impervious 45%. So it says we can go up to 75% but it has to be reviewed by the conservation commission. Um the inspector of buildings

inspector of buildings building after consultation the building inspector can do it. So I guess you're acting on behalf of Right. But that's that's upon a finding that these criteria are met which have we looked at that criteria? Yes, we did. Um they increase the volume of I'm sorry they decrease the volume of surface water runoff. Hence they increase the volume of recharge. So I looked at quantity and we've had a lot of discussion about water quality and how much treatment and so I'm satisfied with both quantity and quality with respect to the water supply protection overlay district

and is that because of those recharge units or whatever I forget what they're called. That's right. The open basin as well as the roof recharge system. Yeah. and we've broken up throughout the site so it's distributed and Jason I would take out the second and third paragraphs of your request. Um I don't think they're really germanine. It doesn't matter. I mean that's more like legal that's like an argument you're making. Um I think the first paragraph is what you need.

Yes. And I'm I'm going to add that catch all in a footnote anyways in the last paragraph. Right. So, um I mean John, do you have any strong preference about the second paragraph that the project complies with storm water management? It's been reviewed. Okay. Okay.

All right. 27 length each. So, this requires a 15 foot wide area of landscaping to the side and rear um each side and rear lot line in a multif family dwelling project should be a 15 foot wide area of land. So, you don't have 15 ft skipping on a portion of the northern side. Well, we break it out. So let's look at C4. It says adjacent to

Well, yeah, because that if you look at the less than 15 foot wide landscaping area along a portion of the northern side line to accommodate storm water management features.

Yeah. So, where we have again all that water quality swale along the northern property line where it's a swale that's not I mean it's grassed and it's going to be sloped and grassed but it's not like a a formal landscape area along the the northern property line. And again, we are going to be planting along the for screening, but it's not like, you know, a designated 15 foot wide landscape area. kind of being technical about it, but

yeah. And then we've got garages encroaching too, right? On the southern side lot line to accommodate garages. Yeah. And the southern and along again along the the stop and shop side where those garages are. Right. So what landscaping are you proposing on that northerly property line? I don't on the northern property line. Yeah. So on the land sliding plant on the landscape, you're saying infill with evergreen trees or shrubs as needed

because we're going to save we're going to um whatever trees that we can save along there cuz it's there's no significant trees, but there's trees that you could save. So, we'll what we noted was that we are going to um we'll flag the trees that we're going to save and then we're going to infill that with evergreens and shrubs for for screening. And what's the area that's behind uh Hurria and Katigan? So, along there that's where we need to do some grading up closer to the property line. There's no trees going to be saved. So that's we're going to be doing the giant arborites. Is that what 30T TN is? Yes.

Okay. I think was that also to help screen the headlights going down into the garage? Well, if somebody's pulling Yes, because if someone's heading that way, that would screen them. Like if somebody's pulling in the driving aisles in front of building one, especially closer to the quad, that may, you know, it's quite a ways away, but that may and we have some trees at the top um of the curb, you know, next to garage number three and then along that whole Norley property. We're doing the the what are the green giants?

We do have two people. Is the board concerned at all about the lack of specificity in terms of the other areas along the northerly property line where they say infill as needed? Um, I get the point that they don't necessarily want to show a landscape plan until they finish the work and then they know what's needed, but you're basically leaving it up to the applicant to make that determination rather than us approving it. Dan, where are you reading from? I'm sorry. He's just talking about the notes on on Oh. Oh, on the plan. Pardon me. On the landscape plan. Pardon me.

I think in the past we've Have we reviewed landscape plans? We have. post post um permit, right? Yes. Apprentice place. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. So that that could be an option where we could ask to review the landscape plan. When you determine what's as needed, then you you show us a landscape plan that what you're going to do. Um who's the reviewing authority? Is it the board or would it be the building inspector? that. Yes, there there was a landscape um peer reviewer on Apprentice Place that helped out the board with um what what vegetation should come down at the beginning of construction and I believe was conditioned at the end as well. I'm not so sure about that, but it was

and there were there were changes at the end based on large trees or some something that was supposed to be there that wasn't that we allowed a change to swap out for different species or something. The whole thing's still open though. I mean that the social landscaping all in the back of that that hasn't been finished. That's still an open issue. That's correct, Bill. to the best of my know I know I haven't been involved with like a final close out on that project um but I do recall a peer reviewer on behalf of the board there was

ear early early on and it came to some conditions um and and Brian to your point um there was I I know I was contacted about does it make sense to put certain what would grow to be large trees in the middle of a drainage structure or or where water would be flowing on a regular basis I've never seen anything planted over this, so I don't know what became of it, but I I was asked I honestly don't know where it stands. So, do you want to request a landscape review, landscape plan review at some later stage, maybe after the work is Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm trying to

in the field to to ensure adequate screening, something along those lines. When would it be done? That's the question I have is I mean again you've got the you've you've got the comprehensive permit plan set. You've got the approved plans which were collapsing into the building permit construction. No, no, we're talking about after construction. We're talking Oh, we're talking about after construction because that's when you're going to plant the trees, right? Yeah. Right. So you you come back to us after you've done all the grading and built the garages and then you come back to us with say we're saving this tree, this tree, this tree a plan, frankly, it's just this area I think that we're concerned about showing us where you want to infill. Yes. Is that okay?

Yeah. Okay. And I think I asked you this question before. Does the town have a tree warden? Yes, you do. We do. So maybe that's the person. We do have a tree warden. A tree warden is not a landscaper. He's Yeah. And and this is a private this is something he doesn't deal with the private he only deals the one on on the town property public property. Okay. So what what would be the timing of that t like what what would be the milestone to trigger that preoccupancy permit? So we actually have a condition already that says that they their landscaping has to be completed before I think the occupancy permit for the fifth building. Yeah.

Um I see. So that would be all coincidental. But we we have seven minutes. Do you want to stop now and public comment? Okay. So is this one? So for the record, we stopped at item 27. Yeah. Okay. Subject to our condition. Okay. Let me dog that.

All right. Soh, let's see. By the way, before I uh neglect to apologize, I apologize for being late. Thanks for the sports indulgence. Rocket was, you know, you didn't wait anyway. So, sorry, Jason. We started with I know you did. Hey,

they asked me if we wanted to wait. I said, don't worry about it. I I know where I am on the pecking order. Um, is there anyone from the public that would like to comment? Has to be very brief. Sure.

Uh, Mark Potter 14, Suzanne Terrace. Um, so if I understand correctly, we're talking about like increasing the downgrade on Snow Road to the intersection at 122 and 140 from what's currently 10% to like 8% or is that that accurate?

No, it so we asked them to review a a third option. Um, they presented two options. Um, we asked them to dig into a third potential option that I basically we deemed that it wasn't going to be feasible. Um, so Jeff probably knows off the top of his head what the grade will be at the end. Yeah, they're proposing a grade of um 10% at the steepest in the intersection and um what we're trying striving to do is to try to decrease that rate that grade to be no no greater than what it is now and it runs about 8 to 9% out there now. And and

with the information that was available a couple of months ago, it looked like there might have been merit to being able to achieve that. And what they recently submitted was that because of the what we had for discussion earlier, um the sidewalk along the south side or the east side doesn't doesn't allow them to do that unless they can lower that sidewalk.

Okay, I understand. My concern was stemming from like there's no commercial motor vehicle restriction on snow road currently. So like you could drive an 80,000 ton truck down there and if you're going to increase the grade that's you know with all those crossings and sidewalks that doesn't seem too safe to me. Um, the other thing I just wanted to point out on the snow removal thing, if if you look at the common area, um, again, it's really more their problem than our problem, but it's ringed by parking spaces.

So, like you're not going to mount the curb. And usually during a snow event, people are parked in their spaces. So, and then per their landscape where they have trees designated to park, like that's where you're going to put the snow. Normally, a lot that size, you're probably going to do it with a loader and a broom and a skid steer and maybe another truck. So like all the straight shots are where you're going to put the snow. There's no place to put the snow or remove it from. And then you're going to be abuing, you know, the wetland area in the back or uh Tim's property on the north side on the snow roadside in those corners. It becomes problematic. Well, I think what makes us comfortable with that is the um parking is plenty, you know, so there's there should be additional spaces that will be able to absorb that. Um but if you know, as you said, it's it's their problem, you know, to truck it off, you know, as needed. Um,

and then I was just disappointed in the sidewalk not going all the way up to the property just like you guys are like as far as like a community benefit. Like I've walked down there to stop and shop or even all the way down to Fitzies and the ice cream place and it's like I'm not crossing the road twice. I hear you. So, thank you. Thanks. Um, so we need to pick a further date.

Yep. So, I I think it's how much time does the applicant need? Because I think that you're going to um go through the document the um man, I'm tired. I can't think of the word. The uh red line. Conditions. The conditions. The conditions. Yeah. You're going to redline the conditions. You're going to set up a meeting with me. Yes. like next week or something or Yeah. Okay. So, how much time is needed

to wrap this up? And then for point of clarification, am I doing the I'm going to make the changes to the um waiver requests on a rolling basis? Yeah, the ones we talked about tonight. You can red line them. Yep. Okay. So, just to let you know, Peter is gone from the 20th. He does not get he gets back. He will be back on the 3. He will be back in town on the 3rd of June 3rd. So you're back on the second, but you'd be available for a meeting on the 3. All right. So Peter is unavailable from the 20th to the 2nd. That gives us a week. So I mean we have a meeting scheduled next Wednesday which is to vote, you know, to sign the decision from last week.

So it's so the fourth or the It's either the 14th. Yeah. Four. It's either the 13th, which is next week, or the 3rd or 4th. June. I can't do the fourth, but I can do the graduation. No. Oh, Beth, it's a graduation. I can do the third as well of June. Is that okay? Alex and Bill's third. Alex and Bill, are you guys okay on June 3rd? Yes. There's no way we can do this before Peter leaves. Is that too soon? Well, the problem week. The town has elections on the 19th.

I actually lied. I'm actually going to be in San Francisco on that day. On the 3. Yeah. One uh the 1st through the 4th. Is remote an option, Alex? Um I don't think so. only because I'm going to be behind and I'm going to be in meetings all day. Yep. That's two weeks. Does that give you guys enough time? So, um how much time do you So, next week, the 13th when we already have a meeting, right? We have a meeting on the 13th. Correct. Is that an option? You're just marking this. You're going to mark up the draft. Correct.

Right. That shouldn't take. You already took notes. So Mhm. Well, that means you'd have to have it by Friday at the latest and then we'd need to discuss it. I'd have I'm sorry. I'd have to have something. I'd have to give it to you by Friday, right? Okay. Which is or or Monday. I mean, if we have if if you and I can talk Monday or Tuesday and try to narrow some issues, that's all they're asking us us to do, right? Is that enough time to because you have a meeting on the publish anything? We're just continuing. No, but does that give the if you have another matter scheduled

that matter should literally it's a housekeeping. It's it is okay. It's a decision that's being written they're going to vote on and be done. They already approved it. It's so it's just getting the decision from the attorney. Got it. I can do the 13th. All right. Everyone else available the 13th. Well, I know all my board is already. Yeah, we're already here. I know. I know my board is. I meant everybody else. Yep. Um, yes. So, we are all available. Yes.

It' be better to get set. I'll probably be remote again, but that doesn't matter. All right. So, is there a motion to continue case number 910? 910 to uh May 13th at 7 p.m. So moved. Second. Did we ask the applicant? You guys are free that day, right? Yeah, we're good. Okay. Okay. You second. Miss Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. McCusker? Yes. Mr. Adams? Yes. Mr. Mia. Yes.

Yes. All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. M Reed. Yes. McCusker. Yes. Mr. Adams. Yes. Mr. Mia. The address here. Chairman votes. Yes. Hi everyone. We're journ. Thank you. Bill. Safe travel. Have a good flight. Yeah.