Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening. It is 7.09 p.m. This open meeting of the Grafton Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted both remotely and in person, consistent with the temporary provisions of the open meeting law, which extends remote meeting protocols through March 31st, 2027. This meeting is convening by a 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. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may be able to see you and that you should take care not to screen share your computer. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording of this meeting and rebroadcast at a later date. This meeting may feature public comment. Anyone attending virtually, if you'd like to request acknowledgement to speak, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. 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 each vote taken in this meeting will be done by a roll call vote.

that i will turn it over to mr mccusker thank you so i think the only on the agenda is snow road case whatever number and 910. so at this time does the applicant have anything that they want to introduce or discuss or

Good evening. My name is Jason Panos. For the record, practicing law at 246 Andover Street, Peabody, Massachusetts. I'm joined by the project team, John Grenier. From Grenier and Associates, our project engineer, rather, and project principal sitting behind me, Steve and Jim Vencasa and Cohen Babcock. Before we get into the substance of tonight, I think it's a good idea to... bring you guys up to speed with what we've been doing over the past month. There have been a couple of meetings, a couple of interactions between John and conservation, between Cohen and neighbors. And I think through you, I'd like to invite them to the podium to talk about where they're at. John's to my right, so I'll ask him to start.

Yeah, we had Matthew Morrow, who's our environmental consultant, we had a meeting with the conservation agent and her assistant on Wednesday, yesterday morning, and to discuss some of their requests as part of the conditions for this permit. As part of or the result of that meeting is they are going to be making some modifications to their requests, and they will be drafting those up. It was a day before the hearing, so obviously that wasn't going to happen by tonight. But in short order, they will be making some modifications to their request for the permit for this project.

um so these are modifications to their requests that impact

conditions I guess yes yes and some of that has to do with the conditions that are put on our permit from Natural Heritage in terms of monitoring all of what is entailed in terms of their permit there is overlap with what some conservation requests were so based on that we had a good very good discussion with them And so they'll be providing some modifications. So in terms of how that rides into tonight's discussion, we'd like to table that portion of it because there's going to be some modifications to that.

So certain conditions, when we get to them, we just skip over a table?

In terms of, yeah, what was part of a conservation agent's adjusted language?

We can... Okay.

Before I ask Cohen to step up, has there been any communication from the fire department? I know you were waiting for some feedback.

Yep, I did post it, so... said there they there is no requirement that of a distance between them but the fire department has the same amount of concern regarding this as it would with any other building in town where the further apart the buildings are the less likely the radiant heat in the event of a fire would involve a second so so we have in our packet right now our emails from Thursday May 14th and Monday May 11th have you not seen these I have not seen those no I I thought I emailed them all to you guys. After I posted them, I could have swore I sent an email with all of these comments. I may not have, but I could have swore I did.

I don't recall seeing them.

After I scanned them all in and posted them, I could have swore I sent an email with all these comments, but I will get them to you. Basically, what Mike is saying is there's no code requirement, but they would prefer they be a little farther apart because of

radiant heat could start another one are we talking about the garages yes okay and was that the only comment he had because I thought you were waiting for feedback from them on the type of surface for the periphery periphery fire road and there were a couple of other things you were waiting for him to weigh in on no

I don't think we actually posed that question to them.

You didn't?

No.

I know they wanted the solid. I mean, when we met with them, they said they wanted a solid surface. It wasn't going to be, we couldn't have it be, you know, it can't be grass. It can't be something that's because, and something that's plowable.

Right.

Okay.

So we have, and that's in a mail, right? I think I even pointed out. There's a mail somewhere where it says.

It needs to be a plowable surface that's maintained year round.

Yeah.

All right.

um okay may i please ask cohen to step up to the podium just while we're on the the fire department too yes we brought it up at the the last meeting there was an email from april 14th with concerns about the turning radius by garage number seven um and i know when we brought it up um i believe katrina head forward that email then um so i think i believe that's still open um unless it's been addressed

John, that was the one with the apparatus just has to be shifted on the model. It was five feet on one side, but one foot on the other. Right, right. Okay. All right, Colin Babcock. Address? Boylston. Boylston, Mass. So after the last meeting, I sought out, you know, we had the discussions about the landscape and the coverage of the three residences. It was 18 Snow Road, 25 Suzanne Terrace, and then I'm not sure what the other address is on Suzanne Terrace, but the one up behind the pond. I sought out All three of those abutters, two of them were willing to share their contact information with me and set up a meeting. One of them wasn't willing to share their contact. So I did meet with, first I met with Tim Kwerger of 25, Suzanne Terrace. We went over, we walked the property line. We looked at where the plantings would be, what they would be. We discussed it. We came to the agreement that he was okay with what was proposed on the plan, the abroviates on his property line. So I left him. Then I went over and met with 18 Snow Road. His name is Alex, Alex DeSimone. So I met with Alex. Me and Alex walked the property line. He wasn't particularly sure. It wasn't as clear on his property line as it was for Tim's. There's some trees that we're going to probably save there, some we won't. And it wasn't quite apparent which ones would be saved and wouldn't be saved. So he wasn't necessarily sure if a fence would be good for him or the varieties or infill the approved landscape plan. So what I left it with him is he was OK with that we would do a fence or infill for him as approved on the landscape plan to be approved by you guys prior to building permit. So when the time came, I'd reach out to him. Once we did the clearing, we identified what the infill would be. He could make the decision, I'd rather have a fence, and then we'll put a fence on the landscape plan, and you guys can approve it. And he was okay with that.

It seems like we should have language for all the abutters that kind of talks to that, that they'll work with, the developer will work with in some way. I mean, I don't want to sign you guys up for overkill, right?

Well, that's the thing. The other abut is we walk the whole property line, and so the house to the left of 25 – that the wood line to their yard is about it starts out at about 15 feet or so and grows to about 25 feet or so and then to the right of 25 it's like 25 feet of wood line from the property like to where their yard starts and then it right the next property in front of right behind 18. It's kind of an L shaped lot that goes out to snow road and there's not even their yards not even remotely close. It's like 6080 feet away because it's just just a piece of land that's back there not being utilized people as a yeah.

I'll also FYI the email was sent May 21st Dan Jeff and all of you okay with all the attack they're all the recent attachments so May 21st the only trouble with that is if if it's kind of tied to the what's gonna happen tied to the building permit and the butter changes their mind right

That leaves you hanging. I agree with that.

Those are the words I kind of put it in. I don't want to sign them up for too much or some sort of overkill, but it would be nice if there was some way to kind of address that sort of thing.

I think addressing it now does that, right? If we address it now, the language is clear and cut. Yeah, we're going to work with 18. We're going to work 25 is good as is. And if we address that now, then we don't have to deal with that later, because I agree with you. It could be open-ended, and it could cause some problems.

Well, by way of context, we're talking about Condition D-9, and it's the highlighted section in the decision. And the actual language that was proposed, unless it appears elsewhere, but I believe this is what we're talking about, The applicant shall consult with abutters along the northern property line concerning the nature and type of screening and shall reasonably accommodate and incorporate any specific requests for screening made by a set of abutters. I think that has to come out, actually, because the very purpose of this hearing is to hear abutter's concerns. and to take them into consideration. If we post-permit now have to go back to them, they are acting as an ultra-virus local board, and they're not. And as Mr. McCusker indicated, they could change their mind. You know, who is the arbiter of whether or not we've reasonably incorporated these requests, particularly if these requests come after the final plans get submitted and approved by this board. It just creates the potential for chaos.

Mr. Well, I think it's all tied to the final landscape plan. Mr. Sure. Mr. And the intent was to have some requirement, but also to give you some flexibility in the butter some flexibility and what that entails.

Right. But but it's a prerequisite to issuing the building permit. That's what the qualifying language is in this condition. Prior to the issuance of the building.

And I'm not saying that it should be open ended or that, you know, we don't want you how ransom, you know, for something that's, you know, not reasonable. But I'm not sure if the way to the best way to craft that so that it meets those purposes.

But I think though, if you take out that sentence and keep the rest of it, it's fine. You know, there are safeguards, right? And, you know, the fact of the matter is, is just taking it into a more global context. This board is going to approve those final plans. So right now you have the preliminary plans in front of you. You're going to approve or review, rather, the final plans to make sure they're consistent with not only this decision but those preliminary plans. There is going to be further opportunity to flesh a lot of that out, and that certainly would come prior to the issuance of the building permit to basically, again, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but to open it up to having almost a neighborhood association determine the appropriate screening when we've gone through processes that this board deliberately set up. Seems to me a little difficult.

I think he's exaggerating. I don't think that's what the Senate says. No, it doesn't.

I agree, Dan. And what I was going to say is...

It doesn't say that?

No, all it's saying is that you'll get input. We're ultimately going to decide whether the plan is approved or not.

It doesn't say we're simply going to get input. It says we're going to incorporate the specific requests regarding screening. Sure.

Which you've already said, either offense or arborvitae, depending on what the abutter asked for.

Right, but why do we need it in the decision if we're already going to be building it, if it's already built into a process that this board is a problem?

What process is it built into?

This hearing.

Okay, but somebody doesn't show up. Somebody doesn't necessarily know what's going on. Somebody sells a house between now and then. You should be able to get that input while you're still developing the landscape plan. Why wouldn't you want input from everybody who could possibly give you input?

To the extent that we can. We've already reached out to people. Some people don't want to talk with us. Some people are very open to talking with us.

Why wouldn't you want as much input as possible?

I'm not saying we wouldn't. Yes, you are. No, I'm not.

No, I'm not. No, I'm not.

100% I am not refusing that input. I'm saying that I don't want to be in an arbitrary situation where we've knocked on a door, got the door slammed in our face, and now this board said we didn't do enough.

How can we say that?

Because you're... basically is a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit making us go to these people and incorporating requests into the final plan and we can only do that to the extent that people actually give and take and engage with us.

It doesn't say you shall get requests from every abutter.

It's a shall consult with.

Fine. You consult with. You knocked on a door, they slammed in your face. End of consultation. Okay. We're not saying you're required to get requirements from everybody. Just go talk to people. Leave the door open so that if something comes along, you can.

We've done that.

Wow.

But I guess who's the arbiter of that?

We are, just like it says there. I don't think you understand the process. So you started the process. That's great. You knocked on the doors. You got some input. Then when you prepare your landscaping plan, you come to the board with the landscaping plan, and you show the screening that you proposed after consulting with the neighbors. And as part of that plan, maybe you can have a narrative that says, we knocked on this door, this door, this door, this door, this door. We talked to these people, and this is what they said. And then you give it to the board, and the board decides – whether or not that's sufficient or not and you can defend your decisions you can say you know we think this is sufficient because this is what joe farmer said he wants and but that we can't do all of it we can do some of it and the board will decide whether it's official or not mr chair i mean can can there be like official not official but documentation so we know who you've reached out to we know who you talk to and we know you

Something in writing so we know that everyone's been contacted So we don't know really like who wouldn't talk to you who didn't sure and then maybe have it some sort of a I don't know if a timeline works and say okay by this time and all the betters have a chance to Respond back if they have it whatever, you know, I think if they just give us a narrative there's only five or six properties There's only three that there's only three in my opinion that are actually affected. Okay, so I

And then by looking at the map here, you have 18, and then Quirgo was 25, and then I think it's the one up by the 39 maybe.

So Colin, I'm going to ask you to tell us again. We probably should have had this up when you were saying.

Sure. Yeah, so 18, I can't see that. Where's 18?

That's the one on Snow Road, right? Yeah, on Snow Road.

So you need to move. It says 35 is a big number.

35A, okay.

So 18. Yeah, so that's 18. So that's Alex DeSimone. I met with him. He was the one that said, you know, I'm not really sure if a fence or an infill will work best for me, and we agreed we'd do either on the approved landscape plan, and he was fine with that. That makes sense, okay. So there it's all trees. that whole lot all the way almost to the houses trees so in theory 35 a there yeah he doesn't need anything um and then 30 36 which is yeah that's where that's 25 so yeah he's the one with the everybody's he was good with that we laid it out we we did some measurements he's fine um 32 it starts at quaker's yard so we have everybody's proposed like halfway up there up 32 because the beginning of 32 it's probably about 10 foot wide thick a tree so you're saying 32 i think you mean 37 where I'm sorry 37 where it says 37 so it starts about 10 foot thicker trees and it just gets bigger as it goes up the property line to where their yard actually is and then when you get to 38 there's a lot of trees between our property line and their yard line and then 39 there's some clearing they wouldn't they wouldn't meet with me I tried that's over by the basin do you want the near map shot of it so you can see all the trees

Now, when you say there's a lot of trees, you mean there's a lot of trees on their property? Correct.

Just like I said, 39, is that a pool? Yeah, that's Corgis.

So they'll never think... No, that's Valentine. So any of them with trees aren't thinking about taking any of the trees out of there, I take it? They're not concerned about it? I don't know.

Yeah, I asked her if she wanted to meet with me. She wouldn't. I mean, you can't force somebody, so.

They're still open to meet with us. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. We're not trying to do anything. We're willing to work with the abutters. We want to do what's right, but we also don't want to leave it open-ended for, you know.

Yeah, and we don't want that either. That's not good for anybody.

Yeah.

Okay.

This change process question when when they come back in front of us with the final set of plans is there any notice that gets issued. At that point or not. Just a normal meeting.

I mean the hearing would be close by that point. Yeah, right.

So are we comfortable with that process? We just wanted to make sure it wasn't like an open-ended, you know, and then it just, it can cause more problems.

Go back. Yeah.

And just for, so long as we're on this conversation, can you kind of go around the corner to the properties on snow itself? So go down. No, the other way.

Oh.

So what is that, like where that number 70 is?

I think. He wants us to cut the trees down. What's that? Yeah, we went through, we've already, we did that a long time ago. He asked if we could remove the trees during land clearing, and we said, yeah, absolutely. We're good at that.

That's good.

The yin and the yang.

That works for both parties. That's good.

Okay, so you've talked.

That's what I want to make sure.

North and south are different.

Okay. Thank you.

So what's the pleasure of the board?

Hang on a second. Sure. I can't hear you.

Your microphone.

Mine or his? No. You're talking to me, right? Yes, sir. All right.

So the other problem is if, like, Brian, if you have the mic over behind, over your, your voice bounces off your screen. Yeah. So you kind of have to have, yeah.

Yeah, because that would be shocking to me if someone told me they couldn't hear me. That's usually not a problem.

Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

That's okay. So I was simply asking what's the board's pleasure, because I can... suggest reviewing certain things I think we've already kind of gone over but are seemingly unresolved. I had the opportunity today to talk with the project team to go over specific conditions. I'm not sure that we even completed the condition review and I know that there were findings that were drafted and I returned comments to those today.

So I guess I was thinking the conditions we should, I'd like to try and get the conditions as finalized as possible. So tonight, yeah. Um, and the red lines, so you submitted a bunch of red lines. I don't think we've gone through those.

Right. I, and I can't remember where we ended up in the process from last month.

Um, we only, we got through the waivers. So I think the waivers are done, but we haven't actually gone through the condition. The red lines and the conditions. So that, I think, is the general.

We haven't gone through any of them?

No. I thought we started.

We went through them. We discussed them a couple months ago.

But then you gave us red lines. We haven't gone through the red lines.

Right. Got it.

Got it. I also added some additional language last month based upon input from Leah, the conservation agent. So I'm a little bit concerned. I mean, I guess if we're continuing the hearing anyway, it's not a big deal. But I would be a little bit concerned about continuing just because they're telling you that Leah doesn't like some of the language that she gave us. That seems strange, but if we're continuing the hearing anyway, then I suppose no harm, no foul.

Well, I mean, to give that context, John, you can speak to this a little bit more to the extent I am not representing it clearly enough. Proposed conservation language came from the conservation agent without any interaction with us. John and our resource area expert met with her. They came to some kind of understanding based on that conversation. So there was context given. She understood where we were coming from and is willing to modify the condition that she proposed. I think that's that simple. Yeah. So, and I'm assuming that no, and you were looking for, I think, a writing at the last hearing from the conservation agent above and beyond just the condition. I thought you were looking for some kind of email. I can't remember.

I had a couple follow-up questions for her, but I thought those answered.

Okay.

Yeah, which was the salt.

Assault what what they what their typical language is for?

Okay, so yeah, so those levels pre yesterday's meeting with the project team and her okay With the salt is there any roadways or pavement within a hundred feet of the

That back road that the fire department wants.

No, that's not even within 100 feet.

That's not covered by her email?

No part of, the only part of the project that's within 100 feet to any resource area is just some off grading to the detention basin in the northeast corner.

So this salt thing she gave us is non-app, it's not applicable at all then?

The issue, Peter, is more for the well. No, I realize that, but she's saying within 100 feet, and if there's nothing within 100 feet... Maybe I didn't read that email as closely, but I had a separate conversation with her about what their typical conditions are for limiting road salt in protective areas, and so that's the language I put in D10.

I guess what my point is, are they going to be able to salt that fire department road behind Building 1 and 2?

Yeah, you can do whatever you want. I'm just recommending that you go with road treatments that are not potentially harmful to the well.

I don't think there is a treatment that's not harmful.

Well, they have protocols. There's calcium, magnesium, acetate. I don't know what they are.

I've spread them all. Salt is the less corrosive and moderate one.

But so it's a balancing, right? You put salt down, but then that gets into the wellhead.

I apologize. I'm sorry to interrupt. Through the chair to Katrina. Katrina, was this addressed in the emails you sent us on the 21st? I apologize.

Yes.

Do you have a copy of those emails? For some reason, I missed them.

Yeah, I can give you my copies.

Is that okay? Okay.

I mean, my question might mean nothing. That's what I'm wondering. Oh, thank you. I mean, if conservation is saying you can't salt that back road, that's not good. Because then that means if there happened to be a fire in the fire department and it's all ice, that's not a good thing. I don't know what we'd do then.

Well, they'd have to treat it. We're saying they can't use sodium chloride.

Yeah, so the...

I mean, liquid salt is liquid sodium chloride.

Yeah, Leah said their standard condition is that sodium-based de-icing products shouldn't be used on driveways within 100 feet of a wetland buffer zone or 200 feet from a riverfront. So this condition is ongoing, does not expire with the issuance.

That's okay.

Which is, we're fine with that.

But that's not... That's not the language. The issue is not the wetland. The issue is the well. So I asked her what language do you have for limiting sodium chloride in general. And she gave me this language. She just copied and pasted something. But the point is that sodium chloride, I don't think, is good for drinking water. So that's... That's the issue. If there's alternative road treatments that can be adequate, that's not salt, and that doesn't harm the well quality, then that should be the condition.

I don't know what the answer is, and I've spread them all.

What does stop and chop use? They're right on the other side.

Salt. I would assume salt.

Aren't they downgrading from the well?

And I would assume, I'm just assuming, everybody uses pure salt now. Very few places use sand anymore.

Yeah.

Because they don't want to sweep.

The Stop and Shop parking lot is at the same elevation as the well?

Do you happen on the plant? Yes. Basically, yeah. I mean, their parking lot is out of the 400-foot radius.

Right, and so was the project.

Right.

But I think that the concern was that let's not add more salt if we can help it.

Mr. Chair, the condition that's currently drafted references alternative projects as approved by the Grafton Health Director, not conservation. So did we get any feedback from – I know we got feedback on the dumpster from the Health Director. Did we get any feedback on the use of – ice treatments from the health worker.

I did not realize I needed to ask her that. I can send Annette an email tomorrow for that.

And I wonder, should we reach out to the water district as well? No. I've reached out to them so many times and I just... With specific questions as opposed to just generic.

I have.

That's the root of the problem here. Dan's taking conservation... language and trying to apply it to the wellhead and all of that should be coming from the water district and apparently they care about their water quality it's not funny no i i especially especially in this town where people can't drink the water it's a sarcastic response because i did specifically ask certain questions i agree with you it's not funny basically came back with their standard answer so i

I don't know what else I can do.

But it leads us right into where we are now, where Dan's trying to do the right thing using conservation language, trying to apply it to the well. You know what? We shouldn't be in that business. The water districts should be the one who's trying to protect their well, but apparently they don't care.

They might not be able to put... anything any standards above the 400 foot buffer zone I'm not speaking for them we can though yeah we can but they're not suggesting it so what right where do we stand which is I'm guessing it they they could and they should be suggesting more if I found it hard to believe it there's not more that can be done you know

Is this something that your peer reviewer and John can get together on and we can not get caught up in this tonight? We clearly don't have the technical background to resolve this.

Yeah, so I don't even know which condition we're talking about.

It's D10.

Okay, but can we maybe start at D1? and deal with the red lines and accept them or not and just kind of walk through these things. Sure. If we get to D10 and the right thing to do is skip over D10, we skip over D10.

Right.

But, you know, right now I feel like we're hopping all over the place.

Well, that's right.

Agreed. That's exactly right.

I'd rather just start at the top and understand what these changes are.

Ryan, thank you for this. Let me see if I can.

So um I've got a document that starts at D Yeah, the decision split into two parts.

Yeah Okay, so red so my I've a document 522 26 red line sections D to end and

But I sent an email last night that had both you should have two documents a through C and then D through N Yeah, but but is the one 522 26 red line sections D. That's the one So we could start with with d1 now Dan whose are most of these changes are they the applicants these red lines that's both I Let me pull it up. That doesn't help.

Whoever does most of them, the drive, so to speak. Again, to give a context, I did a set of red lines. Dan and I spent about two and a half, three hours one day on the phone going through them. And that prompted him to go into my red line and provide comments. There were some red lines that I provided that were fairly innocuous that were more clarification, that type of thing, or he didn't have a problem with them. So let's just start with D1.

Can somebody get it on the screen?

Yeah.

Where's the Zoom link?

You should have gotten it in an email.

You want me to find the email?

I can find your email.

Is it on the web page?

It should be.

Under agendas?

It should be under the agenda or go to the actually go up here. Go back up top.

It's okay.

I don't know. Boards and communities.

Affordable housing trust. Trust me. Affordable housing developments. Scroll all the way down.

No wonder I can't find anything on our web. Snow Road.

We need IT.

Trust me, I am not computer literate. This is the only thing I know. Go all the way down. Great. Keep going. It's going to be the last one on there. That might have to give you access. Okay, your panelists, you should be able to share now.

So it's not turned on. Huh?

Oh, sorry.

Well, making progress.

It's on my screen.

I don't know. It's showing that screen and not.

Let's try this again.

There we go.

Okay. So you want to just go down.

Yeah.

Point by point?

Starting with D, or you want to start from the beginning at A?

I want to start with D. Oh. OK. Conditions.

All right. Jason you added this so if Jason added language that I thought was okay I just left it in the added language that I thought was not okay. I'm gonna comment about it.

Okay, so But in d1 he struck some language I think I struck that yeah, that's not my strikeout.

Yeah, so that's my change.

I'm glad that we're starting with this one because I'd like to talk about it Okay so If you read D1 and D2, if you have D2, why do you need D1, I guess? I mean, we went through it together earlier today, and that was the question we asked. Because D1 seems to have an intention that's addressed by D2.

And to put some context. that is I think we talked this talk about this last month was if for the creation of our water quality swale in some sections the mid section going back we need to grade up to the property line and that's where we show our limit of work and our erosion control and with this suggested condition it says Obviously, we can't do anything within the drip line of any tree that is located off-site within 10 feet of the perimeter of the site. So, if this is the property line, the abutters tree is here, the drip line extends 15-20 feet within our project. and that's an area where we need to do some grading to create a swale, that would be a problem. But D2, I believe, would be able to rectify that.

Yeah, and it seems to me that the purpose of D1 is not to kill any abutter trees, that the abutter doesn't, unlike the fellow who lives on the southbound of the property, The abutter doesn't want killed. Obviously, if we're doing grading and it interferes with the root system, that seems to be the situation contemplated in D1, which seems to be addressed in D2, that in the event that happens, there is a process by which we're replacing trees. But we have a limit of work depicted on the site plans. And it seems to me that limit of work could substantially change as a result of D1.

It also mentions the tree warden.

Will he go on private property?

I understand if it's a tree within the town right away on the street frontage, but

As far as I know, no one has requested.

I've never heard of that. I'm not saying it isn't, I don't know. Yeah, I don't either. I can't imagine a tree, I can imagine the building inspector going in the site, but not, I can't imagine the tree warden.

I have no idea. I agree with what the applicant's saying, that it does seem like the one, the D2 building addresses D1 if something happens to one of the trees. I mean, how much are we talking about?

We're talking about a pretty thick tree line on the northern boundary.

Wow.

Well, the area that – the areas as it would – area that's closest that we're looking to grade for that swale right is backs up to Corga which he from from talking to Cohen is fine with what we're proposing and then it starts blending away over behind his next-door neighbor which is cat again which that has some, on their side, some additional tree buffer, but again, we're gonna extend some evergreens along that line. And then as you head to the back along the, which was Valentine and Danielson, where the basin is, we need for some grading around that side of the basin, some work that's a little closer to the property line. Um, so that's where the grading needs to be. And again, um, we're going to look at saving trees where we can, if there are individual trees we can save, and then obviously doing the infill and then coming back with the landscape plan. And then if anything were to be affected because the roots were disturbed offsets offsite, that's where D two kicks in, right?

So do you want to D two or not? Duplicative. So, D1 is basically saying, look, when you dig right up against the property line, you might be hitting some roots of abuttered trees. Those abuttered trees may not die immediately. They probably won't, right? But it may cause long-term damage. So D2 really only deals with, gee, I took a tree down by mistake. That's within the limit of work. That's obvious. But D1 is more like the long-term effects and just preventing – root destruction to abutters trees. So there's a balance. I understand that that's problematic for their plan because maybe they have grading proposed within the drip line of some abutter trees. I think we've had this condition before in other projects. I'm pretty sure I took it from either Upton Street or Pleasant Street.

I was about to say, where did that condition come from?

All these conditions, I didn't just create these. These are conditions that we've worked on in the past on other projects.

mean some of them obviously are unique and tailored to the project but this is not you know we're at the point we've got this plan that we seem to have coalesced on and it requires work you know within you know within essentially this this limit that we're creating so it doesn't seem like we should have this condition certainly not as written You know if we can do some sort of a carve out for where we know we're closer to where the limit of work is gonna be within this 10 foot perimeter Is there a reason to reference anything other than the limit of work?

So remove the references to the drip line the 10 feet 10 foot perimeter and just you know, no site grading or excavation shall occur and outside of the limit of work or something along those lines.

If I may, I think that the crossout, the language that I originally proposed that got stricken, I think, pretty much Brian addresses that. Yeah, basically. If you don't like my language, I have no pride in authorship. But you see the intent here, what I'm trying to get at. So, yeah, we will observe the drip lines to the extent that they're either not waived, you know, there's a condition that isn't waived in your bylaws, or... Unless otherwise shown on the site plans, and we show a limit of work on the site plans to Brian's work.

I don't think the cross-out accomplishes what you're saying. Basically, the condition, that first sentence is saying that that tree that's within 10 feet of the property line, its drip line becomes the limit of work.

Correct.

I don't think that's what you want.

We don't want that because the site plan shows differently, shows the limit of work that's.

Right, so.

So that's why there's the or as otherwise shown on the site plans and except as expressly waived.

I think Brian's language is better. Yeah. I think if that's fine. If the board wants, I would just, I would take out what I wrote or just in words such that there would be no excavation within the limit of work as shown in the plan.

I would think that's already somewhere in here as a condition, but if not, yeah.

I think we are.

I think we have to.

The alternative is basically forcing probably some significant change to what we've got. And the purpose of that swale was so that we could provide increased water quality and treatment. So that was what was driving that.

So this last sentence can come out, right? It doesn't really serve any purpose.

Yeah, I agree.

The last sentence is gone. I'm sorry.

The last sentence is gone, Peter.

So is the condition now no site grading or excavation shall occur outside the boundary depicted as a limit of work on the approved plans?

I'm making the change in real time. oh you are okay it's hard for me to see okay okay so under number two this is an example of something that Jason had proposed which I didn't necessarily agree with and I flagged it for the board to look at so my language was that if they destroyed a tree with that's outside the limit of work area Actually, we use the word outside, not inside. That there would be a replacement of a ratio of two new trees for each destroyed tree. What's that noise?

It's the clock. It's been doing that all week. It's trying to reset itself.

Can we take it down and take the battery out?

Someone's helping out. It's hardwired.

really it's one of the original ones from the school oh my god start so anyway so much is just a language was if they destroy a tree by accident right or deliberately they have to replace replace it with two new trees that would be uninstalled under the supervision of the tree warden

I think we probably need to take the tree warden out. Just, you know, qualified landscape professional, something like that probably is sufficient. And the applicant has struck the idea of two trees.

Well, do you want to see the board's peer reviewer? I mean, it should be someone on our side, right?

Sure. Yep.

And do you want to? Use my language or don't to take that one just struggling with who's who. So I had put in that the replacement tree be 9 feet of height at a ratio of 2 new trees for what for each one destroyed.

And the applicant is saying objecting to the ratio of 2 new trees right. And why wouldn't we do one for one.

Because you were supposed to take one down the first place.

But if it's an accident, I mean, why are we being punitive? We're not a conservation commission where we're doing something compensatory. We're replacing what we— We are the conservation commission, though, aren't we? Well, you are, acting as the local conservation—under the local bylaw. Yes, you are. However, it seems punitive.

This is pretty standard language for these types of conditions. I've seen this for 20 years.

Yeah. And it is part of the point to account for the fact that you're theoretically replacing a far more mature tree than where we're replanting. So that's where the two for one comes up.

Absolutely. I'm fine. I leave that too.

I do like, I don't know if it was, um, attorney Hills or the applicants, but I do like defining what we're talking about with the DM diameter of two, at least two and a half. And I think we say of this probably be at least two and a half. Um,

but with a diameter of at least 2.5 inches.

Okay.

And the parenthetical needs to stay, obviously, because of... Oh, no, 2.5 inches or greater, right?

Is that the same thing? Yeah.

Okay, moving along.

D four, we just had a caveat that just clarifies the point of this that there is some construction, there's some stormwater management facilities within 100 feet of the wetland. Okay.

I noticed we're capitalizing construction activity, so that's defined somewhere?

Yeah.

Okay. I'll take your word for it.

So D6, this is the vertical investigation condition. Is this something, I guess, that do you want to table this? Yes.

Actually, D6.

Because the agent had some suggested language that she gave to me on May 13th. But you're saying that she has some different language.

Correct. Okay. As of yesterday. Well, I think she's open to – I think she's got to be communicating with you guys directly.

Okay.

So this is exactly what we suggested be tabled.

Okay. So D6 will skip over. And in D9, we talked about a little bit.

Yeah, this was my language, and I just highlighted it because I knew it was a big issue. I don't think we have to, I think you guys are okay with this concept?

Yeah. Other than the sentence you were talking about, that you were concerned about, is the rest of this language okay? Mm-hmm. All right, let's move along.

D9 came out because it's addressed somewhere else. D10 is the road salt language. So we're tabling that. We'll table that and try to get some input from the health director. Okay. Can you do that?

Mm-hmm. So we're up to D11?

Mm-hmm. We're fine with that.

Okay.

I put a note here. Do you want the applicant to post any signage?

Oh, yeah. Big caps.

I think we did maybe discuss this at the last meeting, but I don't think we had a consensus. Yeah. Why not?

Yeah. Actually, we should.

Yeah. Okay.

John, do you have any input on where signage might go?

You know, probably where in areas where there could be not just a vehicle pulling back off of the park, you know, in case somebody decides, who knows, they're going to go pull and dump something or whatever, at least.

They better not.

No, I'm not suggesting anybody would. But in terms of fail safes, I would say, and then...

Probably the type of thing you're going to figure out when there's actually shovels in the ground and buildings start to become obvious where signs should go. Okay.

All right, D12. I think, Brian, you had a comment on this?

Just to change board of selectmen to select board.

Okay. But did you want to put the dollar amount in here?

No, so I think – So I had emailed Attorney Hill about the Upton and Pleasant Street projects had a separate section in the conditions pertaining to offsite improvements that would have addressed what we currently have as I think C1, but then they also tacked on some language around the monetary contribution, the donation that the developer's making to the town. um so i don't think i think we can leave d12 as is and then we can decide whether or not we want to to move c1 into a separate section with any other language once we get to c1 okay all right so d13 i think this is just mostly wordsmithing um but we did

we had some discussion about storage of chemicals in the garage building so we just reworded that I think we dealt with us to two months ago yes so it's nothing really new there yeah d14 we also addressed this issue I had some language in here originally that that doesn't seem to be applicable so that that's stricken so I think this language has already been discussed

Yes, this had to do with the trash compactor. Yeah, yeah the pad.

Yes the pants, right, right But the DP but the way this is worded is basically the DPW director would Review the design of this trash compactor area to make sure he has any concerns about any runoff or That those kind of issues Because it is really close to the zone one.

Yep I'm kind of wondering so

was wondering why it's a DPW director I don't know who it should be didn't the health inspector give us feedback on the she did because you wanted questions on it she said thank you for passing this along because I gave her the link so she could look at all the paperwork and everything you guys submitted with the information on the trash compactor and dual recycling containers and their solid waste their solid waste capacity is likely to be sufficient for the estimated capacity and pickup frequency indicated in the attachments No further questions or concerns from the Health Department at this time.

I thought she had comments on the pad, though. Like grooving on it or something?

Yeah, I don't remember that, but we had a meeting here with staff last year with Paul. Paul was here, and we talked about the pad at that time. He had some ideas and thoughts. I think he was only expressing more concerns. I think he'd be the right guy to review the design.

Do we care? I think it's fine.

It does say or it's designee, so, you know, by the time this is built, Paul's retired and DPW director doesn't want to do it. We could get Graves to review it or, you know, we can have somebody else do it. I guess I'm okay with that.

So are we restoring the crossout?

No.

No. Unless we say DPW director or health inspector.

mean i originally had the health director in there so if you want to add that back in we can but sure so or how one of those and or or and or yeah and or or what do you want to do

Actually, you know, so DPW director says no, so then they run to the health director. She says, yes, are they good to go? I mean, maybe we should just leave it DPW director or it's designee. That's fine.

Or it's designee.

Yeah, designee.

Emphasis on designee. Yeah. All right, we're fine with it.

D15 has to do with the Delivery parking areas that we talked about I think at the last meeting you're gonna be increased in size to 10 by 24 And That's an item that's going to show up on the final plan, yeah Okay II

We have no problem with any of that.

Yeah, I added no short-term occupancies. So on the prohibitions, I had written no on-site parking or storage of boats or commercial vehicles. The applicant added the word outdoor parking and storage of these vehicles. So I guess they want to reserve the right to let people park things in their garages.

Can we go back to E1 for a minute as far as is short-term rental, is that defined?

Is it defined in the decision or is it defined in your bylaw? Do you guys even have an Airbnb bylaw?

Not at the moment.

No.

I don't believe so.

I think the next sentence actually addresses a bill where it says that you can't have leases for less than six months. Right.

Okay, good point. All right, then.

And when Dan and I were working out that language, I took it directly.

Yeah, that I think addresses it for me.

Is this intended to address any sub-lessor arrangements, or are those prohibited anywhere else?

Prohibit subsequent subletting. So, yes.

Of less than six months.

Correct.

You can sublet if you're moving or you're changing your lease.

Assuming the rest of the lease, whatever.

But it's less than six months. So, your question, Ryan, is that can you sublet for more than six months? I don't think there's any prohibition to that.

I think we'd be fine with that if, I mean, the applicant was, but... All right.

So, going back to E7... does the board care if the tenants or the developer stores or parks commercial vehicles boats etc in the garages we don't have a prohibition against storage of other things in the garage we talked about that so if you care if they parked them in the garage

As long as it fits in the garage.

And we basically already discussed, we already took it out, that originally we said you can only put cars in the garages. And we took that out so they can do whatever they want in the garages, basically.

Yeah, I don't care.

Data center, right? The call center.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The call center.

The call center.

Do those even exist anymore in AI world? 1-800. A mini casino. 1-900. By the way, I have a note review is fine wait wait a minute.

Oh, I'm sorry so be actually saying that the Outdoor parking of storage boats commercial scale vehicles is prohibited. We're doing that to the outdoor parking. Yeah I almost feel like that should be So if somebody lives there and they've got a plumbing truck.

They don't allow it. Right. They don't allow that. They don't allow it anyways? No.

Okay. You probably can't even put them in condos, I wouldn't doubt.

Well, I know some condos don't allow it. I'm kind of wondering. We're building workforce housing here.

These parking spaces aren't big enough for commercial vehicles.

They'd have to have a garage space.

They're 9 by 18, right?

I mean, what's the position of your zoning enforcement officer?

Has he gone around tagging people for... And this is just commercial scale vehicles. This isn't someone's pickup truck that has a commercial plate.

Commercial scale vehicles, such as box trucks.

Exactly, box trucks and things like that.

Flatbed trucks so the pickup truck that says Joe's carpentry on it. That's okay.

You guys may not Yeah, okay, I know I get it it's commercial scale No, yeah, it says commercial scale sorry that that's fine, all right

Okay, so then E9, this is the one that I think is a catch-all that I like to keep. So we've had this in other decisions. We've kind of joked around, is this enforceable or not? I don't know, but I'd rather just keep it in as a placeholder in case we ever need to use it.

Yeah.

But you I mean this is one of those situations you joke about it. I don't think it's joking matter You're giving yourself a right. You don't have you're going to open up a hearing and then you're gonna open up this decision and amend it Can't do it. I Can't do it. It's not as black and white as you say you have to open up a decision with notice and It is. There's a process for this. This isn't new.

It says reopen the public hearing.

It doesn't say. You're going to. And you basically have to set up a show cause hearing to determine some violation. I mean.

So aren't we just reserving the right to do that? Right.

Yeah.

You're reserving the right to open the hearing and amend the decision. Right. Yep. Why do you need that?

Well, if you do something that's not part of the decision, how do we address it?

Why do you need it in the decision? There are legal remedies that would allow through the zoning enforcement officer first, not starting with this board. It starts with the zoning enforcement officer. And it would have to come through some kind of zoning enforcement through 40A, some complaint. The zoning enforcement officer has 14 days to respond. If the zoning enforcement officer doesn't respond, then that person has to go to court and seek an action in mandamus to compel the zoning enforcement officer to do something. what he's supposed to do within 14 days, she, he, and then barring that, they have remedies before this board. Your judge, jury, and executioner at this point. It's...

Even at 40B, Dan, is it the same? At 40B, the zoning enforcement officer is the person they go to first?

Yeah, but again, this only comes up if you're breaching the conditions. Correct. What's your concern?

It doesn't start with this board. That's what my concern is. It starts with the zoning enforcement officer. It's up to the zoning enforcement officer to determine the breach of the condition.

Not necessarily, though.

Absolutely. That's the legal recourse. That's the way it works.

What if it's not a zoning enforcement issue? What if it's the off-site work at Snow Road?

It's still the zoning enforcement officer.

Is this an apprentice?

I think so. I know we've had this before. I don't know which ones.

Apprentice has been through hack. I say we leave it. I say we leave it.

Yeah, if you have an objection to the reopening of a hearing, if this actually were to happen, I don't think it's ever happened, but if this were to happen, if you have an objection at that time, you can raise the objection. You can challenge the action at that time.

Right.

So without the zoning enforcement officer, this board has, you're suggesting, has the right to reopen this hearing? And call out an enforcement issue.

Yeah, I'm conceding that there's not a lot of case law in this.

There's a lot of case law on it. There's a process to it. That's the thing. It's tried and true, and you're reinventing the process.

There's a case that says the zoning board can't do it?

There's a process that's prescribed under statute. Okay? It's addressed specifically in 40A.

zoning enforcement all right that's enough you you guys can hack this out you know this member wants it to stay it's what our council is recommending I mean how do the rest of the board feel I agree I agree all right so it stays moving along

okay f3 deals the parking design parking spaces this language is fine just saying yeah if the accessible spaces need to be bigger they can be bigger just quickly on on f2 is the 404 intentionally bolt no is that number right yes

excludes a town exactly so there are 32 townhome spaces shouldn't call 436 in total so that shouldn't be 436 it's a minimum of or I put in the parentheses excluding the townhomes I don't see any parentheses no I'm second yeah okay yeah I probably should

Actually, why don't we say to serve?

And if memory serves me correctly, the approved plans are the plans presented before the board, not the final plans, right? The final plans have to come back to you to make sure they are consistent not only with this decision but the approved plans, right? So that defined term is the approved plans. Are we waiting still for the fire department to weigh in on this?

Well, and then the final plans are going to have the increased depth for the delivery spaces, which is going to alter the sidewalk, and obviously that's going to alter the landscaping and some other things. So that was going to be like the...

right the final final so should approve plans mean final plans okay we've capitalized approved plans you've also capitalized site plans where are those defined they are that's what I was clarifying they are defined and I believe that the approved plans of these plans now here right plans are the plant is the plan set that you submit to the board and the

board approves them. So when they get approved, they're now the approved plans.

Right, but that's the set of plans that are approved in conjunction with this decision, and then there's a set of final plans. There's another process, as I recall, through this decision where you're, okay, we've gotten the decision, we've gotten the plans, now we're close to building permit set, and it comes back to you to confirm that this final decision Plan set is consistent with all of that.

And certainly that's what final approved plans, I'm sure, is the intention in F2 here. But it seems to me that we probably need to have these things a little bit tighter definitions then.

But, Bill, there is a definition, as I recall, for final plans.

Let me just pull up the definitions and see if I can.

Sure. Yeah. It gets a little confusing. I was a little confused at the beginning myself.

Well, I mean, I know what was intended here, but we probably should be going with whatever definitions say.

Right.

And the site plans are a subset of the approved plans. So the approved plans include the design plans, architectural.

Right, approved plans.

So the approved plans are the ones that,

approved after you you submit a final set after this permits been issued the board reviews them this is all in a one okay the board reviews them and then thereafter they're gonna be so the approved plans are not the ones that we're working on right now correct okay and probably in that's that condition that we're looking at what is it f2 we probably should take the word final out of it's just the approved plans

Oh, here we go. A10, you mean, right? Oh, he was saying that.

A1 defines the term approved plans.

A1.

Lists all your site plans.

Right.

And we capitalized S, capitalized site, capitalized plans. That's now a defined term as well. So the site plans are your final, are your, the current

set of plans March 2nd 2020 right right the latest iteration so the site plans are ones are getting approved as part of this right now the approved plans correct approved later okay you know going back to half so the final kind of throws another as you said yeah we should strike final it's redundant it's not needed I believe

I thought there was a definition for final plans. I guess it's approved plans, not necessarily final plans.

Pleasure.

Thank you. Pleasure. Pleasure. Thanks. So I'll take out the word final.

All right. Because then there's approved plans and the final approved plans.

It's going to be a long night.

I think I'm up to f8. Does anyone else have any comments before them?

Um It just ran f3 we're talking about the 9 by 18 parking spots Is there any place where these parking spots, you know? In some developments of sidewalks that we don't want cars parked on a sidewalk So we measure from the inside of the sidewalk is that apply anywhere here?

I

John, you know what I'm talking about. Basically, if you have a condo and there's a sidewalk in front of it, the driveway should be measured from inside the sidewalk to the garage. When you say inside the sidewalk? The house side. Oh, oh. So that a car is not parked over the sidewalk. Oh, right.

Yes, and all that is, we have more than that, actually.

So are there sidewalks in front of?

The townhouse in front of the townhouses and we made sure that in front of the on the back side of the sidewalk I believe we had like 20 So I guess my question is do we need any sort of language added in there We good with what's here I Would say we could just double check the site plan make sure that's correct.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. That's what we have a parking plan.

I

think jeff actually knows to do that well we have actually in in front of the townhouses we have um 24 feet okay and there are no sidewalks in front of the townhouses oh right And then everything else is 9 by 18. And of course, we're going to do the deliveries.

Yep.

Okay, the place where it really would only impact and I've seen this in townhouse developments is you don't want if there's a sidewalk in front of a townhouse. You don't want that to be the 18 feet because then cars are blocking, right? But that's exactly what we have. There is no sidewalk on that side. And we have 24 feet just okay. Somebody has a big vehicle sounds good. sticking out.

okay okay f8 so this is something that I I thought my Colleen head was very adamant about that we not use vinyl he did combustibles earlier so I thought that you guys agreed to use some attish of sighting I don't know why it's

So we're proposing a combination of vinyl, cementitious, stone. We have a bunch of things going on here. And to take the vinyl out is going to be problematic and is going to add substantial costs to the project. So what we propose is is that this combination of materials that we propose using be in conformity with current building and fire code allowances, which do not prohibit final site for a construction.

These buildings are for a construction and they don't, it doesn't prohibit file signing a for a construction.

So it, If I recall correctly, isn't the vinyl only accent?

Yeah, there's portions of the buildings at the lower portions. We typically do cement at the higher elevations and then the lower elevations a mix of vinyl throughout. And it's typical on these types of projects and everything we've done to date and everything we plan on doing going forward by design, 4A construction, rather.

Do we have... On the elevation sheets, do we know exactly where the vinyl is? Does it be the cementitious?

Yeah. So basically, all the white is cement siding.

What are the windows?

Vinyl.

Vinyl? You're going to fire the vinyl. The windows fall out anyway. Well, I mean, it's just a fact of life, and everybody uses vinyl windows.

Right.

So the plan doesn't actually label it, right?

When you get into other taller buildings and 5A and 6A construction, then there are limitations on vinyl use, but in 4A there isn't.

So I don't think we should get into the building code myself. Yeah, I don't either.

This came up because there's been some high-profile fires of multifamily buildings in Massachusetts. Fire out in Amherst.

It was a big fire out in Amherst. It was a brand-new apartment building that went up. And the building next to it caught on fire.

I mean, if it's truly just the brown, that's the vinyl. That's obviously a small no.

So you're looking look at the rear rail elevation is going to be much different. So that brown is actually that's that is actually going to be composite siding the brown.

Yeah, if you look at a 202, what's the vertical, the vertical cement, the vertical cement in the in the brown is what composite? What's that?

um it there's different i'm not exactly sure which one we'll use yet but there's different there's some that are pvc there's some that are cementous i don't know exactly what it'd be there's different brands but it but it's like a fake wood a faux wood but you don't know what's what what part of it's vinyl that that's what i'm trying to figure out what what's combustible so the dark it could be the brown no the darker color Where it says clapboard siding? Correct. And the rear of the building will have more than the front of the building by design.

Do you know what the rear is?

If we're going to continue the meeting, I think that's another question I think we'll follow up to Mike. But it would be better if you could clarify on the front and rear elevations what the materials are.

I think they do, right?

Well, it does. They do, yeah.

I mean, if you look at, for example, A202.

If you look at A101.

I don't see A's on here. Is this the?

Gate 17, A202, building 3 through 5.

I don't see numbers.

Yeah, it shows it.

Yeah.

Dan right here.

Yeah, it's a a to go down bottom lower left hand right hand side Right above gate 17 For whatever reason you said what Dan has doesn't is it further back?

No For some reason right here. He has doesn't have it Do I not have the current October 20th 2025

No, March 17th. What? March 17th.

March 17th, 2026.

So here's my feeling on this. I understand that there's been some tragedies, and I understand the fire chief wants to do everything. I think if he had his way, everything in the town would be noncombustible. But, you know, if the building codes need to change so that these buildings are less combustible so we have fewer tragedies, then the building codes need to change. But I don't know that developing some affordable housing is the time and place to be trying to force these changes. Especially if the applicant is saying it's going to make things cost prohibitive.

Well, what I was thinking is...

Believe me, we would love to build all of our buildings with all cement settings. It's not financially feasible.

No more than X percent vinyl or something. I mean, and look at, well, I don't know how you can even accommodate that. Number one, I understand these plans were peer-reviewed, these architectural plans. Number two, this is a sprinklered building, weren't they? Didn't you have an architectural peer review? Yes. Yes, you did. Well, we did have it. Oh, yeah, we did.

We paid a lot of money for it. I don't think he was commenting on that.

Oh, yeah, he wasn't.

He wasn't commenting on that. That was more of a good sign. He looked at it for code compliance. He didn't have an issue with fire code.

I don't think we're saying it's not compliant with code. We're saying that the fire chief has raised concerns based upon history of fires. Right.

The code governs how the building can be architected.

But is he going to suggest no vinyl windows, too?

And it's a sprinkled building. Right.

I mean... Yeah, you're right. The code governance governs it, but we could, you know, put tighter conditions, right? And that's what we're talking about. And the sprinklers aren't operational right away.

Oh, yeah.

So dry system or what?

Well, they're operational for occupancy. As soon as the NFPA 241 does not require the sprinklers to be operational during construction.

I know, but that's that.

That's, that's, that's actually fire. Yeah, that's fire code.

But he just said there's sprinklers in the building. But if the sprinklers aren't operational, that doesn't help the building.

He's talking about when people are living in when people when it's an occupancy.

Okay, but this but there's been fires during construction that that's those the high profile fires that we're talking about have occurred before occupancy has happened.

i mean i mean that could happen when it's just it's a wooden building it's a wooden building it's i mean as long as we're we're operating within the confines of the building the building could sit there for six eight months without any siding on it there's nothing that says it has to have siding on until it's occupied right we could put the siding on it a month before occupancy

Don't you have to have siding before wiring anymore?

Nope. No? You have a weather-resistant barrier. Like Tyvek? Zip systems. What, Tyvek? Yeah.

So I guess the option is we just take the condition out. I don't think adding the language makes sense. The whole point of the condition was to require non-combustible siding material. So if the board feels that that's not appropriate, then we can just take the condition out.

Yeah, so this member, I'm not comfortable with adding in additional higher level of fire protection. I mean, I'd like to do and help the chief, et cetera, but, you know, I don't think that, you know, building affordable housing, which is one of the goals here, is the time and place to try and do this. So that's my feeling, but we're a five-member board, so. I agree.

I agree, too.

Okay. But was that based on his review of the materials as – like his review of this architectural plan?

I'd have to look and see. I don't think so. I think it was just the concern out of the fire that had happened out at Amherst when we had had a meeting.

So it could be that his concern – he doesn't want everything vinyl, you know, but this amount of vinyl is not going to be a concern.

That being said, there's not – it doesn't – This is not clear to me that the materials are cementitious. Does it say that?

It does on, yeah.

Apparently not on yours, Dan, because yours doesn't say. No, I got the new one. Oh, okay. It says composite clapboard.

Which one are you reading off of? A102.

Clapboard is cementitious, right?

No.

It could be wood or vinyl.

Or composite wood.