Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Board of Appeals is being conducted both remotely and in person consistent with the temporary provisions of the open meeting law [clears throat] 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. Screen share. Please be aware that um anything you share may be broadcast captured later and rebroadcast. Um, this meeting may feature public comment. For anyone attending virtually, if you'd like to request acknowledgement to speak, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. Um, 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 for all speakers, 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. So we will start with case number 898, 116 Upton Street. All right. Uh just for the record, I'm Chad Borman with Upton Road Properties LLC and um I'm here tonight to hopefully ask for um a simple um uh extension for a condition of D10, which refers to the open space

parcel uh being deeded to the town for conveyed to the town. Um I'm just asking for hopefully another uh three months as we work out the uh plans go to the selectman and uh have it uh you know the deeds and things reviewed by town council and things for the land transfer and perhaps tie that deadline to a date rather than um a building permit or something like that.

Okay. So, so this is um you said has to do with the open space and Yes. conveyance of that to the town or just That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. There's a parcel B which uh is is really the open space that abuts the community. Y and uh it was tied uh building permit and u yeah just it's just that that out that open space parcel.

Yeah.

And uh then that condition also had a thing about like a trail easement and things. It's just a little premature and just asking for an extension to work with whomever is going to take the land if it's the land trust or the town or whatever. I just I just need a little bit more time to do that and perhaps it's tied to, you know, a date to expire or something like that. I just need another probably three months to probably go back and forth with the town council and things to do that. So, just simple, you know. Um, so I don't I can't think of any reason that that would need to be anything other than tied to either occupancy or some fixed date that we're not going to bump up against. Um, Mr. McCuser has his hand up.

Yeah. Well, I I was going to ask, could we see the actual section of the permit? I'm kind of curious as to what it says and I think I agree with what you're saying, Brian. I, you know, apparently right now it says this has to be done before building permit and and I agree that seems pretty aggressive. Uh Katrina, do you have access to the I'm pulling it up right now. Okay.

It's D10, right, Chad? Yes. D10. Yeah. I think I missed it during the initial permitting and you probably would have tied it to an occupancy or something like that. I think there's some been something in the past obviously that got wasn't conveyed by uh to the town. So I think it was rather you know important to tie it to something. So I think that's how it got stuck in there originally. No problems doing it. Just an extension would be great. I mean to actually convey it, doesn't that need town meeting approval? Yes, it does have to go to town meeting. So So you So you need more than three months,

right? Because it [cough and clears throat] he'll have to get it on the um agenda in the warrant article for the May town meeting. Well, that's a good that's probably a good milestone then. That that probably work out perfectly. You'd have to get on the agenda and that has to get set right now. Oh, and the signature and the whole nine yards too. Okay. So, I got to go to immediately get to the select board and get Oh, for God's sakes. Okay. When when's the cut off date for that? I don't you'd have to ask Amber and Okay. Sorry, guys. [laughter] But it's after the first of the year. Okay. I do know. So, okay. So, I guess my question is, you know, what what's the timeline look like for first building permit or

I mean, not first building, but first documents and when do you hope to have actually a building with people? Yeah. Realistically, Bill, it's probably six six months from now, I would imagine. So, June sometime. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You know, I I I hate the idea, you know, I think we're I think we're I think it's going to be a challenge for you to even get it on to May Town meeting. I mean, you you you got to hustle and everything's got to go right and you know, so you know, we we've had other projects where this didn't get done until until the very end. Um, and I'm just wondering there might be a better way to do this or or you know, maybe occupancy of the final building or something like that. Um, or could we could we say the 2027 town meeting or even the October town meeting?

That's that's fine, too. If there is one. Yeah. The I'm still going to be under construction, so that works probably perfectly. The Paul's great. Yeah. I I I I I would hate to say um the first building permit I mean the first I'm sorry the first occupancy permit if if that really is you know your your target is for that to be June because that means basically you got to get through Maytown meeting and I I think there's just too many too many opportunities for something to go wrong. Um yeah I remember that the last subdivision was it was a hustle I think. So yeah I probably agree with that bill.

Yeah. Um, I'm kind of wondering if Dan has any thoughts here. You know, I I'm I'm I'm kind of wondering why we even really need to have uh must be issued by um you know, at all. You know, I wonder and I wonder if we've had it in the past and and actually the last one uh [snorts] you know, the last development you did, Chad, I I think that was all done at the end after the project was finished, right? Yeah. I I I think there's I I I heard a rumor mill that would uh something maybe maybe slipped in the past by another development. So I think it just needs to be a tickler. Okay.

Um or some type of milestone for me to come or you guys to recognize that it does need to be done. It's kind of just a alert. So may maybe the fall meeting works perfectly because I'm like halfway halfway through and that you know in the next month or two I can come back here and give a status report too. So, you know, I I think everybody's wondering I they they don't want me to disappear and not give the land, obviously. So, yeah. [laughter] Yeah, I think that's the intent. I think that was the intent. Although, I don't know why we said building permit and not not occupancy permit or some other later date. I don't remember. Um

I mean, I'm okay with with with when you know any you want to say fall town meeting, I I'd be okay with, you know, final occupancy permit, I'd be I'd be okay with that as well. Anything along those lines. I I I think final permit might may not be the best idea. Um just because that again if if the idea is to keep the developer from running off to Florida [laughter] and we have to chase them. Um maybe like [clears throat] you know I mean I mean these these are goodiz apartment buildings and it's you know you get the occupancy for the whole thing. I I can't imagine you know we're not going to have a situation where like we had on High Point where the developer walks away from a couple of lots. is the issue, Chad. You just need time to get in front of town meeting to get

Yeah, absolutely. I didn't even re recognize the town meeting thing, so that that's a I wasn't even prepared for that one. So, definitely I would need more time. So, I mean, the fall would be I I have no issues with the fall if we want to do it with the fall bill. I mean, I'm halfway through and no issues. And then the the trail access will be built and I'm working with con through that. So, I I think the fall is very reasonable on on my end. I have no problems doing it, but but it needs to be tied to occupancy permits. So, what what stage of occupancy would you be at in the fall? Uh, it's probably the third building, maybe. Um, yeah, the fall or the third occupancy or something. You know, if you guys want to make a some type of decision based on that, I'm fine with that. How many buildings are there? Um, uh,

yeah, six. Six on that one. There's four on Pleasant Street. Yeah. I don't know. [snorts] Or or a date. I mean, I would be fine with saying the final occupancy permit final building. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's putting it off too far myself. Well, with the final one. Well, with the intent of doing it in the fall,

why why not just say by the fall town meeting or third occupancy permit? Well, you know, I mean, ends up going better, getting stuff done sooner or or something goes wrong, comes off the rails for fall town meeting, you know, next thing you know, he's back here asking for another change, which I guess isn't that big a deal either. You could say by the end of 2026 or the third or fourth occupancy permit, whichever comes later. [snorts] You definitely want both a time and an occupancy permit, but I I was actually thinking fourth. If he thinks Chad thinks he's going to have three buildings up, give him the opportunity be to be ahead of schedule, get four up. Yeah.

And um so just say, you know, before the fourth occupancy permit, totally fine. Yeah, I'd be I'd be okay with that. Yeah, because I'm just going to immediately start working on, you know, the plans and things anyway, so it's going to be in process. It's just so that works for me. So, fourth fourth occupancy. Yeah. Fourth building building occupancy. Y or or December 31st, 2026, whichever comes. Absolut absolutely. There shouldn't be any issues with that. And you'll probably I'll be in here before that. Just giving general updates anyways. So, whichever's earlier. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an occupancy permit has to be for the whole building, right? You can't get a

Correct. It's for the entire building. Y Yeah. So I I I think what we need to be doing right now is um I and actually Chad I should have done this I think ahead of time in writing but um made a request for a change to the comprehensive permit to you know change D10 to read whatever you know fourth occupancy or whatever it is and then we need to vote on whether it's a um significant change or I think that's the word substantial change or not

well yeah dimminimous change would not would not be necessary [snorts] do we need that request an or can we just do a motion I have a request to change it yeah I I think this is adequate bill um but the board should take that formal vote that this is an insubstantial change yeah Katrina you have something in writing yeah I have an email I Glad I sent it to you guys. If not, it's in your packets. Not mine. It's in my It's in [laughter] my district. It's in the packets. Oh, that's why [clears throat] because I got it in. I didn't forward it to you, Bill. I'm sorry.

But but that's okay because Dan just said we could just take a motion. Um and I think the motion is going to be to change

Yeah. request change that. Sorry. Yeah. to change that first sentence to so it ends prior to the issuance of the fourth building occupancy permit and are we saying or something or are we just adding it there or or December 31st 2026 whichever occurs sooner that way if for some reason he never builds the fourth and fifth and sixth building which probably is unlikely but if if for some reason that happens we still get the land right

okay so so we're changing So, we're changing the first D10 first sentence to uh the end of will read prior to the issuance of the fourth building occupancy permit or December 31st, 2026, whichever occurs first. Later. Did you say later? It's It's actually I said first. I don't know. Later. I said later. No, I was hearing two different things, Bill. Sorry to interrupt. [laughter] That's it's whichever one comes first. Correct. Y yeah. Yep. I mean I obviously I can't write that down and hand it to you Katrina. Do you have that?

I do. Do we have to vote that this is an insignificant change first? Okay. No, that's that's what we're that's So Oh, it could be done all at once. It's fine. We can do it once. Yeah. So So yeah, we're we're voting the the motion. I move that the change I just described is an insignificant change for comprehensive permit whatever identifies as comprehensive permit. Um yeah. Is that too loose what I've just said? No, it's pretty detailed. Do you want me to state it, Bill? So that's my motion. [laughter]

Yeah. How about Dan? Can you just restate that? Sure. Um the [clears throat] the motion is that the board find that that the requested change is insubstantial and that the section D10 shall be amended uh to have the parcel be conveyed to the town of Grafton upon the issuance or prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy permit or December 31st, 2026, whichever occurs first. The fourth. Fourth. Yeah. Okay. You said first. Sorry. A fourth. [laughter] That was gonna be a second. No. Fourth. [laughter]

Um. All right. Take a roll call vote. Reed. Yes. Um, Mr. Mahia. Yes. Mr. Adams. Yes. Mr. McCusker. Yes. Chairman votes yes. Um, so excellent. Thank you all. It was uh nice to see you and happy holidays to everybody. Wait, wait, wait. Not not so quick. Oh, [laughter] so we we just we just got a quick update on on Upton Street. What's going on in place?

Okay. Yeah, actively all under construction. All the utilities are in. Obviously, we're getting uh stopped with uh you know, some of the frost, but we're continuing on up there. I think all the sewers pretty much in, drainage is going in. uh kind of timeline there for the first first foundation probably in a couple weeks. Um so yeah, so that's that's encouraging. Uh obviously uh u skipping to the other site as well. Um

uh you probably you might have saw that the whole place is subgraded right now. Um so that one's uh that one's in a great state as well. Most likely that will pro the work will probably stop over there now that it's all subgraded and uh probably by spring we'll start doing the utilities and things over there to get ahead of things. Um so um that's the reality over there that that that job uh is also going extremely well and uh excellent. I don't think there's been too many complaints in the neighborhood. At first there was a a few things of you know the eariness which you know always always comes but uh we installed we think we figured that out.

Yeah. Plus we installed cameras over there so I was the sly sly guy so I know who was uh there or not there throughout accusations. So that worked out well. [laughter] Excellent. [snorts] Thank you. Sure. Sure. Anything anything else? No. Okay. All right. Great. Well, I thank the guys in back of me for kind of skipping the line here. So, I I appreciate the time. Thanks, Chad. Have a nice holiday. Night, Jen. All right. So, the next case is 14 Snow Road. I'll turn this over to you, Bill.

I I was actually going to ask Brian if you could just kind of drive a bit, and I think it's going to be mostly the applicant anyways, but just Yeah, no problem. I'm [clears throat] not I'm not the best right now. So, not a problem.

Actually, Bill, the sound quality is really well. It's like he's right here in the room. Yeah, really good quality. All right. Uh, good evening everybody. I'm John Grerier with Jam Gurnie Associates. I'm here with Steve Benasa who is um with Apartments at Snow Road 14 Snow Road LLC. We um since John um I'm going to interrupt you for a minute if I if I may.

Um I I do need to bring to the board's attention that I did meet with the applicant um Mr. Venicasa between the last meeting and this meeting. Um mainly just to kind of review some ideas he had and thoughts uh to bring to the board. Um and and that's really the extent of it. Um he showed me uh what he's going to show tonight. Um and uh you know I didn't necessarily offer uh any strong opinion either way and um and that was about it. So I just want to make sure the board is aware of that. Um, and uh, that's really about it. Uh, I don't I don't think we talked about anything else than the the um, the drawings that we they're going to present tonight.

And we each buy our own coffee, too. What's that? We each buy our own coffee. That is that is correct, actually. [laughter] Sorry, John. I should have I should have interjected that right at the beginning.

Politically correct. So, uh, as as Bill said, we do have, um, some updated plans to, uh, review with the board, um, since our last in-person meeting. Um, we did hear you that you do have still have some concerns about, um, I'm not going to use the word density, having it too compact. So with that, um, we were of the opinion before and as we've been working through this process, as you know, make sure that the site flows right, we have adequate parking, we have adequate amenities, open space, etc. Um, but with that said, we did review the plans again and we came up with two alternatives that we'd like to review with the board. The first one is as you know the original plans or or the last round of plans we had four apartment buildings in that quad area. What we've done is to with what we call layout plan option A is to remove one of the buildings. So that's a 24 unit building. Originally um you know the the four buildings were at the say the four corners. Right now we have one building on the north side, one building on the south side, and another building that would be on the east side. And obviously the clubhouse is on the west side. So that

Can I just stop you for I'm sorry. Go ahead. Just I just want to make sure we're looking at the right. This one that I just put up right here. What What's that label? I see. This one is There's one. If you look at the bottom right hand corner, one's option A and one option A. This one's option A.

Yeah. option A and option B. So what we did was that allowed us to spread out the buildings, add some [clears throat] more green space and more separation between the buildings. It also because we were losing one building that allowed us to um increase some of the uh islands so we could have some more green space within the parking within the parking areas. Additionally, with this option, if you could flip to it's the elevation. It's the elevation plan. Did you send me that? Oh, the the pictures.

The uh not it's a PDF. It was it's it's this. Oh, yeah. Yep. That's the four four unit fourstory building.

So, this these are the rear buildings. What we did because there was concern about the with the fourstory the height of them. So what we did was we stepped it so that um we removed these were 64 unit buildings. Now it's a 60 unit building. So we took off two of the units two of the fourthstory units on either end. So it steps and we think this gives it not as much massing. Um it gives it a little bit more character. I think it blends in better and keep in mind these are still 600 feet off of off of Snow Road. So they are the furthest back buildings. Um but we believe it just it softens it up and allows especially visually from both the north and the south. You're looking at the gable end of a three-story building and the fourth story is stepped back enough so you're not looking at a broad side of a building. it's it's more pitched so it's it doesn't seem so large especially if you're looking at it from the north and the south offsite. Um so with that that's a total reduction of 32 units a 24 unit building in the quad and then four units off each building. So there's 24 and a total of eight off of that. Um, so that's option A, which um, what this does also do, it allows us to still keep the subsurface parking over on building what one, which is the of the back building. It's the one on the left on the north side. Um, and also we'll have elevators in these buildings. So that will also for whether it's elderly or people with mobility issues, we can we'll still have elevators in those buildings for mobility for people. So it kind of opens up the spectrum of of

residents who would be um you know feel more comfortable with an elevator especially going up and down um whether you're bringing groceries or or or whatnot. So, we think that that is of we think this is the best option from our point from our point of view. Um, before I get into the other option, I'd also like to say with this option, we did have a meeting um a couple days ago with the fire chief and the fire captain. And I know that there was brought up some concern that we have four-story buildings. Um, we talked to them about providing access, drivable access, plowable access around the backside of those buildings so that um, if they need to get access on the back side of it with their ladder, they can get around there with their truck and year round and have a a stable access area to get around the buildings. And we gave a uh as Katrina brought up a um a truck turning emergency vehicle turning and we went through that with both the uh the fire chief and the fire captain and they were they said they're with that they're fine with a four-story building. So they seem pleased about that. [snorts] Um now to go to option B. What we show [snorts] there is rather than removing a building from the quad, this would take the whole fourth story off of the back building. So everything would be threetory buildings. Um again, this removes a total of 32 units um because there would be that fourth floor ultimately would be 16 units off

of the fourth floor on each. So there's 32 units. Um again, it allowed us to um add a remove some parking in order to have bigger landscape areas within the parking areas. Um the flow of everything is still the same. It just allowed us to have a little bit more um landscaping areas and island areas within within the the parking lot areas, particularly in that back parking lot area. um because that's the largest parking unit on site. Um so those are the two options we would like to discuss with you. Um as we said, we heard that there was concern about having everything being so too compact. Um, we think that option A from our point of view, I think that goes a little bit further to give the sense of openness by getting rid of that building. Um, and by having the three slash4story split on the back buildings, I think that's addressing reducing the massing of it, reducing the the scale of the building, um, and still making it a good accessible building [clears throat] for people who may be handicapped or or just elderly, etc. So we think that that's from our again from our point of view is I think that checks off the boxes but again this is something we would like to discuss with you and get your get your opinion on

and again as far as we know I don't I don't believe you have any actually do we have elevated building pyu other than that I don't believe any of the 40bs have elevated buildings so we think it's a good amenity they have [snorts] within the complex [clears throat] there's no other fourstory 40b and graph them. Is there no? No. So that's the only four story 40B. Yeah. Right. [cough and clears throat] So we Mr. Chair read um could you just refresh our memory? How many units were in the original plan in the back two buildings? How the original? It was 64 on both on both each

each had 64. So each floor had 16 units on each floor times four floors, right? So it was four stories before. Correct. Now it's still four stories. Option A, but it's cut off the cut off the ends like as you can see on on this K, right? But we cut off the end so it step so it just reduces the massing of it and um it just I think it blends in a little bit better. So it would be two off of each building. We're taking off two units on the top floor on either side on both.

So um maybe my math's not that great, but where are the 30 I think you said 32 units less or 34 units less than the original plan. Where are the other units coming from that are it's the other 24 unit building, right? It's so there's 24 plus 68. Okay, that's 32. But if we if we got rid of the 24 that fourth building and not only have three in the front, then you're adding the extra floor to make up for those 24 units. It's still going into the back two buildings. They're No, they're adding 12 to Right. the to each one. Yeah. Right. Right. But so that's making up for the 24 that you're taking away in the front. They're not adding. They were already

there. It was already a four-story building. It was it was a total it was there were four floors the full building. So if we had four 24 unit buildings in the center right and then took off the full fourth floor that's 16 and 16 total less units on this plan on both plants. Sorry I'm just that's fine trying to think what we had before. So okay thank you. Thank you for clarifying Mr. Chairman. Um, [clears throat] maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but I I'm I'm looking at the narrative that you guys filed.

And you have alternative [clears throat] A, alternative B. Alternative A says this option involves a removal of one 24 unit apartment building from the central quad area. [clears throat] Alternative B says, "This layout retains the existing four apartment buildings in the quiet area while proposing the removal of the partial fourth floor from the rear apartment buildings." Yeah, that was misspoke. That was a So on alternative A that's not it's a removal of the 24 units and then it's a removal of partial partial of the partial removal of eight um I'm sorry four units per that's the partial removal I apologize

no I think and then B is I think the description is right so alternative B leaves the four threef flooror buildings and it removes the entire so what's left is a partial fourth floor it removes that entire fourth Yes. In the option in B. So option A makes it a partial fourth floor by knocking off the corners. Mhm. Right. B. Option B takes the entire fourth floor off. Right. Yes. I know what you're saying though, Dan. It But A doesn't say partial on it. It just No. No, it doesn't. A should say it. It creates a partial fourth floor in addition to 24. I think B should say removal of the entire You're right. You're right. That's more clear.

That's an engineer. Dan, not a literally. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Chat GPT got me. Yeah, this looks like chat GPT did it. I [laughter] know. I run that, too. So, okay. And Mr. Chairman, if I may, the plans do quantify the dwelling units in on each option plan. So, option A for those two buildings in question at the rear, the four stories does show them now with 60 units each building instead of 64. Yeah. and an op the option B plan quantifies them as 48 units per building, right? Yep. So that Yeah, we get the engineering plans right, not the not the narrative. [laughter] [clears throat and cough]

If I may ask a question, there was discussion in the narrative about the town houses and I I just thought I'd bring that up because it's got to do with the quantity of the dwelling units. That's all I want to talk about that. Right. So, um, and I know before the previous meeting, we were hustling to get elevation plans from the architect. Um, and they ended up he showed them as threetory. That is that was never the intent. So, we updated that. And you have it was those were in the picture files in the at the last meeting with that, right? So yeah, it's not a PDF. It's

Oh, it's the individual ones. It's those individual ones. So we confirmed those are twostory total. Twotory with a gable roof. It's not threetory. So um we updated those elevation plans to reflect that. It is just a twostory and those are twosbedroom units and there's a total of um in the previous iteration of that we ended up removing some of the town houses. I think we had an additional single uh on either side of the entrance way. We got rid of that single. So now there's um a total of four duplexes, two on either side of the entrance way more separation from our butter.

Gave us more separation from the butter. We're also maintaining the required front yard step back in that in the residential um zoning district. So again, it's in keeping with setbacks that are um in the residential zoning district. That's what which zoning district is that? Cuz we do have a split zone. We do have a commercial zone that's on the southerntherly side of uh Snow Road and then the norly side of the project that's where it goes into the the residential district. So I just want to point out that we are maintaining the the yard set back. So they are set back adequately from the road in keeping with the the local zoning for that and they are two stories

and I I don't think technically we were required to do that but I believe the board requested that. I think that's why we did that in response to your request. Um, go ahead. Can I ask a question, please? So, so there's a total of eight townhouse units, correct? How many were there before? Oh, yeah. 12. Yeah, it's Well, started as 12. Started as 12. And then in the last iteration, it was 10 because there were two individuals on their own. Yes. We put some singles. I think they're on the outsides. Single on each side. So, these look pretty big for two bedrooms. What's the square footage? 2400 2400 2400

two twocar garage at street level which is accessed within the project so you don't see garages so the first floor is really the garage correct correct the first floor is really the garage and you do have an entrance way on Snow Road but that's more that's not as functional people are going to drive into the project go into their garage they have um a little porch that's on the side of the garage inside the project. So that's going to be the main entrance just so it has the appearances of being a a front door. That's not nearly as used, but just it's more for it'll be nice curve appeal road

more curb appeal so you're not looking. I've seen other projects where the access is within the project and that's where the front door is and then on the back which is facing the street they have a deck which it's you know it doesn't have the the right curb appeal. The curb appeal is important to us also. So with having this so it looks like a traditional front door. It adds to the curb appeal and that's not really the door that's going to be primarily used. So did you give us four plans for these units? We have four plans for those. But this is a new design though, right? They're all in the architectural. Oh, yeah. The color file. They're seen these before.

We got them now. Yes, I've got them in there. The last three the file the architecture. They're this last third and last fourth fourth and last. Oh, I see it. Great.

We added the garage as well. [snorts] And those are true twocar garages. They're wide door, so you can get two cars in there easily. Um, and then there's going to be two park two parking spaces in front of the garage door. So really the town houses there's not going to be um overflow parking or intermingling of parking. So people in the town houses and you still have two parking spaces in front and two parking spaces in the garage and [snorts] I know it was brought up that sometimes people don't use their garage. They store all their stuff in there and they throw it in. So but they with this they still have two true parking spaces in front of the garage. And I don't know if you noticed, but I guess these guys said that it was up there, but we had a new uh what do they call it? The

perspective perspective done um since the last meeting also which shows the two units builds. If you want to put that Oh, she had it up. It was on the screen. I don't know if I noticed it. Oh, yeah. There. There you go. Yeah. Um so all in all in terms of that actually reflects the actual landscaping plan as well. Okay. Okay.

So just in general what we've tried to accomplish with the the most current plans is to have plans that from Snow Road fit into the neighborhood. when you pull in that the size and the scale of the buildings as you um pull in we have the threetory buildings within the quad we removed a building so it gives you a little more sense of openness um and I think it was brought up by the um by the architect who reviewed having what he called layering and so then you have the larger buildings in the back and then by scaling it down and stepping those um stepping those to go from threetory to four story. It takes away a lot of the massing of it so it doesn't seem like a a big four-story giant in front of you. It it tapers it and steps it. So, I think it again I I think we're checking off a lot of the boxes with the flow of the site, the openness of the site. Um I did the math on the even with reducing the parking to some degree and adding larger landscape areas. Um, we're at over without using without counting any of the detached garages, we're over 1.8 parking spaces for each unit. And that's not talking about the town houses. This is just apartment buildings only. If you were to include the detached garages, we'd be over two spaces per unit. So, um I know the number that's floated around is somewhere around 1.75ish, but

the national number is actually way lower than that, but we don't we don't we don't like those numbers anyways, the 1.2. We think that number's too low, but that's the national number. So even by um with the reduction of again the removal of the building, the stepping of the back buildings, we're at over without including any of the detached garages, just open air and the under the subsurface parking for building one were at over 1.8. So we think that's plenty of parking and we were be we were able to beef up some of the the landscape islands. So [clears throat] um you actually took parking off, didn't you? I did. Yeah, I did. So we we took spaces off. Yeah. And we're still over 1.8. So

because we we don't want to have too much parking either.

Right. Right. So um we just like to get your feedback. We think so. All in all with both of these the the total unit counts 200. Um and just to give you originally when we first went into negotiation with the selectman we were at 300 units. We came before the board with um the first submitt was at 268 units. Then um we removed a lot of town houses, we moved some uh we turned the quad into instead of bigger buildings again these 24 unit buildings which again reduces the masses and gives you more open space, more landscape area. And then we reduced it down I think we had 236.

We had 236 at one point. Then we re got rid of some town houses. Then we were at 234. Then we were at 232 when we took off those last two singles. And then um this last change

this last change I I think was the most was the most dramatic. And I think that this feels like it has plenty of open space, has plenty of parking, has a good flow to it, and we're we're down to 200 units. Um, we think that the four-story buildings still add benefits to the use of more elevated units which we think is important for our own clients which you know selfishly we need to operate a business after afterwards and that opens up more market for us. Um, and we think it's a benefit to the town also, especially since you don't you the only other elevated building is unit that PY built in those units that sell them for5 $600,000. So that's not that's not affordable unit. That's a whole different that's a whole different product. So this opens it up to the more masses of of people in town and u so that's why we favor that. But um we hear the comments back about the 4-unit building and that's why we shrunk the ends down and we remove the other building so that um we give you that option. We're willing to accept either option if you'll if you do.

So I have a question on the um the fire truck

plans. We did have a conver when I told you we met with the both the fire uh chief and the fire captain. Um they wanted to make sure that all the driving aisles were 24 ft wide. They said their fire um their fire apparatus with the [snorts] outriggers [clears throat] on each is it gives them 18 ft. So we have a 24 foot wide driving aisle. He said they're fine. They can have their fire engine with the outriggers. I did when we perform the um auto turn analysis and we confirmed that this it is their we we do have their exact uh fire engine. He wanted to make sure if you look at that colored plan the the orangey some it might look yellowy but more orangey that is the the wheel the wheel basease going around the green if you see that flares out that's the tail end which the overhang of of the truck which um in the back overhangs well over 16 ft if you go to the center line of their rear. They have dual wheels in the back at 16T 10. So that tends to flare out. He just wanted to confirm that that would not be going outside of the driving aisles, which you know, in case there's a snow bank or there's, I don't know, landscaping or something that the the tail end of the truck wouldn't flare out, which um we can accomplish that within the 24. When you do these It's it's a video game. You're taking your mouse and you're clicking it around and it's driving around. Um, in some areas where we were, you know, we hugged the inside of a curb where it might look tight, but then on the outside of the curb, we have a ton

of area. So, um, when he heard or they heard that we have a 24 foot wide driving out, they said, "Okay, we feel more comfortable, but if [snorts] you can just make sure, you know, drive it around to make sure that the the rear end isn't flaring out, we should be fine." And then really the the bulk of our conversation was making sure that we kept um the area behind the the rear buildings open so that they can year round get around the building because fires don't just happen in you know from May to November then they happen in February and January too. So, um, we told them that we would make sure that we provide them with a a detail for access around the back so that they can drive around that so that they do have, um, ladder access at the rear portion of the bike of the of those buildings. And with that, they would be fine with the fourstory.

It's a rare occurrence to have a fire in a building like that. I always think it's possible, but it's rare because of all the uh all the safety regulations. The furniture has to meet certain codes, fully sprinklled, fully alarmed building. So it's rare that those buildings actually catch and shut fire. So but it does happen. It can it can happen I guess. Um

so the other thing is that um when we landscape these places we won't we would never plant any large trees of any size near the edge. So really the landscaping is small bushes that if it would really had to you just they could drive right over them with the truck. We would never plant any trees of any size. And and the reason for that is I know I don't know if everybody else knows that but you plant a big tree within 10 feet of your pavement those roots will start bucking your pavement you know 10 years later and I don't want my pavement buckled. So uh we we know a lot about this business. [clears throat]

We got the perfect plan now. Dan Brian [laughter] Bill has his hand up. [clears throat and cough] Oh, uh, Bill, go ahead.

Yeah. So, um, I think the applicant is is asking for our feedback on these. So, I I'll start and I think it's important, you know, we're very late in this game here, so I think it's important that we get him solid feedback. And and I'll start by saying that um I can support either one of these proposals. I think I prefer um the proposal that has uh that completely removes one building um and has the fourstory the um you know the reduced fourth floor in each one. And my thinking, I guess, is similar to the applicants in that um I kind of like the idea of what is essentially 24 more units having elevator access um wi with that plan versus the other plan. Um I I do think there's some benefit to a a certain population um to having elevator access. Um and uh for for that reason, you know, my preference would be their uh I guess it's their plan A.

But um regardless, I I can support either one. I prefer plan A. And um you know, I think it might be good if if others could provide some feedback as well. Um, the last thing I'll say is, you know, that fire lane behind the buildings, I assume that there's not any problem with respect to buffer areas or anything along those lines with would with constructing that back there. I I thought we were close on on something, but maybe I'm imagining that. [snorts]

No, we had this the limit of clearing um we kept because knowing that when you build these buildings, you're not you don't want trees right behind them. You don't want trees overhanging your buildings. You don't want to have you, you know, issues with. So, we left um a clear buffer for the limit of work for the constructibility constructibility of the building and having some open area so you don't have issues with with any of the tree growth over there. So, we maintain that same um that same limit of work. Um, and again, it would just be it would just be grading and making sure that there's no um major shrubbery or plantings, you know, right behind the building so that we can keep that clear and keep that access open.

And again, that that's a open driving area. We don't believe that'll ever ever be used, but it but it be will be there in the event of emergency. But we don't ever expect to drive on that. Never. Well, plows are going to drive on it each winter store. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. There has to be there has to be a subbase. Correct. For the fire engine on [snorts] top of So, it's not just grass. It's right. No, it's constructing a

It's going to be basically like a road base there. And they wanted to make sure that um it's also not just the subbase and then, you know, lom it and plant it with grass because you need to be able to plow it. Actually, we were thinking that um as long as we were going to build that that we would incorporate that in our walking paths around the place. So, we'd make that a walking area because um [clears throat] the walking loops are really desirable. But you had a didn't you have a 200 foot buffer back there and I thought that was part of the natural heritage. Wasn't that part of the the take permit or no? Yeah. So, no bu no building within

right building. no building with that with that. And we did leave our room for grading. Um and they do have something where you know ultimately we'll have some signage over there to you know and we may do something to um just make sure people are aware that you know there there are there's there's turtles out there. Do you have your take permit for this? Our what your take permit from from Masswwater? They they said it's it's not a it's not a take. No take.

It's a note. It's is not a taking. And we said that we wouldn't have any buildings within 200 ft off the property line. Um and obviously they've seen this plan that shows the limit of work and also the work that would be associated for drainage on that northeasterly side that's within that. But they were fine with that. They just didn't want buildings within that. So, this actually is an issue that came up at our staff meeting, which I should probably give you an update. I don't think we've met since then.

Um, but that this this issue actually came up and we weren't sure what the status of that was. So, have you gotten a permit from Mass Wildlife? Is there a document that that says you may proceed and are there conditions attached to it? The last thing that they wanted to see was they wanted to make sure that what we had for curbing was um not a vertical turtle.

Turtle friendly. So it it I know I was trying to keep a straight face. Um so we have to have more of a sloped curb. So whether it's they said you could have a Cape Cod Burm or or a sloped granite curb. Um, and so that was that's the last thing. What I wanted to do was wait till we finalized what the actual final layout was going to be and then give them the plan that showed the slope granted curbing. So I don't keep on saying, "Oh, here's an updated plan. Here's an updated plan." But that was the last the final check box. We've got the general okay from them. So you don't have an actual We don't have the actual permit. No, you haven't you haven't finalized. We don't have a final set of plans.

We have an application with them. Yeah. They've given us um you know we gave them a whole um analysis of and the habitat etc. Right. And they've they saw our initial layout which was one of the last layouts that showed the the drainage area on the north, the limit of work, the 200 foot offset for no no buildings. Um, and the last thing they came up with was no, the turtles have to be able to crawl over the curb. So, I was of the opinion you wouldn't want turtles coming into the prop project because it's not a turtle funny parking lot.

It tends though. [clears throat] You might get a little squished, but um, and I love turtles, but not in my parking lot. Yeah. So, we um, they said no, they want them to be able to traverse the curb, so we said, "Okay, we'll go with a slope a slope granite." What do we know, Mr. Chair? M. Um, I love turtles, too, and I think it's great. I think the turtle will decide what's dangerous and what's [laughter] not. So, hopefully they say you need to have a a slope curve [clears throat] for the turtles. So, I think it's great. Um, and while we're talking Oh, I'm sorry.

That's okay. I was just going to say um I also of the two options, I think A's the be better one. And I like that the front area has more open space and the appearance of the back buildings with the step down I think just makes it more interesting. Um and just to confirm are is it just one building that has going to have subparking? Yes, just building one. Building one you can see the driveway that goes down at the top sheet. And will building two have more parking spaces in front of it to offset that. Um the spaces you will not have Well, they're not they're not designated. I mean it's just in general we try to have [clears throat] that's true all right

but to your point we wanted to we made sure that the distribution of the parking was such that in front of each building area they had adequate parking so someone didn't have to walk 300 feet to that car right right not that they everybody wants better form right next to the door and will uh the tenants have to pay extra for the parking uh below or Is that that unit going to have a higher [clears throat] It will have a higher rent. Higher rents because it'll be included because it's in building one. Yes. Right. And the other thing we talked about with the um with the fire chief and the fire captain was

um to the extent that we um there's not going to be any um EV chargers chargers underneath underneath. Yeah. Because that's a fire hazard. And to the extent that we could dissuade um residents from parking EV cars underneath there because that you know I don't think we can do that though. I don't think you can do it but he said if you you know so we those garages are pretty pretty well built though as far as Yeah. So under garages it's over a million dollars more for that building for that garage. So so we do have to charge more rent for that.

And does the fire department have any concerns about EVs as you're saying underneath? Well, they said, you know, the codes keep on changing, but they can't. There's, you know, you [clears throat] can't say to someone, you can't park an EV. This came up at the meeting, too, and they are very concerned about EVs in the garage. Yeah. Right. So, that's reflected in what their conversation looks like. If there's any kind of code that that that is enacted that says EVs can't park in the building, we're fine with enforcing it. But right now, if there's none, we can't. And how many EV charges are on in the parking lot? So, we're calling Balcock. We're doing What's wrong with the mic?

Come on, Babcock. Um, we're [clears throat] doing two 150 kilovolt DC fast chargers that will service four parking spaces. Um, those charges, each space will do 80% charge in 20 20 minutes, I believe. And then from there, we'll have maybe like a dozen EV ready and I think probably four regular chargers. So maybe maybe like six or eight spaces total. Um but with the ability to charge. It's like 1 2 3 4 probably 10 cars an hour. And that's part of the building code. What? Why are we doing this? Yeah, it's part of the building code. Part of the building.

Yeah, the new energy codes. It's actually part of the um the IECC 2025. Gotcha. Okay. So it does get done so forth. Thank you. Let's check two questions. So the uh elevators are only for building one or also for the building without both. Both both and okay. And when you said the uh units are being knocked down, does option A just go flat three flows? No.

Option B, no. Um option A has the step. Option B maintains four four buildings in the quad and takes off the entire fourth floor. So that's just flat. No, no step down. No step down. Yeah, but just three three stories the whole not not a step from three to four. We're proposing sloped roofs in all buildings. So can I just This was from September. This is the the fourstory building. That's the one. Yeah. Yeah. It So, it's just this missing a floor, right? The the roof is the same. Yeah. Yes.

Won't be flat. Doesn't have it'll still have the same elev It would still have a gable. It would just be like taking straight across. Taking this roof line and going straight across. Yes. Okay. So, it's this one just with correct. Yeah. One of the middle floors removed. Correct. Okay. So really that bullet number three applies only to option A. I didn't follow that. If you if you the narrative Yeah. talking about dropping it out and the elevation elevator inside the building. That's all only for option B. Correct.

Okay. [clears throat] Is that two questions? [laughter] Another one. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes, please.

Uh Jeff Walsh of Graves Engineering, the zone board of appeals um engineering consultant. I don't want to get deep in the weeds on the engineering, but I want to offer a couple thoughts on on what's been proposed with respect to the fire access. Um there's a gravel base proposed in in Lman Seed. Um I would urge uh the applicant to consider the pvious type of pavement that allows grass to grow between it because in the March time of year when frost is coming out of the ground and the lom is surface is slippery. There's going to need to be traction if if equipment apparatus has to go across there. So lom and sea by itself would be too slippery. You need you need that

type of pvious pavement or something like that which can be there's various forms of it. is even something like this behind the high school, the new high school. But to clarify what um the the fire chief did not want to have any lman seed on top. They want obviously want the compact base. They don't want lmen seed because they want to be able to they want us to plow it and we're not going to be tearing up grass. And so they want something that to your to your point that's more of a um they said whether it's a pvious pavement or some type of or some type of solid more solid surface not not grass.

Great. Jeeoff, can I ask you what what do you think the minimum width if we did pave a road back there and and we wouldn't want it any kind of wide what what would be the minimum size that that we could I understand the fire department needs 20 ft for the width of their vehicle plus the outrigger stabilizers if you will when they set up to put the ladder up they need a good solid surface to support that fire truck so you never know where it's going to be right [clears throat]

that's why they look for 20 ft um in other projects I've reviewed. I've been seeing 20 ft. Um there's another one I'm looking at now with a similar type of axis. I don't remember if they what they did, but it again it's 20 ft and I don't remember if they changed the types of surfaces within the 20 ft to make it look narrower, but the full 20 ft is capable of supporting a fire truck with the stabilizers deployed and the guys out on the ladder when the ladder's reaching out because that's that's [cough] a a force that's being applied and needs a solid surface. Mhm.

Well, [cough] what we there's balancing obviously and we don't want to get into the weeds too much, but yeah, we want to have obviously the adequate solid surface, but then there's the aesthetic portion that comes into it. So, you don't want it to look like a, you know, roadway, a road or a track going around. Sure. But we'll [clears throat] we can work with the fire department with a what they would like to see. We'll satisfy the fire department. We may not like it, but we'll satisfy it. Just on that point, Mr. Chairman, the I I the discussion that we had at the meeting was that the fire department would probably park their aerial ladder in the front of the building. There's only one aerial ladder, right, that I'm aware I mean, there could be mutual aid from

another department, but um I think their main concern was yeah, access in the back, and they wanted to have a fire lane back there, which you're proposing, but I thought their bigger concern was erecting a ladder, not from a truck, but just the ladders, that the [clears throat] ladders that they have do not go up to four floors. And that I think that was the main concern about the four-story buildings. So, I'm a little confused, but I mean, you're telling me that they you talked to them after our meeting and they said four stories is okay. And that that conflicts with what I what I thought I heard at the meeting, but

what what the fire department spoke of at the meeting was not of being able to put a ladder up to the back of these two buildings. Um, if if there's an emergency response where they have to get to the front of the building, they'd approach the building from the fire, I mean, from the from the parking lot. But with respect to the the ground ladders, I think they were called, um, right? They weren't long enough to reach the fourth floor of building number two, nor are they long enough to reach the fourth floor of building number one, which has a walk out. So that's an entire that's like going to the top of a fifth floor. The point I heard at that meeting was that they could not gain ladder access to the back of these buildings any more than the ladders would provide, which is about a 30 or 35 foot long ladder. I don't believe that. I'm not sure if that's ladder length or vertical vertical rise. But the point is they couldn't get to the top floor or two without this access. That's what I took. Cor and that's what they Yeah. [clears throat] So, by having the ability to get the truck around the back, they could use their ladder the the ladder on the truck.

But there's only one ladder truck. So, I I think the point is that if if one of these buildings is engaged, you're going to have your aerial ladder in the front. Well, they go if they have to get to the back, they'd go around the back. You're not going to move it. Once it's put in front of the building, it's it's staying there with the lad with their aerial ladder going to the front of the building. If someone if if pe if they have to go in the back to save a life on the fourth floor, they have to erect a ladder, a ground ladder.

Yeah, Dan. Um I mentioned this last time, they bring mutual and aid in real fast and and I had a fire three houses down and the tower from Sutton beat our own tower here. So, um well, I mean, in fairness, wait a second. In fairness, the tower in Sutton is parked just across the line. um it literally is closer um to this house, you know, but the bottom line is I I've seen them bring in mutual aid, second towers all the time and and I'm certain if you know as soon as somebody saw any sort of a header coming out of one of these buildings, they'd be calling for mutual aid and additional towers. Mhm.

Um my understanding is is or my what I believe to be the case. We were we were having this access in the back um exactly for the tower access. It's it was so that they could get um up to a fourthstory window uh if they needed to perform a rescue or something along those lines. And that's something they can't do from a ground ladder. So my understanding or at least my I guess expectation is the the main reason for this access is if they have to get a tower back there to uh perform a rescue on the fourth floor. Mhm. That's my expectation.

Yeah. I was just relaying what what was spoken at the meeting and I they were referring to ground letters but that that could be true too. And I guess we I think we all need to go back to to the chief and the captain and and just get clarification because if if if they're okay with the back access, it needs to be wide enough for a tower. Mhm. Um so whatever that is. Wait, is isn't that what this print is showing us? Yes. And we brought this. How wide is this road? 20 ft. Okay. Is that's enough? That what I that's what he I understand the requirements are. Yeah,

I'm I'm not going to speak for the fire department, but I kept hearing 20 feet uh wide access minimum for um um use of the aerial truck. And I hear that in other communities as well. And then we did also did a a a truck turning radius to show that it can loop around the both buildings easily. Perhaps we just need to make sure that we get sure the written you know not that we don't believe you but just get a written um you know verification from the the chief or you know his designate that they uh they approve of this layout and this road etc. Okay, maybe that's you know what we need. Yeah, we're fine with that.

We'll do whatever the fire department requires us to do on the road. We may not like a 20 foot fire roof, but if that's what they require, that's what we'll do. The other issue they raised while we're talking about fire is the uh combustible building materials that are being proposed. And I think yeah, so they uh we talked to them about that. So there are there that is cement to siding. There is no vinyl siding on above the first floor. The only vinyl siding on those buildings is the first floor level. Everything else if if you look at that elevation we had up all the white is hardy board. So the first floor is vinyl but not not the whole first floor just the very ends the blue you see like that blue color.

Oh like the rest of it's all cement board. Oh I see. So, I think one of the original renderings had it as vinyl like in the in the early on, but we don't use vinyl above the first floor for for windshare reasons because vinyl doesn't do well with water intrusion. All right. So, it's mostly Hardy board, which is correct. All the white you see. Yes. Cement panels. Correct. With with metal trim.

And Mr. Chairman, a couple other comments I'd like to make. Um, with respect to the granite curb and the turtles, I get it. I respect it. But we got to balance that with the um provision of separating passenger vehicles or vehicles in general and pedestrians. Um often times uh where when a sidewalk abuts a a parking area or driveway um when there's no grass strip and it's just sidewalk right up against the curb. The curb is a vertical type of material. um goes against the turtles, but I'm trying to balance human human safety as with the with the um animals.

Um there might there's certainly areas that would warrant um slope granite edging, Cape Cod BM, something along those lines. Um but the you know, again, in the the devil's in the details, but I'd like the applicant team to be aware of it. This is certainly in my opinion a discussion for construction plan preparation if the project gets that far. But I wanted I wanted them to know now. Same with the surface on the on the fire road. We agree with you Jeeoff on that. And we were thinking that maybe we would do the hybrid instead of a a three and a half inch ver uh slope [clears throat and cough] with a a heavier and slope and but a little steeper, but it would still be sloped and the

so we could do them both. But okay. Um actually did I just I did that on a building on Route 20 just recently too. Okay. Worked out well.

Thank you. Okay. And then lastly um just with with respect to um elevators buildings to me are buildings. I look at the outside of the the lot but nevertheless um I'm I'm not aware whether there's a prohibition that a three-story building in the back does can't have elevators. I'm not saying it's required to have elev elevators, but I can't I'm not aware of a prohibition of three-story building. This building, I believe, has uh two stories and then there's an elevator down the end. I'm I'm just trying to make sure the board has the facts straight about what can and can't be done with respect to an elevator in the back of the building. I don't want to get involved with that discussion. But um what I read in the uh narrative is is that I felt that um they may not be proposing an elevator with three stories and and that I get and I respect but I don't believe there's a prohibition that they can't put an elevator in that building

or those buildings. It's a cost factor. Understood. Okay. That's all I have. Mr. Chairman, where did you see [snorts] that? Um try I think he's referring to the 24 unit buildings, right, Joe? I'm sorry. Are you referring to talking about elevators? Yeah. Elevated. That's correct. That's correct. Somewhere in here in in the narrative, and I'm not sure if it's an item four, but there was just brief discussion about elevator versus non-elevator. Well, you said tonight that if it was three stories, you would not put an elevator in, right? and with and Cohen can speak a little bit to that, especially with the the subsurface parking.

So, you know, again, like to Jeff's point, you could do a three-story building uh with an elevator. Um it comes down to cost, comes down to maintenance contracts, annual operating costs. Um the other thing, the one thing that you I don't think it got touched on tonight was if you did a three-story building in building number one, you we would not do subsurface parking. So, you would lose you would lose that amenity as well. That's something that just it just financially would not work with the cost of that and it would be too many parking spaces. You'd have a 48 unit building with 53 parking spaces. So we we would lose. Sorry, can you just say that again? I

So the the option B with the three-story building. So you got building one that now in option A had the fourstory hybrid we'll call it has subsurface parking 53 parking spaces under the building with the elevator access. If you go to the three-story building at option B, you lose that subsurface parking. Not on the drawing. Yeah, I think that was a mistake. I noticed that. That that's that's And what's the downside of that? The downside of that you don't provide something for aging pe um elderly or parking the parking under. Yeah. Yeah. You're well, you're out of the weather, right? When you're under the building, but it's convenient. It's an it's an expensive you know

the threetory building cannot support that. There's a reason why that you don't have any buildings in town with parking under. There's a reason why you don't have buildings with elevators. It's all cost thing. Cost cost. Just another question along that line. I like the way the buildings got the uh edges down. It looks great. Mhm. If you knock off one more floor, how many units go out from each of the building? 16. 16 from each. 16 from each or 12 from each. Well, be 12 more than what you see there. If it was a full four story from it would be a total of 16. 16 per floor.

It with this hybrid, we're not we're taking off four units. So then it would be an additional 12 units. Okay. If you went down to three plus what if you the same model if you took off one floor so it's just one consistent it's a threetory building one consistent threestory building I think what Jeffy's asking is what if you did three stories and then on the side you two so you lose you take this and just drop it by one floor you do 16 16 or 12 so there's 12 on the top floor but if you're keeping the top floor the and just removing say the second and third floor in the in the middle section.

Yeah. If you remove the second and third floor, those are 16 unit floors. So be 16 and 1632. Right. Right. Mhm. And then to to the point Con was making the the ability to have the subsurface parking works well with this because we have 53 spots. Now you would have with less units in there, you're you have 53 parking. Well, first of all, it financially it doesn't make any sense to have the subsurface parking, but in addition to that, you [clears throat] would have uh be losing what? You only have 48 units for 48 units for with with

hypothetically hypothetically 53 parking spaces. So it starts skewing the the But where where would you make up those spaces? We have plenty of spaces around. We we've taken and then we then we'd have to start eating into some of those larger landscape area, you know, parking spaces that like in front of the buildings. We beefed up the the landscape areas in the in the center of those back buildings. We made some of at the corners of of the of the loop, so to speak. We uh re removed some parking spaces there so you'd have a hardier landscape area. Um so we we'd have to fight some other parking spaces back.

At one point we had too much parking and we went and pulled parking spots out. What we do is we would just plug those back in again. So, at the end of the day, I think this conversation is more leading to in in my opinion, if we have the the hybrid buildings in the back, the aesthetics of them are nice. We have the three 24 unit buildings in the quad area gives uh the much more open space, much more appearance there. And then we have a good spread of parking and we have good landscape islands within the parking. So, um, again, not to I just think this this is this it just works so much better and it flows better and ultimately it it would um aesthetically look much nicer.

And in general, those 24 unit buildings without the elevator are more cost effective to build. That's why most builders build those. So, that would be a different price point on your rentals, too. that building on the end. That building number one with the underground parking with the elevator is our most expensive building to build and therefore it's the highest rent building. But we still do we're still required to put a certain amount of um 25% affordable in that building anyways. Even though it is our most expensive building, but we just have to eat that. But it won't be the same as the affordables and building two. It will still be a higher rent price based on the you have to do the same. So it's gonna have to be the same. Okay.

No, it has to be the same because they um the state wants you to spread the affordable same amount. Okay. So the people that get building one get a really good deal. They want them building one gets a good deal. Be quick to sign up. You get a good deal. [laughter] They want them on every floor and every corner and every building and Right. and and the percentages of well they're not evenly spread between the threes the twos and the ones but they do have it is that's a requirement that we do for the state is we have to give them a selection plan for that and what happens with the garages do the affordables units get the uh garage at the bottom the subur is that an option you know I hadn't thought of that

are those going to be assigned or not well they yeah we all have one Cohen, if you talk, you got to come up. Sorry. [laughter] Stay here. Yeah. So, they'll be so in that particular building, so there'll be 53 of those spaces will be assigned to 53 of the units. Correct. Um, and then I guess talking about the affordables. So, it's 60 units in that building at 25%. Um, see what 12 units 15 units. So essentially, yes, there will be some affordable units in that building will be a lucky winner of a parking space under the building.

Mr. Chairman, I would think if there's 25% of the units are affordable that perhaps 25% of the parking spaces go to 25 to the afford, but that's probably a discussion for the state. With the state, correct? It's not really our right. Right. But that's how I see it. Brian Bill has his hand up. Oh, sorry, Bill.

Yeah. Um [clears throat] just uh you know a thought as as Kay was asking about the prices just try keep everyone keep in mind the rents for the affordable units are set by the area median income not the amenities in the building. So you know it it doesn't matter how nice the unit is or isn't or anything along those lines. It's it's based on well it's based on bedroom count uh but but really it's based on the area median income. Um, so that's why, you know, all of the rental units will have the same price um throughout the project regardless of whether it's got a great view on the top floor or it's got a, you know, whatever.

Um, and and it has to have the same um interior. Interior. Correct. So, you can't do, you know, laminate countertops in the affordable units. Correct. No, that's all they You can with houses. Why can't you with houses? Yeah, I think so. the inside. You can do anything you want. You can, I believe. So, actually, we probably could do it, but but we wouldn't. No, it's too hard. It's too hard, right? It's also Yeah. Well, they rotate for rentals. They rotate. The units aren't assigned, right? So, they're only reason, right? But but I was I was trying to focus on the the rental price. Okay. It doesn't matter. You're correct. Right. The rental price is based on the area median income, not what's in the unit.

Correct. Right. So, let's just try and keep that in mind. But more importantly, I had said earlier that I could support either plan. I I probably could, but I was under the impression at the time that plan B still had elevators and under underground parking. My understanding now is that no, they don't have elevators and they don't have the underground parking. So, I very strongly prefer plan A at this point. I'd support either one and most of the board prefers B. I I could go with that. But I think A is a much better option than B.

So just to clarify too, B would not have the the driveway around as well. No, because there's not enough units to support Oh, you're talking about the the access around the back. Well, no, you wouldn't. There's no need. There's no need. It's a three-story building. You can get a ladder. So, I'd want that confirmed with the fire department as well if we choose be. Okay. I'll send him a memo. Well, let's wait. Slow down. Oh, I know. I'm just writing. Let's see if we choose Let's see if we choose B first. I'm just making notes. So, why do we have to choose anything? Because we've been doing this for almost a year and and we need to provide direction.

All right. [gasps] So, we we kind of got sidetracked. Can we go back to Dan for just a recap of the staff meeting? Sure. All right. [clears throat] So, so I met with um Chief Matthew uh Captain Colleen, Jeff Paul Canoyer, uh DPW, Leah, conservation, uh Katrina was in attendance and we talked about a lot of different things. I think it was probably like a two-hour meeting. Yeah. And then afterwards, Jeff and I went down to the to the site. We looked at the sidewalk areas. We looked at the frontage and the intersection. Uh we also took a drive over to the um PY project. The

Yeah, the fourstory um PY project um at on Institute Road near the corner of West Bro. Um just getting finished up. It was permitted through this um planning board as non40B. Um it has four stories. It has garage under parking. It has some town houses. Um I do not know whether or not it has elevators. I've never It does have elevators. Thank you. Yep. That's a summary of that project. Is that what um and so I actually uh wrote up a I wrote up a memo which I believe is now been docketed, right? Um and that was dated November 25th.

Um and there were six issues that I summarized in the memo. Um the first one is the Snow Road Whistler Street intersection and I'll let Jeff speak to that because we've got some recommendations for further action by the um by the applicant. Um second issue is is the sidewalk question and again Jeff can address the viability of that. We we had a good good discussion with Paul Canoyer about the feasibility of the sidewalk. Hold on one second Jan. Sure. Do you have hard copies of them? Did you send that email? I sent an email. I forgot to put it in your packets for tonight. So that's that's on me. Few weeks ago. Yeah. Two weeks

when Dan wrote it. I sent it to everybody. So if you give me one sec, I'll go get them.

Thanks. [clears throat] [clears throat] This is the

25th. Okay. Thank you. I'll cover three through six. Sure. Go back to you whenever you're ready. Yeah.

What happened to your little magnet? Yeah, you gave me one. Very close. Just lottery tickets. [laughter] No, no, not that bad. But but things along the line like that stock I got lucky. I found a Drake made jersey from a kid. Oh, perfect.

No, she does all the [laughter] gives you. No, no, she's great. Well, I got to go find something, but I already did. And shouldn't be surprising yet.

Gorgeous. It's only a few years old. Oh, I've heard of it. Yeah. Yeah. I voted once. Did they for We didn't [laughter] think about resent. That's great.

Fail on. You can look at [laughter] the place. You could do a lot by you could do a lot like 40 by 100, 50 by 100. They're living on top of each other. What do you want? We're not used to it. What? What's this?

Well, that's about it. I like it because Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. For me, it's like 35 minute drive. [clears throat] All right. Sorry. Should I pick right back up, please? Okay. [laughter] Sorry about that.

All right. So, first issue was the intersection. Second issue is the sidewalks. I'm going to let Jeff talk on those. Third issue was emergency access and safety. I think I covered these issues. Um, uh, the chief noted that the sweat path was using the wrong truck, but now they fixed that. And so we have a lot of follow-up questions with with the fire department to make sure, as Bill said, just trust trust and verify um that everything is good. Uh, trash management was discussed. Um, is that still in the same lo did you move that location for what the Oh, no. Same location.

No, that's No, that's same. That's it's a self again that self-contained unit. Okay. So, I think there was just an overall concern that we got to make sure this is really contained, that there's not going to be any liquid spillage. Um, because it's so close to the zone one, right? And so, it's a self-contained unit. I know. But um so we we want to have conditions to make sure that's We can send you the specs.

Yep. Specs are great, but it's it's enforcement and making sure things go go correctly. Um building height was raised. We just talked about that. Um and then the wetland issues. So the issue of the the priority habitat, we talked about that. So you told us that the permit's been applied for but not yet obtained. So that's kind of being held in obeyance it sounds like until these plans get flushed out. Yeah. Um

there was a question over the ILSF that's isolated land subject to flooding that's a resource area under the state wetland protection act. There's a question of whether those calculations have been done and provided to the commission. Um and that that is to determine whether there's jurisdiction for the commission under the state act. Mhm. Um have you done those calculations, the ILSF calculations?

Yes. And it it doesn't meet the the the criteria being ILSF. But with that said, um we reviewed this with our wetland scientists since the last meeting or since this memo came out. And even we would do it in either case is whether or not it is an ILSF, we would still treat it the same. And the only modification

modification is they if you had a point discharge. So if you had a a discharge pipe coming out of the basin into the buffer zone, that's that's would not be allowed with an ILSF. You have to keep any point discharges outside the 100 foot buffer to that resource area. So with that we have a infiltration basin that it only has an emergency spillway. There is no outlet structure with a pipe going out. So just to make and it holds through a 100redyear storm event. What we would do is take the emergency spillway and right now as you look on the plan it's on the within the buffer zone where the the emergency spillway is. we would just relocate that to the the far end of the of the basin. Even though it holds to 100year storm event, if there were a breach, it would be outside the 100 foot buffer.

But wouldn't [clears throat] that be directing the water to the abuter? Wouldn't that be on the property line or no? I think the butter is higher, isn't it?

It would go it would go down it everything flows down to that wetland. And um again, we we're not that's an emergency spillway. Everything holds through a 100red-year storm event. So everything goes downhill. Everything goes downhill towards uh the the re the wetland that's downs slope. Everything flows downhill towards that same resource area. And again, that would just be for uh an emergency [snorts] spillway. And we hold through a 100-year storm event. So uh there wouldn't be any increase in runoff recommendations. Yeah. So he had some recommendations willing to make those recommendations. We're going to change those.

Right. So and that's that's saying we'll treat it whether or not it is an ILSF. We would treat it the same the same either. So you're going to modify the basin design. Yeah. It would just be the location of the emergency spillway, right? But okay. Does that make sense, Jeff? That makes sense. Yes. Okay. Um and then [clears throat] there's a question of whether there was vertal pool activity um in the isolated wetland area. Um Leah raised that as an issue. Um I guess it's been identified as a potential vernal pool area. Mhm.

So that was raised and the commission is Oh, is that was the vernal pool that I was if it was a vernal pool, the commission is requiring that that area be observed in the spring, March, April for evidence of vernal pool habitat. Um, and that's it. And then then we go back to the intersection and the sidewalks is

and and we will be filing with conservation um because there will be some grading within the voting zone. So that would all be I assume would be um you know obviously a condition that we we go to conservation commission filing under the under the regulations. It would only just so I'm clear, you're only required to do that if the wetland is an ILSF, right? Well, if we're within a 100 foot. Can you guys We're doing work within a 100 foot buffer. We still have to file with conservation, but not if it's not jurisdictional. Are you

Oh. Oh, not if it's not jurisdictional, but we would treat it the same way either way. That's an if that's an isolated wetland is isolated wetland. That's only obviously under the local bylaw. Isolated wetland is under the local bylaw. Isolated land subject to flooding is a depression. Doesn't have to have wetland species. That can be anywhere. Right.

My recommendation to the ZBA would be to um if this is allowable, Dan, um ask the applicant as a condition or require the applicant as a condition to file an abbreviated notice of intent which is just to identify [snorts] whether or not resource areas jurisdictional under the state wetlands protection act are at the site and to if they are identified to be there to delineate them. Um at a minimum what you're doing is that condition would obligate the applicant to file or just clear the situation with the commission whether or not the resource areas jurisdictional under the state exist. if they exist and if the proposed plans proposed work within the buffer zones or within the resource areas, then they would certainly have to file a notice of intent.

Um if if the applicant um if they were going to treat it as if it's resource area, that's great, but there's nothing in writing that that protects the board. But the condition of at least filing an ANRAD abbreviated notice of resource area delineation or an RDA I think right request for determination of of applicability. Some some commissions and some applicants will use that vehicle as well. Um I like the I like the ANRADS because it requires a public hearing and um little more scrutiny if you will at the as far as the procedure goes. But either way they're submitting ILSF calculations.

Yeah. And if if it qualifies as an ILSF, it's jurisdictional. If it doesn't qualify, it's not. Is that is that right? Correct. E either way, they're they're working with the proper board, the conservation commission to either clear the land of any state jurisdictional resource areas or identify them and delineate them. And then of course, if they are there and if the work is um jurisdictional under the state wetland regulations, then they would have to follow up with the commission with a notice of intent. Or perhaps they realize, yes, we are we're going to need notice of intent anyways, they can skip right to the notice of intent filing, which also confirms the identification of and delineation of wetland resource areas.

We're fine with that. Okay. Yep. So, all right. Um, we're all set with the wetland stuff now. Okay. Well, what's the timing of all that? [clears throat]

That would have to be before construction. Um, I I would recommend concurrent with the preparation of construction plans, if the project is approved, that they would file the it if the if the condition is to file an ANRAD, you're at least making them um go before the commission. But I think that should be concurrent with the preparation of construction plans. I think there's an argument to be made though that it should be done seasonally in the spring so that the commission has the opportunity to go out and look at this area. Yep.

So, but if it if a decision is being made here in the next month, which I would expect at this point, then we would that would it seem to work. Yeah. The timing would work to Yeah. for the spring,

right? March. Right. Yeah. All right. Um, let's start with the easy one. Number one, snow road shoulder width. During the meeting we had um with the department heads um discussion was again um had about um the a preference to keep the sidewalk all on the east side of Snow Road. so that somebody that wanted to walk from the project to Stop and Shop or the other other stores in that area could didn't have to cross the street twice. Um, all well and good, but there's some physical constraints with with that and um Dan and I went out I measured the the shoulder width as measured from the curb was I think Cape Cod Burm out there uh to the to the stones at the base of the wall is only 3 and 1/2 ft. sidewalk needs to be at least four feet wide, preferably five feet wide. Uh subdivision rules and regs in this town call for four feet wide, but the accessible um um what is it? The Massachusetts Architectural Access Board requires if you have 4 foot sidewalks, every so often you have a five foot wide bump out so that that um um wheelchairs can pass. Thank you. Thank you. um 3 and 1/2 ft and um and that doesn't include the st a few stones that might have fallen off the wall. We don't know where the property line is. So, we don't know if the property lines at the face of the wall, the middle of the wall, the back of the wall, whether the wall could be moved, if it's in the right of way. Um but it it certainly makes it clear to me anyways that it's a physical impediment. I'm not saying it it's prohibiting a sidewalk from being there, but it's making it difficult at best if it So, that's one of the issues we discussed. Um, the plans already propose

a sidewalk route from the project to the existing sidewalk system down near the intersection of Worcester Street and Snow Road. Um it requires crossing the street twice, but that is physically possible um with proper improvements to the sidewalk and curb cuts and things like that. Um

before you move off the sidewalk, just to complete that picture. So, I think if if the board was interested in pursuing that, the feasibility of that, I think what we'd probably want to do is ask the applicant to provide a survey so we knew where the right of way is, where the where the boundary line is for the right of way. Um, because if if the if the boundary is at the stone wall, there's probably not enough room. Mhm.

But if the boundary line is a little bit back behind the stone wall, then you absolutely could move the stone wall back and and construct a sidewalk. It would take some effort, but it's it's viable. And Paul Canoyer confirmed that when we when we met the stone wall is it's not the entire length of this area. It's only it's in right it's just in front of six snow road and I would say it's what 20 or 30 feet or might be longer than I think it's much longer than that but it's probably six to seven yeah it's in front of just one house.

Yeah it's on the if as you face the one on the right which is where it's the slopes that's going down. So anyway, that that would be I think the steps forward if we're if if if that was of interest to the board and uh on top of we would be improving the sidewalk across the street and widening that and where the utility poles are. Now that that's a pinch point with the existing asphalt. So we would make sure that that entire sidewalk that is in front of the housing authorities property is fully 4T or more. 4T or more. And um where let's just

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just want to let you know we would there would be a benefit by improving the sidewalk across the street. That's the wall between That's the wall. That's the wall. Ah there it is. Good job.

So the grass strip in front of the wall is about three and a half ft wide. Um the wall if you vertical height from the uh pavement surface of the road to the top of the wall is about two and a half feet. Yep. About two and a half feet. So um it's not a tall wall, but it's just [clears throat] where it is with respect to the property line could be critical. Uh that next Okay. Yep. And there's looking from the other direction. So it it covers most of the frontage of of that property. Um the other thing we discussed uh was the snow road intersection with Worcester Street and the proposed improvements. Um to summarize where the where the plans are now with respect to the off-site improvements as I know them is that um striving to um make the approach to Worcester Street. Um it always has been proposed as a left turn and right turn lane which is widening from the single lane it is now. Uh the approach is is now proposed to be squared up more so with Worcester Street, taking them from about a 60° angle to about a 80° angle if I remember correctly. Um it gives a a driver much better ability to look left and look right without um and being more squared up with the um with the intersection. Um with respect to the approach um grades the existing grade gets by um interpreting the plans I see the existing grade today is um up around like 8.7% at its deepest point. Um it it it reduces a little bit as it comes right up to the uh gutter line, if you will, of Worcester Street, but it's still um well over like 5%. It's

probably close to the 7% range, so it's pretty steep. Um and not too far away on Snow Road is the southern entrance of Maxwell Drive. Um so there's, you know, quite a bit of elevation change from Worcester Street to Maxwell Drive. Um the plans are proposing um about a 30-foot leveling zone of 5% if I remember correctly. A vertical curve. A vertical curve is where you just don't take change grade by going like this. You create a curve like this. Um I had looked at it with respect to um the tower one firefighting apparatus of clearing it with the long overhang and and it looks to me like it'll clear comfortably. Um, I don't know if they have any problems with the closer to an abrupt change in grade with existing Snow Road in that fire apparatus, but needless to say, the vertical curve makes the transition from Worcester Street onto Snow Road um better than what is there today. Um, and then the the grade does get a little bit steeper on what's proposed now, up to 10% for a short distance, and then it flattens out and ties back in the Snow Road before you reach Maxwell Drive. So, that's what's before the board. Um, with respect to horizontal layout, it's an improvement of what was originally proposed because the 60° angle on the vehicles approaching Worcester Street are now just about squared up with Worcester Street. But unfortunately it it's what's before you is also a steeper grade by couple percent or percent about 1.3% something like that it's the steepest point but on the other hand it provides a better leveling zone. So in my opinion weighing out different physical constraints um in my opinion it was worth vetting out with the approving authorities if they're going to go

forward. Um during our meeting there was further discussion of trying to create a leveling zone which is more in line with the subdivision rules and regulations. Those would be a 3% leveling zone instead of a 5% leveling zone for a distance of 100 ft instead of 30 ft and quite frankly gets you a lot deeper in the ground. I'm not saying it's doable, but what's been presented to the board so far is a plan view with grading and contours and so forth, not a profile. Um, I had the benefit of seeing a profile, but it would it's not part of the public record right now. Um, and and that either way, what's been submitted has only gone up to the first Maxwell Drive intersection. So my suggestion or or recommendation or food for thought to the board if you will is to create a profile of existing conditions and along um Snow Road from Worcester Street to the north property line of the applicant's property. Um that way it basically covers all the real estate that's got to be looked at and then one could look at potential options for realignment. Um quite frankly I the compliance with subdivision rules and regs I think is going to find that you're hundreds and hundreds of feet down snow road before you can get back up to the to the existing elevation. Um and any earth cuts in and around the area of um the existing dwellings, Maxwell Drive and so forth have an impact with utility poles, driveways to the budding properties, Maxwell Drive. Um undermining the retaining wall that we just saw in the photos a few minutes ago. In other words, a profile would at least give us a clear slate to look at existing

conditions and look at what could be done. Can can anything be done this a little bit better? For example, what I see and I'm not convinced it could work, but what might be happen is the um the um leveling zone there street might be able to be improved a little bit. That 8 point that 10% grade might be able to be brought back closer to or maybe slightly less than the existing grade. So maybe you know get it away from 10% if possible but all that will have an impact on the first intersection the southern intersection I believe or the west intersection of Maxwell Drive. So having all this on a profile we can see where the existing driveways are where Maxwell Drive is um where the utility poles are where the retaining wall uh stone wall is and see you know how much how much can it be changed how much the the ex what what's been proposed to the uh board so far, what can it be changed much better or not?

Could I elaborate just a little bit? Um that the the the concern with with having a steep grade as you approach Worcester Street is that it's harder to stop, right? And it's just basic traffic engineering 101 that you want a leveling a leveling area of a certain distance so that when the car is coming down Snow Road, especially in in winter conditions, that you're not going to have a situation where car is going to just skid and slide into into traffic. And we know that traffic on Worcester Street is fast um and people are flying and there's confusion over the lanes. So it it's a really dangerous intersection. So the idea is to have the applicant basically put the applicant to the test to go back to the drawing board and do the profile as Jeff says all the way up the street so we can get a feel for what's possible to see if we can actually create a more of a leveling area a a less steep leveling area within 100 ft right of of the intersection.

Agreed. And I in in reviewing things um especially this this um um the off-site improvements plan, I looked at subdivision rules and regulations as from [snorts] that approach. But I also Mass D has a highway design guidance manual pretty thick, two volumes about that thick and they speak to approaches to intersections um and so on and so forth. and um is I I have this in writing and I probably could send it along after tonight's meeting um to both the board members as well as the applicant if it's all right with you, Mr. Chairman. just I tried to vet out what are all the different regulations, if you will, or guidance documents that we can lean to to try to figure out what is the best approach here because it's I don't think we're going to get any it it's not raw land. We're cutting down trees, cutting down hills, and we can make anything work. It's it's there's a lot of um physical features that potentially would be impacted or quite frankly could be impeded to this even occurring. And um I'm just trying to, you know, put out there, if you will, um and I'll I'll share this with everyone the different regulations and guidance provisions that I've seen to try to strike a balance, if you will, for the to get what what would be best for the neighborhood, what would be best to improve that intersection because quite frankly, it needs improvements in my opinion whether whether this building this project is built or not. Um, I've always found the intersection challenging, especially when I'm coming downhill. Um, but that's it. It's there's there's nothing black and white. Oh, I see it can be fixed this way.

Mhm. Thank you. So on that is [clears throat] are there engineers that specialize in this type of design? Basically [clears throat and cough] um that may you know have creative thoughts or [clears throat and cough] something outside the box to take a fresh look at this. I guess

I think we've got four engineers along this line already engaged in this and very capable very capable engineers. Yeah. And

their site designer, me and and their traffic engineers and the board's traffic engineers. Um it's this isn't an easy one because there's this affected properties. Safety is critical. Safety is critical. Um and it's trying to fix something with with a lot of fixed components around it or difficult to move components around quite frankly. Um stone walls can encroach onto private property. um a very finite right of way with one one a butter who's been very willing to work with the applicants as I understand it and that's you know the housing authority um but it's you know I'm trying I'm I'm trying to look at the big picture not to support this project but what's best for the intersection period

uh the the project is certainly putting more traffic through it without a doubt um and making it difficult situation more difficult. So that's I'm I'm trying to look at it from the again the holistic approach. Could I ask Jeff a question? Um Steve, can you sir, thank you. Um Jeff, could could we implement those kind of changes without an eminent domain taking on the two property owners to the to the east? I have no idea.

We took a quick look if you and I [snorts] think this will kind of give you an overall idea of if you went straight subdivision standards raw land and you went with the 3% leveling area from uh Route 122 and then transition to a vertical curve to go up to say an 8% slope. Uh, if you did that on Snow Road with the with the grades as they are now, looking at number six and number eight, Snow Road, which are the two houses on the right, you depending on the length of your vertical curve, you might be four to six feet below the grade of their driveway where it meets Snow Road now. So, that doesn't work. But to Jeff's point, if we can do some massaging between, well, does it make sense to have at the intersection where a car would be coming down to stop, do we go with a little bit flatter leveling area and then maybe transition to catch up with it a little bit steeper to So, it's as he said, it's massaging it. So, do you go is it okay to go 5% to that or do you knock the grade down right where the car is going to be looking to stop and then steepen it up a little? So, you got to there's a little massaging there. And there are some design points. I mean, you have existing butters, existing neighbors with driveways and they have to be able to get out of their driveways. So, we have to balance all of that.

I want to push back though a little bit on that that that's that can be worked out. I mean, the towns make changes in road grades. It's not that uncommon. And if necessary, driveways have to be adjusted. Yeah. And to the extent that to the extent that they they can, but if you need to pull if someone's going to pull in a driveway now, you have to make up you'd have to go 30 40 feet into someone's driveway. Well, that's, you know, well, that's a negotiation with with the owner. The town would do with with the owner, right? So, but I think what Jeff's saying is that we're not proposing a solution. I think I think the point is that we're asking you to come come back and brainstorm and give us those profiles and we're fine with doing that.

We we've looked at an overview and and but we can dig deeper and so we will. Um the other thing I just want to say is that no pun intended. [laughter] We don't want to dig We don't want to dig too easy.

I gave you a layup there. [laughter] Um, the other thing I want to say is that you a road and you you can fill in right after I finish with this Jeeoff. If you do a short road and you do it 10 or 11 or 12% and it's only like 60 ft long and then you do another road that's maybe um a half a mile and it's maybe 7%. That 7% will look steeper because of the length of it. So, if you have a short distance and and it's above that 8%, if it's that uh we're talking about uh 8.7, it's going to go to 10. If it's really short, you don't even notice it. It's I I defy anyone to even notice it because of the shortness. Now, if you if you add a lot of length to that, then you can pick that up and then you sense it and you know it. But this is what I find my

I agree 100% with with Mr. Venicasa. It's Steve. Um I don't want to be too formal. Um I agree a long slightly less rise is a lot more troubling, harder to climb if you will than a short rise. But on the flip side, I'd rather see a steeper section of road away from an intersection, away from other critical areas. So that if I was trying to get up during wet slippery conditions or trying to stop coming down during slippery conditions, I could recover e at either end without entering an intersection. That that's what makes this one difficult, right?

Yeah, I agree. So So Bill, I I know you wanted to

Yeah. So um a couple of things. The first one I I want to be really careful how I say this and and I I'm I'm very appreciative of what Jeff has done here. Um but I'm I don't know what to think about the fact that this information is coming from Jeff and not from our traffic engineer. Um I I I I don't know what to think of that. It it seems like it should be coming from our traffic engineer and it hasn't and um you know are we at risk of the traffic engineer disagreeing with what Jeff is is stating? Um you know um I I I I don't know. I I just I'm I'm a little concerned about that and I I don't know what to make of it. So I'm just throwing that out there. Um the other thing is um has there been any progress actually talking to those two neighbors about the land taking or borrowing or whatever you want to call it um to put a sidewalk in uh on those lands.

We we did speak well we um spoke directly to one and indirectly to another. Yeah. So, we um requested to see if they would be interested in, you know, allowing us to go onto their land to install a sidewalk. Um we did not hear back from anybody. Uh Mr. Ven Casa and I were out at the site I don't know [snorts] a month or more ago maybe a couple of months ago and uh we did speak to the owner who was at number um eight Snow Road and um he wasn't he absolutely doesn't want a sidewalk in front of his house. He does not want a sidewalk in front of [snorts]

and the reason being that there's a sidewalk across the street and cars parked on that sidewalk and he doesn't want cars parking on the sidewalk in front of his house. So he's afraid that people are going to take advantage of a sidewalk on his side to to pull off to the shoulder. And as a matter of fact, while we were there, we noticed car pull up and park on that sidewalk. And he said, "That's exactly what I don't want in front of my house." And he also reiterated he did he and I guess it's at this point it's hearsay but he did speak to the owner of number six and um they weren't interested in him. They like that. They love that stone wall. They said our stone wall they don't want that stone wall touched. They said that's a historic stone wall. We don't want you touching our stone wall.

So no not much cooperation there. Do they even have enough land to do it without a variance? What do you mean what variance? Do they have enough land? They can give us an easement. They don't need any variance or anything. Can do it with an easement. Oh, yeah. Oh, okay. That I didn't know. I'm not sure what the variance what variance might be. What are you thinking, Peter? I was thinking if they if you gave us the land to put the sidewalk and then they didn't conform zoning wise like the front yard set back. Well, that's what I mean. Well, why would the town want to have a sidewalk with just an easement? I had had a conversation with Paul Canoya a number of months ago

about in in in relation to this but other projects that they've done in town. Do [snorts] you need to does there need to be a fee, you know, a conveyance of that land or can it be done with an easement? And I'm I believe he said in other instances in town where the town has gone to install sidewalks on existing roads that they have done it through across somebody's frontage and adding a sidewalk in other parts of town that they have done that via easement not a taking or

I know lately on Milbury Street they did sidewalks on both sides and they [clears throat] had everybody and they paid them for an easement but it was a temporary easement in case they had to go on their land for grading, but they didn't. The sidewalk is not on right anybody's land. Easements are perfectly fine for this purpose because it gives you all the rights the town needs and actually doesn't carry carry all the liability if they owned it. So, a lot of towns prefer easements rather than fee and roads and sidewalks, but it's really up to the town. I mean, it's not

I I've got one question on the last bullet point. Um, if the if the housing authority transferred that land to the town, the town has to accept it at town meeting. I can imagine all of Snow Road, all 162 houses are going to show up at that town meeting. And you know what's going to happen? They're going to There goes the There goes the intersection. Well, no. I mean, this is a reality. This is your biggest nightmare possible. Um I haven't had a person in this town come up to me and say, "We need 200 apartments on Snow Road."

You haven't talked to the right people. Yeah. Well, you're the right people, I guess. But uh and and I I don't want it to get lost. They there five people [cough] out there will pack that meeting [clears throat] and and it I've seen it happen so many times. It's so I mean that's the reality of where we're at and nobody's talked about it yet.

And to to just bring back the how we've gotten to looking at the alignment of Snow Road at the intersection initially um under with the traffic analysis just adding the lane keeping the same alignment in terms of traffic numbers and level of service. It As it is now, the roads at a E. It's going to going to be an F with or without this project in the next X amount of years. It will be an F even if this doesn't get built. If by merely adding the lane, not the realignment that we've talked about, even though we're we're all on board that we'd like to do it and we're we're fine with doing it. Even without the realignment, just adding the lane brings that intersection. In terms of level of service, I think it's a a B in the morning and a C in the evening peak hours, which is and that's including the the well at the time it was 268 units, the 200 right now. And then we talked about the realignment and we went and approached the housing authority on their property to see if we could make it more of a 90deree angle because so that's just to bring back how the whole progression has gone. So, we are fine with making the improvements to that intersection um you know to the best that we can and obviously DOT is going to have a a word in that as well and this will all have to be vetted by by DOT as well. So, I don't want that to get lost in the conversation either. So, um, we're looking to make this as the best intersection that we can and knowing that this intersection, I don't want to get lost at this intersection is

[clears throat] going to be an F with or without this project and this would improve it substantially. And the realignment, I believe, to everybody's point, would would make it even that much better, even though that's not reflected in the level of service numbers. To your point, Peter, um, everyone has to be on board with this. We have to be on board. You have to be on board. The town has to be on board. DOT has to be on board. And the abuters, well, the housing authority, one side, they've told us they're on board. So, we're good with that. Now, if the abotterers come in and they say they're not going to take it, we could switch and say instead of a fee, we do an easement. And that way there's no vote at the town. We could do that or we could go back to the original design which didn't have the the what is it realignment

the realignment and it's still an improvement and it still meets all the criteria from the traffic consultants but um but that's not I don't think that's the way it turned out but you know that's that's the answer I have for that in my opinion if we if we just lower the density we don't even have the problem [clears throat] but no you have the problem now Peter the problem's there No, but you're adding 400 cars [snorts] and with the traffic study that's done, that intersection right now is going from an E to an F. With the improvements of adding the lane, it's being improved even with the addition of of what we're proposing now. Actually, it was 268 units. So, it's down by 68 units.

68 units. But John, you're talking about intersection capacity analysis and and Peter's talking about the safety with respect to the grade. I think isn't that your your concern is this? Well, it's everything. I mean, you're adding 400 cars, but the intersection capacity go going from A to F. That that's a function of queuing and delays at an intersection. I think the bigger issue is the safety, the the alignment where right now you're facing this way and you have to turn your neck and the steep grade in the approach coming into the into the intersection. That that to me is different from the capacity issue. And to the extent we have the the ability to realign it and and turn it 90 or closer to 90 degrees, we're on board with doing that. Um, and we would hope that

everyone else cooperates. Everybody else, we're we're committed to do it. Um, we're committed to designing it, going to do, getting the permits through the state, going through that. And, um, we've I I we the housing authority has been fantastic. um you know and and we've told them we'll even give them a couple extra benches. They might have a couple extra trees. Trees have been nuisance to them. There's little things we can do as a good neighbor.

Little things that we can do as a good neighbor. We're going to work with them and they've been fantastic to work with. Um and we just hope that the and then if we do it as an easement, maybe that takes a level of of scrutiny as opposed to a fee. Um you can do a road by an easement road. You still need public approval. Is that what you were thinking? That an easement wouldn't require town meeting vote, right? I don't I didn't think so. No, you still need it. And it's it's a two it's a twothird vote at town meeting also. So that's even harder. Dan, would that be to for them for the town to accept to accept it? Accept an easement to accept an easement fee. It's it's town meeting. Okay. It's a it's a real property interest.

Okay. But there are some alternatives. So why do we I I think we should table this issue. I I think right Peter's brought a good point up, but I I think we're kind of getting down the road and I think we should just focus on what we can do here and worry about that later. But I I haven't I'm firm in that I'm not going to vote in favor of a project unless there's a condition that this is done prior to any site work. Well, we agreed to that already. We didn't like it, but we agreed to it. Um, Bill, did you have more?

Well, um, to to to the point Peter was making, I I actually was going to say something very similar with Dan. It's like we're getting way ahead of ourselves. Um, yeah, it's it certainly is possible, but I I got to be honest, I'll stand up and tell meeting and make it clear that if it doesn't go through, the project may still go through without the improvements. So, be careful of what you wish for. Um, and I think that, you know, enough if if we get the sense that, you know, there's a ground swell of opposition thinking that stopping that intersection will stop the project, I think you can get enough people to stand up and say, "Don't count on it." Now, whether it does or not, and I mean, Brian just kind of alluded to that. You know, who knows? But, you know, I I I I understand that it will need approval and there'll probably people with Tomos go against it. But, you know, the reality is there's a good chance or a chance that the project still goes forward without that. And do you really want to give up what are some very good improvements to that intersection um uh on the hope that you can stop it? So, I you know, I think arguments can be made against it.

Um but but I also agree with Dan. I think we're way ahead of ourselves here and I do um I do want to try and make sure we get back on track. Right. So, at our last meeting, we went through a lot of issues and tried to express what we're um concerned about or not concerned about and that sort of thing. The applicant has come back in with some things to address some of those issues. And I do think we need to try and get them feedback on what they've come back with and we need to start tidying up some of these loose ends. Right now we've got two very distinct proposals, site proposals in front of us. And yes, I do think we need to give them direction on which one we do or don't want. Um, and I, you know, I think, you know, there's other issues that we need to try to kind of get them solid feedback on where we want to go with these things. So, um, how [snorts] do you think we should do that, though? It's your

Well, um, I I think probably we could poll similar to way we did um, last meeting. And, you know, I've I've expressed that I'm interested. I prefer uh, option A. I [clears throat] think Kay said she prefers option A. How do the other board members feel? Agree. Go ahead.

Option A definitely sounds a lot better. But I just want to reaffirm what I said. Probably in addition taking up one floor from the buildings at the back makes it even better. And then the second is I just the layout. It just seems like it's too squared out and the turn radiuses are becoming difficult. But with removing the one building, is there an opportunity to kind of squeeze them and get it a little bit more curved as opposed to the square that you have

the in terms of like rounding the driving aisles going? Yeah. Uh, some of the placements of the buildings as well could make it a little bit easier to maneuver.

I'm not going to say no, you can't. You can always do that. It it the the the number of parking if you start curving some of the parking spaces might start getting awkward. Um, that may be a and that's the only right off the top of my head I can say it it could start making some of the parking areas and parking spaces awkward if if they're on some of these different radius. Um, but to your point, maybe we can look to soften it a little bit. I'm I'm not that. And [snorts] just one more observation. If the clubhouse could go back a little bit, it just opens up the front area a lot more.

[snorts] I understand that having having the big green open space behind all the buildings too. That's that's kind of nice desirable area. Um we do have at the entrance way we stop the parking spaces on either side obviously on either side of the entrance and that's all open green space there. Um and the sidewalk is set back a little bit. So there's all that open green space there. Don't forget in front of the clubhouse.

Jeff, if you could just ask the question. So I think what you're saying is you'd like to see 36 units removed from each of the rear buildings. So it's three stories but two stories in the wings. 36 in total, right? 16 per unit or per building. Each floor is 16 units, right? Correct. Each floor is 16. You're saying take off take the fourth floor down. There'll be three story buildings with twotory wings. Right. Right. Takes care of all the fire issues. And if they did that, are you okay with a four 24 unit buildings? No. Keep the three three. Okay. Plus, bring it down. All right.

Then you won't have your garage under You won't have your garage, but that knocks off um or elevators. Or elevators. or elevators, but it knocks out 53 garages, but you're taking out 32 units as well. So, your parking ratio kind of stays somewhere about the same, a little higher than what you said the limits are. You were high [snorts] anyways,

so that would take you to 168 units. But the garage is also important just for um people with wheelchairs, maybe elderly. Um I mean I like the underground the idea of having the garage underneath. I think it's a great asset for certain tenants that would really love that. So um yeah, I don't know if taking to me taking away 32 units um is going to make that much of an impact. And to me, the viability of the project with the garage and having that, I think that's going to be a big draw for people this is moving forward. So, it's okay. You're you're in favor of the option A. Option A. Yeah.

Brian, I don't want to jump in front of voting members, but I mean I can just

Sure. I can be quick. I mean, I think I'm on um exactly the same page as as Bill and Kay. I think I was more indifferent between the two. Um, but confirming that we'd lose the the elevators and lose the underground parking, I think I'm exactly in agreement with what Bill said. I would swallow hard on plan B if if that's where the board was feeling, but um I would much prefer plan A. Um, and just while we're talking about units, now is probably the best time to bring it up. [clears throat] If folks are wondering where we are density-wise, at 200 units and 14.6 acres, this would be 13.69 units per acre. That is with one exception the smallest or the the lowest density of any recently approved project by this board or the planning board. 59 Pleasant Street. It's 104 units on 7.7 developable acres for 13.49 units an acre. That's the only one that's less dense. Upton Street [clears throat] 152 units on 10.26 developable developable acres is 14.8 units an acre. Apprentice place was 40 units on 2.56 acres for 15.6 units an acre. Uh the planning boards approved 1727 Upton, which is also four four floors with an elevator. Um that's 122 units on 7 acres for 17.33 units an acre. Five Millennium Drive with the planning board is 233 units on 10.7 [clears throat] acres for 21.7 units an acre. Um and 188 Providence Road approved by the planning board for 120 units on 8.7 developable acres for 13.8 units an

acre. So before we start kind of more arbitrarily still feeling like this is too dense. There's at least other projects that are far more dense than this would be at 200 units. Um, and if if doing like what Jiffy suggested with, you know, building A, if that came at the expense of the underground parking and the elevators, to me, I think that makes this a completely different project and far less attractive. Um, both I think for the town and for the potential residents. Peter I just let I'm glad you [clears throat] came out with all those. Everyone except Pleasant Street feeds out onto a state highway. Brandice Bligills and that being built right now, that's 122. Uh the other 40B we did uh Upton Street, that's Route 140. So they're all going out onto a big road. This

Upton Street doesn't go on to 140. What's that? Upton Street does not go on to 140. It goes on to Upton Street, which then goes to 140. Sort of like going on to Snow Road, which goes on to 140, but it does not go on to 140. That's Upton Street is 140. Well, whatever you want to call it. The bottom line is when you go out the driveway of that project, Peter, you're not on 140. Well, I I I'm you're correcting me. I'm wrong. Because Apprentice Place doesn't go out onto 140 either, but it's 100 ft from it like sort sort of like this project is what uh 200 feet high. How many?

But to the intersection, which we all know and have spent two hours tonight talking about again for the eighth time is the problem. Um I'm still big on the density. Um we're in CH uh safe harbor. I feel we should just come up with a number and have them make us a plan to it or not do it. Uh, I would live with the four 24 unit buildings and I've come up a lot from when we started and I'm I I I sound in the maj minority right now, but uh I just don't think this development is right for the neighbors um with with 200 units. [clears throat]

So, you're just saying that the four quad less the buildings in the back?

Yeah. and they could put it wherever they want them. But, uh, that that's my that's my idea right now. And I I can't I was leaning 80 to 100, but that would bring it bring it to about 100 uh 96, I guess. But, um, which is to me still a lot for there, but so that's my opinion for what it's worth. Thank you. So I I've come around I think um to something like option A. Um or I guess of the two definitely option A. Um [clears throat] I as I said my I'm very concerned about the traffic and and that's going to be a important condition. Um, but I think I think Peter's point is is actually an interesting one in the the proximity to a major road. And this actually, you know, falls into that. Um, and I know that that wasn't the point Peter was trying to make, but I I think it um, you know, it and the proximity to stop and shop, you know, it it so it's [snorts] not wholly um, out of character, I guess, for this area. Um, and I I think I've come around to something like this provided uh the the intersection at at

Snow Road or at uh 122 can be sufficiently improved. Yeah. Um I think there's still like I think I'm I'm just still like a little confused on everything that we're talking about. Um I don't know if I really understood Bill your point where if this does go through then if we don't if we don't vote it if we don't vote it then you know there's just the intersection can either happen or not happen and it can still kind of go through. I that that concerns me a little bit. I just I thought it either doesn't

Can I clarify that? Yeah. So all what I was saying was if if we issue a comprehensive permit and now we're uh in front of town meeting um you know what if if town meeting denies it. I think we all know what the developer is going to do. They're not just going to say oh well and walk away. the developer is going to come back to this board asking for a modification of the permit

and we'll all get to vote at that time. And whether they get the modification or not, I don't know. I I just don't know. Um so, but there definitely is a chance that they do get the modification and the project still goes through with a lesser set of changes to that intersection. That's really was my point and um you know and quite frankly I would stand in front of town meeting and and and make that point hopefully a little bit more coherently and eloquently but um I would stand in front of town meeting and make that

make that um so that's really where I was headed. Whether whether the project goes forward without those road changes or not, I don't know. Time time will tell. The future will tell us. But I I think there's a very real chance that it could go through um if if town meeting says no to the land conveyance and they come back to us and ask for some sort of modification. Yeah.

I mean I just I mean just kind of thinking it through critically looking at it. I'm sure they would come back to us. They're not just going to walk away and and leave everything they've spent on and and and go away. Um, so they're going to come back to us with a change and um, it'll be up to us to decide. I think it may not and by the way, it may not even be this board, right? And and I think whether we're in safe harbor at that time would be a huge factor. Yeah. Yeah. So,

you know, and I and I guess I bring that up because um you know, obviously I don't want to use the word density either, but I mean the size of the project obviously is is what's concerning when it comes to the you know, the traffic. Um and and the fact that that's a little bit of a gamble is a little bit concerning. Um so that's just one, you know, one point I want to make. Um, the other the other thing I wanted to bring up is I do like how this project looks. Um, I think I can side with Jiffy and I, you know, although it's a taller building. The the the topography of the fourtory building looks um pretty good. It looks like it fits in a residential neighborhood rather than just kind of like a squared off building. Um, so I do like that in the sense, so I I I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand why we're picking between two, right? So there's one plan that is more green space, but we have to choose a four-story building. Um, and I guess there's there's there's more parking, right? Because it's a four-story building. And then there's another plan that has less green space, but it's a three-story building. And then there's significantly less parking. My question is where and and I'm looking at both plants. It's like where are you making up 53 spaces because that's that's a significant amount of spaces. Um, so I mean, and if I had to choose one, obviously I'm going to choose the one that um that uh that we're going with on option A just because of I I just don't feel as if removing 53 spots and and still having the same amount of units is is feasible. Mhm.

Um and then if you have to make up those spaces are taking up even more green space and you have way more buildings within the same plot of land. Um the other point I did want to make is I know our concern was the aquifer and the wetlands and everything behind the buildings. I mean now with that road going back there, I don't know if we've gone back to to the appropriate personnel. Like one thing that I can think about is now you're going to be plowing back there and salt and debris or whatever is going to be scraping back there. So I think I'd like to see that conversation open up again and see if there's any effect there. Um because I don't think that's been brought up to um the water department or whoever we need to speak with on on that topic. But yeah, I mean, again, I think it it it looks great, but I think there's just a lot of uncertainty still, so I'm not sure where to go.

Can I just address the why we have to choose comment? Yeah, please.

Um, and I don't think we necessarily have to choose anything, but um, this process has been going on for a year or whatever it's been. Um we we really you know we we can't keep every one of us having different opinions on what should get built. You know at some point we got to start going with what the developer has presented to us and the developer has presented two different plans. Um I suppose if all of us stepped forward and said we hate them all then you know that that is a a clear message as well to the developer. Um, but in lie of that, you know, I do think we owe it to the developer to to give some sort of a thumbs up or thumbs down or some sort of an indication on what he's presented because they've asked for.

So, you know, I think that's that's the reason. I'm not saying we can't offer our opinions um as as other has as as others have. And and the other thing I just say real quick, um, Alex, you know, keep in mind that the drawing you're looking at for B, unfortunately, is wrong in so much as it doesn't have the underground parking. So, even though it's indicated that it does, that does not have the underground parking. That I understand. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, that's that that's the point I'm making is when it if it doesn't have the underground parking, where are we putting 53 spaces? We have to put back a lot of the ones I took away. But where like where

well garage the the detached we weren't with our numbers we weren't factoring in in detached garages with our with our numbers in terms of the the um parking spaces per unit. So you'd end up with instead of and and don't forget those parking those garages I'm sorry those garages do provide screening um or blocking of of headlights. So then you would end up with um surface parking areas and then headlights that are facing towards you know which we could not that we couldn't mitigate but I'm just there's there's

you know you make one change it has another effect is is my point. So we could start losing garages, start adding parking spaces, adding more pavement. Um, and I I guess Alex, all your comments are all legitimate comments. Yes. But we believe we can address those. Yeah. One at a time. We Yeah. And I We could address those, but they're legitimate.

Yeah. So, I mean, I listen, I like how I I you know, I I've voiced this multiple times. I like how it works, but it's um or how it looks. Um but uh but yeah, I don't know. Um and and and Bill, I'm not saying, you know, why do we have to choose? It's it's more, [clears throat] you know, again, I I don't know if this is the answer, but it's like why are we choosing between a four and a three and then, you know, more buildings and not more buildings and then underground part, you know, I feel like that's where we need to lean uh lean more towards in making a decision on I mean, do we want a four-story building or not? Do we want four buildings in the middle or not? Um, not four stories and then three buildings or four buildings and just three stories. Um, because I, you know, I feel like we're, but again, that's just my opinion. So, I don't

we we we tried to give you guys a blend of of different product lines for for function and for aesthetics and for layout. And so, it's like a combination. And still, yet we have major off-site improvements that we have to fund also. So if you cut our numbers way down, those throw those numbers, you know, we'll have to go back and rethink all that. But every time we change something on the plans, we change a lot of things, not just one thing is like a domino. We change a lot of things. So we've given you what what we think is a good blend of buildings and layouts and the pros and cons of the fourunit buildings, which we go over and over and of the elevators and all. And that's why we came up with the plan we came up with, Alex. Yeah. That that's why.

No. and and Steve, I appreciate the um the work that you guys are doing. I I will say the other thing that bothers me, but it's not at the at the top of the poll is the building for I just feel like, you know, just from for symmetry purposes, why it's left kind of pocketed in that corner. Um why maybe it couldn't be more centered and have more symmetrical appeasement, if that makes sense. I don't know. I don't know.

I can answer that question. So that that particular building is slid over to that side because that building one has the garage under and has 53 spaces. The other building has no subservice parking. So the 60 unit building needs 120 parking spaces in front of it. So if that building was centered, the people in that building may tend to park on the right side which would take up parking for people living in that building too and they would end up having to park in front of building one. So it's all basically for logistics in terms of parking. Gotcha. With each of the buildings. Yeah. And if I may add, sorry to jump in here, but with the building unsymmetrical, uh there's a large grassy area just north of the dog park that it's the only large grassy area

that is to me almost you could have a small whiffle ball game or something like that going on. I don't see space for that anywhere else. You're right. We do value that also. And Alex, I think just to maybe help frame the issues a little bit, I think I think what what I've heard is yeah, there's there's two proposals being put on the table by the applicant. It doesn't foreclose a third one or a fourth one or 10 other ones, right? And I think, you know, Jiffy articulated plan C, right? I mean, that's not what they want. So that there's some risk, but that is an option. Um, you know, Brian doesn't like it. Other people don't like it, [clears throat] but

you could like it. But I think that's the I think the point is that it's not just two. There are others, but there's a downside to the others. What's the downside? Well, the applicant doesn't like it and you're losing underground parking and you're losing elevators. So, there's all these trade-offs, but if we if we cut the numbers down, yeah, because we're in safe harbor, there's Yeah, he can accept it or not accept it, right? And the benefit is that it's less traffic. So, yeah, there's pros and cons for all of these. Mr. Chairman,

um just because the safe harbor's come up a couple times, I feel it's probably worth pointing out this project gets approved, we get two more years of safe harbor immediately. This project doesn't get approved, we're out of Safe Harbor in February. There's nothing stopping the app from [clears throat] They have to start all over again. They have to go in front of selectman. No, they don't. No, they have a valid lip. We don't We won't come in with a lip [clears throat] either. Go direct. We do that. But if you come back with the same one, then we're going to have an unsafe probably intersection.

Not according to not according to the traffic engineers. The the intersection improves. We won't have any science behind that statement. Then the town will have to fix it. That's all. And they they'll be back in here, Peter, with the original, you know, 300 or whatever it was that they had. Yeah. Yeah. And we ran. So what good at Safe Harbor? I mean, we put in Safe Harbor because of 40BS. Well, so I say we're we'll get two more years. This could very easily put us over 10%. So now it's permanent at the expense as long as we stay over 10%. At the expense of everybody lives on snow road in that area potentially

unless I look at it unless it's extension of safe harbor. Peter Peter we are but a commercial area. We're we're a residential we're a residential development that that butts against a commercial to another residential neighborhood. [clears throat] We're we're we we are a residential neighborhood that a commercial property that's a residential neighborhood. It's a good fit.

And we ran some, you know, back of the envelope numbers and with all of with other housing units that are going to be coming online. And then once you hit the 2030 census, you're looking at new a whole new denominator for total housing. And with this, I think this would help keep your keep could potentially keep you within safe harbor even budding up to the 2030 census. So,

so that could provide a a long-term benefit where hypothetically in a couple years, if whether this happens or not, you fall out of safe harbor, you may end up getting hit with a a bigger project because you're not in safe harbor and have to swallow a pill of someplace that maybe is is a much worse location um and a much less desirable location. Mhm.

Um, you know, we believe that we are splitting between a commercial and a residential zone. It's, I would say, transitional. We do have the housing authority right across the street. We have Stop and Shop and the whole plaza right there. Um, there's a bus route that goes through Stop and Shop Plaza that goes to the train station. Mhm.

Um this does this location does provide some good benefits for um you know for for transit for getting to the train station being near a bus stop. It it checks off a lot of boxes on on those. So um you know selfishly we believe that this is a a good location and it would be a a a very the residents this would be who would be renting here. Um particularly people who are you know the 25% affordable who may be more apt to be looking for public transportation from that facet we think it's it may be a good fit. Do you know I own a piece of land on the Westbrook grafting line, right? You know, I'm building over there. Got 150 acres that I've owned for about 20 years over there and you guys have been out out of safe harbor. What could I have put over there and the 40B? A lot. Right.

Oh, of course. A lot. Right. But did I propose anything like that? Because it's so inappropriate. Okay. You got a long road, country road. Okay. You got all residential there. You're not I'm I'm not near anything over there. It's a great location, don't get me wrong. We're selling houses over there for 1.2 and up, right? That's great if somebody can afford that, right? So, we we we think we're building the appropriate thing in this site. I'm just trying to get the numbers what I feel is appropriate from that area. And so, you can make a buck.

Last we did 20 units to the acre in the last two developments. 20 units to the acre. And you said what? 13 here. 14. It's not too dense in my opinion. Well, [clears throat] you probably have the vote, so it's mine doesn't count. We want your vote too, Peter. Well, I'll if whatever gets voted I which plan to go with or not a plan because that's what I'm voting for, the not plan. Um I'll I'll work on it with you. Okay. Thank you. So, by my count, you have three votes for option A. If you're an option A, Brian, and I am an option A. So, but with

Yeah. I [clears throat] I I think the bigger takeaway, Dan, is that there's no votes for B. So, so you know, the developer maybe can take that off and I think I correct so somebody correct me if I got that wrong. So, developer can take that off. I don't think what we're saying here is that full steam ahead with option A, but I think he can stop wasting effort on option B and and use option A for some other changes. Okay. Would you agree? I would agree with that.

Yeah, I think I would agree too has some work to do on the intersection. I think I think that my takeaway from tonight, which by the way, I thought was very productive, but I think the my biggest takeaway is that what we talked about the at staff meeting and then tonight is the intersection's the most important factor, right? You know, Brian articulated that that's your third vote. So that this has to happen the right way. I took some good notes on that, too. We we thought we were done with your dissection. You brought up some points. We can look at some of those options. We're not sure whether they'll work, but we'll know shortly whether they'll work. Right. The the other thing that I think needs to be done is a survey of uh Snow Road in front of those homes. We'll do that.

Yeah. And the other thing we're and we have the surveyor going out um is to also when you're coming from Snow Road on 20 on to 122 extending the the survey up around where the bend if you're looking when you start looking up towards where the concrete plan is up there. So we're looking at the site distances and everything up there. We know we have them but we want to be complete. So, um, we're getting a complete extended survey up that way and then we'll add all that other information, too.

And and the survey is that going to include what Jeff was asking for is you you wanted topographical on the road. I I think they have the topographical already. It's a matter of creating a profile that can work look strictly. I I wouldn't say strictly look at vertical alignment. And when you look at that sometimes you can say well I might be able to do something here till it gets to the point it affects something over here that can't be moved. Mhm. That's the tool that I feel I need as an engineer to better evaluate and we can look that as you say in the context of of the [clears throat]

uh the DOT manuals too to say okay we can meet this this standard this standard this standard and you know and like I said it's a massaging game but who's your surveyor uh Kevin Jarvis Jarvis land survey okay so so he's going to do that this work on on on the uh although he's he's already done work he's already done he's he just was missing pieces. Okay. So, he'll do the he'll do the rightway on the east side of Snow the information that Jeff's looking for. Yeah. Who's the three? He We want him out there yesterday. Yeah. We've been [clears throat and laughter] I had a conversation with him. I don't know was yesterday, day before, and he said before the end of the year. [laughter] Which is coming right up. That's close.

Yeah. 18 days. [laughter] But that's just to do the field work. Yeah. He's pretty good once. He's pretty get it back. We're not giving him a direction if we don't. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to get that back before the next hearing. So, if you think you need, you know, four weeks, then that would be the next date. And I think we should keep this hearing open. I I don't know where we are in the extension. Do you know? We always have to sign one. That's I've got one ready to sign to the end of January. Okay. [laughter] Sign. That works. Okay. kind of figured. So, I would schedule a meeting for sometime in late January.

Could we get a vote on which option we're doing, A, B, or C? I think we got We We didn't vote on any of the other direction at the last meeting, Peter. It was all just kind of polling, you know, straw polling to to give them a sense of of where the board was leaning. We didn't vote on any of those last time. I I don't think we need to vote on this. I I I think we've all voiced our opinions on the two different site plans. Uh nobody really spoke in favor of plan B. So I think he can kind of throw that out. I guess I'm the only one that like plan C. Is that 10? That's the four four 24 units.

What's your plan? And and I and I think and I think you voiced that and and he's heard that and um [snorts] you know he'll he'll do whatever he he thinks is appropriate with it along with you know things that all the other members had to say. There's a plan B too. I say yeah take away one floor. So right we have to consider but plan B is off the table. All right.

Because I I I don't think anyone expressed interest in that one. I I do have one question before we get too far along. I I notice that there's a maintenance garage. Was that in previous drawings? That was in the I think the last iteration. And that was so that they'd have, you know, they need to have faucets and stuff. Yeah. in fertilizers.

No. So, no, no fertilizers. We don't do our own landscaping. So, one thing we did when John and I looked at it, so originally maintenance wanted a space, it it really didn't work out for us. Um, and when I say maintenance, it's it's just more property management maintenance that just does like odds and ends like changing faucets, swapping out water heaters, things of that nature. Um, so we looked at it and we said, "Okay, so now we're reducing these buildings. We can loosen parking spaces." So we started looking at adding those islands and the more green space in the parking field. And we said, "Okay, so why don't we take away some of these parking spaces down in the wellhead area?" So that that was always a hot topic. So we removed those parking spaces in that area and created a maintenance garage. Essentially, it's just a storage storage shed for things like attic stock in terms of like So, we have every one of our properties, we end up taking up one or two of the garages [snorts] or if we have a basement, it ends up the whole basement where we have water heaters, ranges, microwaves, u pumps, stuff for HVAC, things of that nature. So, so that's what that that's about. So, I I I don't know what happened in Northboro, but their maintenance garage in Northboro, I think it's the the place uh the apartments by Wegman's and the exporting goods, their maintenance garage went up in flames a few weeks ago.

Um well, I can assure you that our maintenance staff, they don't actually do any work. [laughter] They they wear they wear uniforms. They're really clean. They they basically make phone calls when there's anything that really has to get done. They don't do any shoveling, plowing, uh uh snow blowing, grass cutting. If if they change a unit out, we call the HBIC guy. They they don't actually do the they do the small things. Change a lock, all the small stuff like that. Yeah.

Okay. So, here here's my feedback. Um you know, there's been a lot of concern about the fact that we're just outside of the 200T wellhead protection. I think it's a 200 foot whatever that is. And as it turns out now, the closest thing to that um line is this maintenance garage. And you know, you know, the intention now is whatever, but you know, 10 years from now, you know, things change and and I just it kind of worries me having the thing that's closest to the wellhead being a maintenance garage. That that just doesn't feel right to me. That's a warehouse. That's a storage really. It's really what it is. But

well, I think Bill's point is that we'd rather not see a barrage there at all because that that could be used for storage of things that could spill. And can you can you move it? We'll take a look at it. We'll take Yeah, I I I I I think you should. I I think point taken. Yeah. Bill, uh Mr. Chairman, if if I may, um to Bill's question about was this on the plan orig my recollection originally? No. then re revised plan yes then re revised again no and it came back again again based upon um the availability of spaces I took it

and the other the other thing to Bill's point um the new materials yeah I get it they get stored within the building and so on and so forth the used water heaters use this use that scrap metal sometimes gets stored outside and doesn't always go away right away even if it's stored in an organ organized manner for scrapping. It might it depending on what the you what happens the day-to-day activity may end up with some materials outside the building because it's more convenient. See that in a lot of shops.

We we we typically don't have that, but probably do it in other places. I can tell you why we put it there is because we generally like to put that area there. The the least convenient spot for our tenants to park um is why we took that spot for the maintenance garage. So it there's not much maintenance going on. It's really storage of spare parts. So yeah, I I think that spot makes a lot of sense if it were for the fact that it's as close as you can get to the wellhead. So, you know, other than that, I I think that spot makes a lot of sense. I see know exactly why it's there, but I I don't think we can ignore the fact that there's a well right there. You guys could put a restriction on that. There's no fertilizers, no chemicals, no gasoline. We're fine with that cuz we don't But how do you enforce that? Who's who's

we don't we're not going to do it anyways, but good call. It's not [snorts] a deal breaker for us, but we like it where it is. Okay. All right. So, dates for next meeting. So, we already have one scheduled for January 8th, the two 48 cases. um is I think they need more time. Yeah. Oh, yeah. They're going to need till at least the 22nd or the 29th, I would say.

So, does the 29th work? I am out of town. The 27th through the 31st. January. Oh, yeah. That last week in January. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, that's plenty. That works for us if that if you guys can. Well, what about the 22nd instead? Is that enough time? That's five weeks. Yeah. I'm the stuff that we're talking about with profiles, nothing's holding me back on that at all. So, no, I think we're good.

What about the environmental stuff in terms of conservation the uh ENRAD? Is that we too early for that? Do that after project's designed. So, would that just be a condition later? They generally do that after they get the conference permit. But what about the um

All right, scratch that. Um All right. So, is the the 20 second is that enough time? Yeah. Yeah, that should work. Because if it's not, it's five weeks. It's not then then and it's February February 5th 5th. Yeah. I'm we're fine with the 22nd if that works for you. Alex, are you okay with the 22nd? I'd tell you if my phone had power, but [laughter] what time is it?

But yeah, that should work. Okay. Anyone else? All right, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCusker, I move that we Oh, wait a minute. Is there any public input? Did we ask for public input? This is a public hearing. We have not. Is there anyone that would like to speak? had one hand go up. Oh, come

Judy Valentine at 19 Suzanne Terrace. Um, and I back up to the development. Um, I just want to point out like in the diagrams, it's not very clear, but that development is essentially on a hill. So that four floors is huge. It's like a tower. Um, so basically I think only two floors um is the best really [clears throat] because it's really going to be an elevation that's really towering on [clears throat] the neighborhood. Sorry. And I think that should be taken into consideration. It's also going to slope down into the wetland behind it. On that note, actually,

could you do another whatever you did early on with the um like the fly over the driveby? The drive by without the leaves. Can we do the drive from the I think the driveby should be by Suzanne Terrace from the neighborhood. We do have that vantage point on the Okay. I'd love to see it. Four or five floors. No, with the adjusted. Oh, with the adjusted. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Was that on the three story or the four story? That was the fourtory. So, I think you couldn't see it on the four stories. I'm not sure if doing with the three story will will do anything. Yeah. It didn't seem realistic. I think what I saw

Oh, no. It's to scale. We paid $10,000 to have that done. Okay. But it didn't without the leaves. Yeah. I think maybe there's trees in the way or something. I don't know. But with the neighborhood and having like three or four stories, that's going to be extremely high.

Thank you. Hello Wendy Allen 8 Frankie Lane. Um that was going to be my comment too about um we I thought we were going to have that for this meeting. Definitely need to see the drive by with the fourstory building with no leaves because even from like over on Frankie Lane and the in the current one it looks like we can see it even on Frankie Lane which is pretty far. Um, and then so Brian, that was really good on the density. Can you So, so this is my thing that like really throws me off is that this property is zoned for two units per acre. So, we all have to abide by that. When we moved to Grafton, my daughter was four and she really wanted a horse. But even she understood we can't buy a property that's under an acre and have a horse. So that's what I don't understand is like when you buy a property and it's zoned for 29 units, how do you come in and say I'm going to just put in 300? Like why can't I do that? Like why what if I put a shed in my front yard and I say you know what all the Eagle Scouts can use my shed in the equipment. I'm doing something good for the community. Like can we just start doing that? Like that's what I really really don't understand. So that was really helpful. But can you go back through that list and tell us how many units each of those are zoned for? Because two units per acre, the other ones might be 5, 10, 15 units per acre. Like we don't know that.

Without all of that data, those numbers are not really relevant.

Yeah. So um are you okay with the back and forth? So, um I guess another point of comparison, um our bylaws for multif family developments require 5,500 square ft of land per unit. All of those developments blew that out of the water. So, that would be approximately just under eight units an acre. So, all of those developments don't even comply technically with the multif family requirements. Everything's a trade-off. So, this development and you know, so everything's got an asterisk um or this development has an asterisk to it because we're in Safe Harbor. If we weren't in safe harbor, the fact that 25% of the development is affordable grants an incredible amount of leeway. So, everything's a trade-off. We are in safe harbor. So now the board, and I'm I'm not going to get a vote on this, but the v the board has to weigh the needs of the town against breaking law against going against what the zoning bylaws would allow for this parcel of land. And so it's a it's a value judgment. It's a you know, um the town administrator was in front of the select board this week talking about budget issues. You know, this property right now has a valuation of just shy of $800,000. Do we know what the value would be for this development?

100 million.

So, you know, we we don't have a lot of places to generate new tax revenue. Um, you know, I think of a there's a vent diagram that got gets shared every once in a while that um tries to intersect density, low taxes, and maintaining high level of services. and there's nothing in the middle. There is no way to overlap those three things. One of the ways to to kind of change around our tax base to to stop going to the well with overrides and things like that is to have a $100 million property that's right now $800,000. Um so everything's a trade-off. And so now the this board doesn't have to let this go through. Um we fall out of

That's the thing. That's what I don't understand. This board is not responsible for creating new housing. This board is not responsible for fixing the budget. This board is responsible for enforcing the rules that are set in place already. That is not correct. That is not correct. What What does ZBA do then? We first of all, we're operating in this hearing under chapter 40B.

Okay. Our job is to represent all interest all interests of the town. Not just the residents of Snow Road, not just the developer or the property owner, but all interests of the town of Grafton um [snorts] with respect to this developer's proposal. So, no, we're we're not in in in our role here under Chapter 40B, we're not here to enforce the the bylaws at all. And and to your point of, you know, why can't you do something for the the the scholars or whatever? Well, well, you can't do that. But if you wanted to put four units of housing on your property, as long as you agreed to make one of those affordable to to residents making 80% of the AMI of the of the county,

you could also come to this board and request permission to put four housing units on your property. you could do it, too.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. I guess I just kind of thought it was more like the rules and like the the zoning of what's actually allowed, but I just think it's just too it's still too much. Like 200 is just too much. And and I I like Peter's idea of 424s, honestly. Like I would rather see like modest, you know, multi or single family homes that people can invest in, but I mean it's just it's so it's so massive. And I think if we see the impact by the video of how much that's actually going to impact us, I think that will really help too. But I I just don't understand how we go so far over. Like I get some leeway, but just I mean that's just so it's such a massive amount of houses that if it's supposed to be 29 like I I just don't understand how when you buy a property and you know that's what it's zoned for cuz somewhere in that that even says it's not even there's somewhere in there that I had initially found when I was looking at the zone and it says it's not even zoned for multi-unit housing.

Yeah. And and unfortunately, you know, developers also know that that there's Okay. Which 40b is a state. Yeah. No, I get that. I get that. I just didn't realize that 40B gave it that much leeway. Okay. And it's really of safe harbor that we have a a lot um more discretion I guess um than in a typical 40p where it's much more heavily weighted towards the developer. Okay. Um

yeah, I get that too. And if we, you know, we would have a a hard time um, you know, refusing a maybe this is a bad example. Um, but there could be a much larger project proposed here. Mhm. That we would be sort of powerless to stop.

Mhm. um to some extent. Um so what our role is in this situation is to make this the best it can be for the town with the most benefits possible for the town. And where I've kind of come around to this is that it's there's a big benefit to improving this intersection. Yeah, that's that's a lot of it too is the the intersection factors. And then the other big the huge thing is the well where we get our water from that that's also incredibly concerning too which is why I think this is zoned like a little lower normally because of being in the wellhead area

and and the problem with the water has come up repeatedly is the water department hasn't voiced concerns and we have we do have a a who is it hydraologist that's going to come in eventually too as well. Um, I don't know about that. Um, I don't know that we've I don't think we've requested one to do anything yet. Um, but, you know, it our water department could voice concerns that could influence this project, but they have raised none. [clears throat]

Okay. Okay. That's answers a lot of my questions. Thank you. And again, like I just want to read it. I think it's still too much though. Like I think coming down is definitely better. It's safer for everybody I feel like all around. Okay. Well, thank you for the for the comments. Anyone else?

I just I just had a question because it is it is a good you know I don't think it's so much breaking the law. Um but obviously there's a lot of I mean the state is asking for for this, right? Um, I will say this is, you know, hats off. This is like the best looking project that I think is at least I haven't been here that long, but it looks really good if we're going to do a project of this size. But that is my concern is, you know, if this doesn't go through and you get a not a great looking project. Um, so that is something we have to think about.

Once we do one project, you're going to invite us back and do another one. Mr. Chair, that's what happened in another town. I swear to God. Awesome. Well, it's good to like like I said, it looks fantastic. Um, and if you do the landscaping as per the um the ren renderings, I mean, it's beautiful. I mean, just go look at our project and I swear we will do that, right? Yeah. [snorts] Um,

yeah. So, just for kind of a quick reconciliation of of where we might be if if we were in different situations, I think, you know, if we go went to scenario where um the applicant tried to build a basically by right subdivision with 25 or so halfacre units, we wouldn't be fixing the intersection. The town wouldn't be getting a $300,000 payment.

Um, you know, there wouldn't be the the playground and and the other things that came with the lip if we weren't in Safe Harbor. So, that's what we get for kind of going the 40B route. If we weren't in Safe Harbor, I think we'd be looking at a 268 unit project. Um, you know, I think there were things safety related and and concerns about, you know, recharging the um the the water that, you know, we probably still would have been able to to negotiate through like like the board did with U Pleasant Street and things like that. Um, so I don't think it would have been the exact same project that that we were presented with last October, but I think we probably wouldn't have come down much if at all from 268 units. So I think Safe Harbor brought us down 68 units so far. Um, so I think there we can point to tangible benefits to both having the availability of going the the 40B route and you know I think this board you know it's the first project that the board has has approached in Safe Harbor. Um I think there are definitely tangible benefits that we've reaped from being in safe harbor um that we wouldn't have had if if that wasn't the situation.

Good point. And that's assuming this goes forward. I mean, right. [clears throat] All right. Um, so is there a motion to continue this case to January 22nd at 7 p.m.? So moved. Second. Motion made and seconded. Miss Reed. Yes. Mr. Mahia. Yes. Mr. Adams. Yes. Mr. McCusker. Yes. Remotes. Yes. Um, any other Do we have two minutes? We'll do We'll do them on the on the ETH. Yeah, that's better. On a

Yes. Can you sign this for me, dear, please? Um, any other business before we adjourn? No. All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjourn. Second. Who motion? Peter. Peter. Okay. Second, Miss Reed, yes. Mr. Mahia, yes. Mr. Adam, yes. Mr. McCusker, yes. Chairman Mo, yes. We're ajourned. Thank you. Good night, everyone. Merry Christmas, everybody. Merry Christmas. Yeah. Merry Christmas, everyone. Bill, you got to stay on. Huh? Oh, okay. So, this whole ADU thing that's coming up