Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Ready.

I'll open up this meeting of the mated planning board. Today's date is December 9th, 2025 and this and the time is 7:04 p.m. U this meeting is being held in hybrid format which means members of the public uh applicants or board members can attend the meeting here locally town hall or join through the zoom link. Please note this meeting is being recorded. Bill Numser, I think we can turn to item two and reopen the continued hearing for for 151 Main Street. You want to give the board an update and then we'll turn it back over to the applicants.

Yes. Uh this uh is a continuation of I hear you started as well. Um the applicant has been working uh diligently as I forwarded you all the updates. I believe um we've received uh comments from DBW from um design. Everybody's uh satisfied there. Um we have outstanding comments with uh the engineering peer reviewer uh Jim Thornne with Green Engineering who's on the call tonight. I have um also provided each of you with a list of the comments and um Mr. Hall's responses to the comments. I also could pull it up on the um on the uh screen if you like as well. And then Mr. has a revised slightly revised presentation and uh I'm not sure exactly what order how you'd like to go on um anything special before I turn it over to the

um thanks for joining tonight again. Um can you just introduce your team for the record? Sure. I'm Matt Ball. I'm the owner of the property and I operate a business called Matt Works LLC. Uh to my left is Jonathan McIner at Studio Troya. And uh online we have Dan Carr from Stampsky McNary, Rook Cash from Lemonbrook Landscape Architects, and Jordan from uh Studio for Yes. Uh do you want to start with an updated presentation or do you want to talk about the design comments first?

So we've really just been working with the the peer review comments and with Bill and MS just to revise the plans based on feedback. So, we could either I could have each uh consultant present the changes we've made or if you wanted to ask questions and we can show the responses however you'd like to do. Um I think we could do that with the presentation I think that would help. Okay.

Um and then but to be clear um we I do want to make sure that we are able to close out comments completely. Um, and we should Bill, do you think we're going to be able to close the meeting tonight with required information and closing up peerreview comments, or do you think there's a continuation here?

My uh gut feelings we could close it out, but we have to go through Jim's comments because he hasn't had an opportunity to provide them. Um I think that um you know if we had a little bit of discussion it'll be pretty clear but uh most of the um oh just one other thing that that I should update the board on. Um you asked about the um little sliver of land that is public property that is in between the wall and um the wall that of the um railroad and the uh property lines. Uh that's uh that's being worked out right now with the attorneys. I don't see any problem there. Um and um there was a question that DPW had regarding u what the improvements would be and it's just limited to um stone on there. So that would be worked out. I don't see that being any um any reason to delay anything.

Okay. I think the only issue with the attorneys is the time for the license agreement to roll into a permanent easement. And it's a question of how long it will take to get through the town meeting. Understood. So what they suggested for that was that um the the paperwork that um was going back and forth with the license is what they're calling it. I think uh would terminate either on I think there's a time limit that I'm not sure if they've agreed on yet or at the acceptance of town meeting. So but it's it seems to be smooth. Understood. Okay. Would you like to start your presentation? Do you want to do it, Matt?

Yes, I could. I could share. Start with the civil, which is where most of the readings comments are. Um, so I'll start there. Okay. So, all right. And Jordan's got the whole thing. He can share or multiple. Yeah. Okay. So, let's save it. It looks like he has great, would you mind just closing out the participant? Can you close out the participant list on the right side just so we can get the screen wider? Okay, thanks.

Am I sharing? Okay, sharing. And yeah. Okay. All right. I think we're set to go.

Jordan, if you could go to sheet three of or the next sheet. Great. Yeah. So, um I'm just going to go through some of the changes that uh were in that review letter from green. Um we've made some u some drafting changes to the plan. We've added some hatches to um clearly define which area is what type of surface. So, um the the parking area is going to be um hot mix asphalt. There are some pathways from the parking area to the building that are going to be um pavers. And then behind the building, we're going to have that crush stone with fabric. And we've added a detail for that, too. So, um, we're going to line the foundation side of that crush stone with an impermeable barrier just to prevent any water infiltration on that side of the building. Um, and then there's a proposed patio with a seat wall off the left side of the building there. And that'll be the uh PA material as well. And then the um the entire sidewalk along the frontage of this property is going to be cement concrete and that will be um removed and replaced with a new sidewalk per the town's uh the DPW requirement. Um, another comment from Green was um to replace we had proposed a uh a Cape Cod BM on one side of the parking area. We're now proposing all curbing as granite, vertical granite curbing. Um there is an existing curb cut along the eastern edge of the property that is used for um an existing garage at that building there. So we're just proposing

to move that curb cut over to the end of the frontage there. So we're closing off a little bit of that curb cut there, but leaving the rest open, of course, for the neighbor. Um, what a uh turning detail was provided for a car pulling into the parking lot via a righthand turn. Um, and I do want to mention we use the auto turn software and that's on the next sheet. Jordan, if you could show that in the Oh, the next one. Yep. There you go.

Yeah. So, um, we used an auto turn software which simulates a turning passenger vehicle into the parking lot. Um, and I do want to mention that the auto turn software is very conservative. We show here it requiring a little bit of a a three-point turn to get into the parking space, but I'm pretty confident that um an average driver would be able to get in there pretty smoothly as opposed to having to back up. Um, so we provided that. Uh, there's a question about snow storage. Um, snow will be stored in the newly introduced green spaces that we're proposing on the property. Um, and anything that doesn't fit in those newly introduced green spaces will have to be removed from the site. Um, there was a question about parking, handicap parking spaces. Um, and we of the opinion that they're not required. Um, in Maynard zoning bylaw, a handicap parking space is required once the total number of spaces reach six in a parking lot. And the architectural access board says that um a handicap space is needed once a there are 15 total spaces and this parking lot only has five spaces. Um, we corrected a couple of the the sewer main and water main details. Um, we are labeling the sewer manhole on site, the existing one to be removed from the site during construction. Um, we added some spock grades along the rear of the building to show that we can get a 1% slope um from left to right when you're looking at the plan. So for any runoff that's in that area, it, you know, even though it's a stone trench, which will infiltrate most of the runoff, if there was ever a large storm event, we we wouldn't see any puddling

in that area. Um, we added an erosion control barrier along the eastern side of the property at the request of the review. Oops. And there's a question about um total square footage of disturbance on site. Um there's less than 10,000 square feet um since the law is only 7,500 square ft or so. So we don't meet that threshold for storm water. And let's see. I believe that covers all the changes on civil. If you have any questions, let me know before you just want to move on to landscape.

Any questions?

No, no questions. Hope you can continue. Great.

So, if you could go to the next page, Jordan, the colored one I think is more exciting to look at. Um, our comments or our changes were really in response to the tree committee and to Cong. So, there was interest in changing uh the shrub that we had at the northeast corner into a canopy tree. So, we've done that. U changed that to a um sour wood. This is actually the wrong sheet.

This is not the updated version. I'm sorry. Um okay, I apologize. Let me uh make sure I get that from bear with me for one minute. Sorry guys. Sorry. I noticed that one didn't bear the change. Oh, apologize.

So, we made we made some species comments uh change outs uh related to their comments. there was interested in um getting rid of red maples which they feel like are overplanted in town, staying with native species. Uh they had some suggestions of particular uh thank you that's the correct sheet. Uh uh frequently planted species. Uh so the overall design plan remains unchanged but we did do some species swap out to uh uh satisfy the concerns of those other two committees. We are not proposing irrigation. Uh there'll be gator bags which are the green watering bags trees for establishment and part of the installation contract will include watering for you know the the landscape contractor filling those gator bags for the first season. Um and then there'll be a provision for supplemental watering for that first season for establishment uh to get everything going. things that have been specified here are you know pretty tough and uh and significant once they are established in this climate. That was why they were selected for for these sites. And then there was a landscape maintenance plan requested and we have submitted that as well that addresses all the landscape items. Um oh and the one other thing was on the eastern property edge there was comment that the planting alone um would not provide a sufficient uh proper there since there are ornamental grasses that will come down seasonally and there is a sixft fence proposed

along a property line um to the neighbor's side of the I think that hits the items that were uh on landscape of short trash and writing which I believe writing was something Jordan you were following. I can just note quickly um the decision was made to change from the trash coers for lack of a better word to a typical fenced enclosure um just due to um several concerns that were raised with the tote locker strategy that I don't know add anything to that. But otherwise, uh, Jordan, do you want to talk about the lighting pieces and then that will sort of wrap up through the end of of the list of comments from Jim?

Um, yeah. I actually think, um, Matt, sorry to put you on the spot, but if you I think you have the the most information on the on the lighting. Um, if you don't mind touching on that. Yeah, I don't think we have entirely clarified the lighting [clears throat] like quantifiably. So, our proposal exceeded the guideline limits and I know that you're looking for more light above the guidelines, but we're not clear on how much more light. And we did submit the fixtures that were used in our plan which are all pretty subdued uh cut off fixtures that do have light spillage but it's not a an overage. So, are we we're speaking about the sidewalk, right?

Sidewalk. And also, I think we had a conversation about the rail trail side, right? Which we have just a kind of a minimum three wall washer units just so it's not black back there, but not so it's putting so much light uh into the butters or onto the itself. Um, can we just uh show what those light fixtures are so that it's entered into the record? I can. big as possible. Yeah. So, that's the plan with foot candles, which is hard to decide, but the fixtures I think we submitted. I'm not sure if Bill has access to them here. I do. They're in the pack, which I'll do. Yeah.

Before we we can we can focus on this first. Yeah, I can pull it up when you want. Um, sorry. Who's who's driving the bus on on this um chair? Right now, it's me right at the moment. Um, I don't have the fixtures themselves, so I can stop sharing if that helps. Well, that's okay. We'll do that after. Okay. So, I can jump to architectural then. Um, Jordan, would you mind just zooming in really close on the um Yes. on the southern side, the sidewalk side first.

Oh, jeez. Excuse me. Apologize. So,

so he's got uh along the side here, 6.4 candles here, 7 and a half uh five sort of right along the sidewalk here. it drops off, you know, down three out here. But in there along where there's a recess fixture of the building, he's at even at 8.1. So anywhere between, you know, I'll say six and and eight, but they're about okay. It looks like on there. [clears throat] Yeah, it looks like beyond the curve, it's all below five or below.

Exactly. You can see how the color changer. And then on the north side, what are we looking at here? Um, same thing your fixture. Well, different uh quantities, but 3.5 34 uh 3 and 27 here. So, a three ballpark uh foot candle near the fixture. And then as it gets to the path, same thing. And it diminishes down to a.3 2 along the path itself. What's it on the road? On on the road here. The other road.

Oh, up top. Yeah, it goes to zero. The blue again. It goes to kind of nothing. So 0.1 on the far edge of the rail trail. Looks like I wonder if it would even be less than that with the the rail trail fence and the cars that are parked before you even get to the traffic aisle for Are you thinking that's more or less than you would want on there, Bill? No, it's fine. Oh, okay.

Um, this is a good place. I know Jim had some input to Jim Thorne. Um, do you have do you have any feedback on what's being currently presented, Jim?

Uh, yeah. So, um, just to state the regs, um, you know, uh, Dark Side Dark Sky Compliance recommends five book candles for sidewalks. Um, so, you know, in terms of the southern side, it's pretty close to five. you know, it's a little bit over in some areas, but um it's okay. Um and then on the north side, um you know, if you treat the path as a sidewalk, uh that's all below five. Um when light trespasses the um the property line into residential property um you don't want it more than um I think it's 0 um 05 um so it's it's got to be really low to cross into residential properties. So that's what we're talking about. So the properties that are across the street to the north, um, which it looks like most likely those would all be zero. Um, and then light trespass going to business properties, which I think the only business property is to the right, which is the pizza shop. And um it looks like that building doesn't actually have any windows on that side of the building. So that might not they might not mind as much um that there's light trespass that exceeds the uh 0.1 foot candle uh that goes above there. Um but it does exceed the uh you know the requirement on that side as well. So that that's my input on um our findings.

Thanks, Jim.

Sites are incredibly difficult to provide a zero or even 0.1 uh limit to foot candle uh trespass over the property line. due to the compact nature of urban sites with uh tight property lines and and you know tight uh building setback lines. It is you know almost impossible to uh not have white paths over over these kind of site boundaries. There are two gooseeneck poles as well. If you look on Google Street View, uh, one is right in front of the existing building. So, sort of due south of that parked car on the curb edge, sort of where that 3.4 for uh just immediately. No, if you can go Jordan, do south of the parked car. Just straight down from the parked car.

Yep. Out to the curve edge. There's a gooseeneck lighting the street there. And then there is another one right at the far western end of the site that I believe is lighting the intersection and there's a crosswalk down there. So there are are two street fixtures that are providing, you know, that are much taller than anything we're doing on the building that are providing street lighting, but that is also de facto uh uh lighting the sidewalk on the south side of the building as well. Sorry, did the other remote participants lose the audio feed?

Yes, I was just about to speak up. I'm not sure if we can hear the uh town at the moment. You can't hear us now? Yep, I can hear you now. Yes. Oh, maybe Bill's not annunciating loudly enough. No, it seemed like the feed dropped out completely for about two minutes there.

Oh, my only remark was that the board had been um we've on the projects that have been uh in the same general area, we've always tried to ensure that the um lighting is um adequate to make it, you know, safe to walk. Um, and I don't know that we set an hour on it or not, you know, we but certainly I would think till you know they're closing or one or something I at the minimum.

But that that was kind of what this discussion had evolved from was because we we the board as I understood understood the the candle um lights were exceeded but we were deferring because of the safety issue and that is a particularly dark stretch to cover it. It may be different when it's in, you know, when it's a new structure and everything, but and there if there's interior lighting from the windows when moving forward, I don't think I necessarily need to see particular hours of the lighting, but I would encourage you to maintain the lighting when people might be your residents or

people might be wanting to use the sidewalk. I think I would just prefer time sensor, not motion sensor. I think motion is more kind of jarring and a lot motion sensor. Yeah, that someday, but not now. That's my dream. And you might want to put the rear time the rear lights and the parking lot light on different timer because maybe somebody would complain about that. I don't know. I don't think so. So, it doesn't look like they're throwing a lot of light, but they might.

I guess the question would be, is that um is that a a condition that you would like to put in the application or not? Because I believe Matt, part of the idea about those rear lights was a vandalism, anti vandalism um concern against the bike path there. Not really hearing a condition. Yeah. From the board. Um I think what's being proposed is sounds like the board thinks it's reasonable and um we're sounds like the board is interested in leaving it to the applicant to make those decisions without a condition.

Great. Thank you for clarifying that. Am I getting that right? No. Yeah. I might do a condition on the front lights for a feel like time. Yeah, I think I think the board would entertain a condition too. That's reasonable. So, what would you want your condition to be? Do you want to think about it? No. Now, given that it's not facing anybody, just go dust it on. It's the easiest thing. Dust it on. Do whatever you want in the back. Yeah. Okay.

Are the mill lights, the internal courtyard mill lights, are those regularly? Are they on the timer or are they on all night? I don't know. I believe they're on all night. The parking garage is sure on all night. Parking garage. Unfortunate. Yeah. Um I don't know about the courtyard though. I feel like I've been there pretty low even it's on. I don't know. Past part time. Yeah. Partying on my way home. Jim, you mentioned a a a regulation in town for five foot candles. Where is that from? I I couldn't find that reference. That's an extremely high level for a sidewalk.

I believe that uh it's maximum where five foot candles. Oh, okay. That's a different Okay, I misheard you. So, yeah. So that's why I was saying that maximum five, most of them on the sidewalk are five or below, but there are a few that are over five. Though typically foot candles are looked at as an average because it's very, you know, the way a phototric works is it's a point in a very specific way. U right. Well, so the average should be 0.2 with a max of five.

I see. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Y to the architecture. Can I ask a question before we do? Sure. I um Mr. Chair. Okay. Um I just wanted to make sure I understood from my notes and um for the purposes. Um are you coordinating with DPW separately on that? Yes, I believe so. But I think we modified the plans per Jim's comments and for uh DPW Wayne's comments. Okay. Um and just for really for me more than the board can um I just need to um anything that's on public like that

where we want to make sure that that go through depth on that and curb cuts and stuff on board. Um I I just um was not sure you know how much you've been working but that was my understanding that you're just Yes. Good. Thank you.

[clears throat] Okay.

Um, on the architectural side, I will uh flip through the pages and note um the ones that that didn't have any changes or questions from the last um meeting. So there is no changes to this the zoning diagrams um and zoning information and table um to our site plan. We have put in a uh photo of the bike rack that we are proposing. Um hoping there's no objection there. I can pause here for a second. simple, sleek.

Zoomed out too much. It does not like when I zoom in and zoom out. Sorry about that. Um to the floor plans. We'll spare you guys this time around. There were no changes to these um for this round. um to our front elevations, the main street elevation um and the the corner elevation, there was there was no changes. We did uh focus and do some work to the the rear elevations. Um the changes were to add some artwork that um the owner can work on with the town and I believe there's an art committee and they can work together to get this um looking really nice. So rather than sighting in these two locations, we are proposing um flat fiber cement panels that can be painted on easily um and represent that artwork. We have um this is the the front front elevation, but if I can go to the the rear elevation, there were there were no changes to these pages um so I just skipped through them. Um, we have two examples noting that the art is TBD to be able to work with the town. This is one example that's showing something that is more of a nature example. And there's a second example that might be something a little more um lively um with some color. I think that could be something that is worked out um in the future if if [snorts] that is okay. Um, there was no changes to these before and after lighting, uh, nighttime renderings, excuse me. Um, you can see some of the lighting on the sidewalk here. I do want to note that this, um, elevation was was focusing on making sure that there wasn't light leaking into the building. I think the

everything that we just discussed regarding lighting is is still pertinent and and we'll take all of those um comments into into consideration especially if if it's condition there. Um we did do some we did update the rear elevation to show what the heights of the building is in relation to the bike path um and and the streetscape there and just kind of showing where those um pieces of artwork can go. And again, um, making sure to get approval from the town through the right pathways before that is actually painted on. And, um, that was that was the the updates. Um, kind of kind of quick. Uh, happy to go back to any views or answer any questions if there's anything else um for us to consider.

Yeah. elongating the windows was the main comment from Tim H since he wanted. Yes, apologize. Yep. These windows were 3 ft square. They are now 3 ft x 5 ft to to elongate uh the windows and um make the the rear elevation to be not as I say forgot. What language did we use for that theoretical mural on the side of Sugarloaf? They were going to meet with the cultural district or the cultural council.

Well, I know it never happened, but or rather it hasn't yet. Yeah. Uh I have some I'm not sure that that language might be useful. Yeah. I I So that that language said that the art council could put something there if they wanted to. We didn't. Yeah, that's right. But I don't think that's this situation. I think the builder is doing this, right? I think sign off of the I'd like to retain some creative Oh, yeah. control of that. I think

there's really interesting project in Somerville. Uh it's a renovation of a like a public school like a 60s public school in the sort of brutalist architectural style. So it's very boxy and concrete but they incorporated art in almost every uh facade. It's not sure how they controlled it uh logistically or uh regulation wise, but I think I look to that project as kind of an example of how to do a like a really thorough integration of the artwork into the building, which is sort of our change to the siding material, which would uh allow for something to apply paint easier than if it were just a random siding material. I love the idea of the murals.

Who's paying and who's maintaining the murals? Who's paying to install them? Who's maintaining them?

Am I answering that question? I think so. You're not. [clears throat] You're not paying or you're not answering.

I'm not answering. They're your murals. Okay. Well, that's great with me. I love what you already have on the building temporarily. So, fine with me. So, far as your question or the board, if the board is curious for building permits, they're not necessary for the mural for sign permits if there's no advertising or or anything like that. So, there's nothing on um from a a building permit side on that that would be required. Great. Right. So, learning from past mistakes, do we need to require the murals up before occupancy? That might end up to the rush.

That doesn't mean that's my thought. At least I don't want to I don't think it needs to be before occupancy. Let's we'll just put maybe two years or something. some sort of end date within there's a great idea on the sticker there within two within two years of occupancy something like that that would be my suggestion yeah and these are full height murals or is that the deal or square foot

I think it would depend Again, Matt wants to retain some um ownership there because I I would say yes, you could see the two options do go um towards the top, but one option fills in more than than the other. So, I I'm sure that Matt would want to work with a with a local artist um who can who can be creative and and he can approve and work with them. But both both options and and Matt you can speak a little bit more to this or correct me if I'm wrong here. But yes, I think the intent is for both options to go um close to the top and and and close to the midpoint the band that goes around the ground floor level one split um so that it's visible. I think it'll be more impactful that something that might not happen for two years after the permit and it ends up being two square feet of paint. So,

can you make me the mural person again? Uh, yeah. Will you show me your mural before you put it up? I love murals. Yeah. So, conceptually right now, we don't have I don't have like an art idea. It's really just a That's fine. A placeholder that would give as much presence as possible to the piece. So that's why we have changed the material the whole base of the rear wall and then the two verticals. Yeah, that makes sense. What we've done in the past is um so that we don't have to like work out all the controls on this is just conditioned as mural will be approved by uh design of the chair. So chair will designate board member to

and I like approve the proposed design. Okay. Yeah, that's how we did the other one with the other one. Yeah. And I I do like the idea of what the one control of having it um have a timeline of uh you know some number of years after after CO. Um and nothing else you guys just we did not include that previously in a another application another condition and someone could just not do things. So we just we want to have precedent of just having controls over those type of timeline controls. If you're going to do it, do it. We we trust you guys. It's not that. It's just

especially since we have existing residential just staring at this big ass building in front of us. And does two years give you any heartburn two years after CO or I don't know how long it takes to have the sort of sort of creative process in this? I think we could do it concurrently with construction like the conceptualization of what the piece is and then be ready to execute still and actually be beneficial because I would still be staging. Great. But I'll send you a link to some real project because it's got they it's probably as pieces of art throughout the whole

I would love to see that. Um, and then what happens if the mural wants to be changed? Would the applicant have to come back? I think I think if you I'm talking 10 years from now or 15 years from now. Well, we've never actually done that, but it makes sense to put that in. So, it makes it easy. Um, I think Well, what was the first decision? So, it would be before C at CO. Is that what you say? Two years after CO. Two years after

kind of the general proposal. Um, why don't Well, if the board wants to to to look at an additional if there was a change 10 years or whatever, we we could always put in the um uh like we do with a minor modification, we just say just uh at a at a post meeting of the planning board that the applicant would um um appear before the the planning board and that way there's no public hearing or anything like that. There's no public meeting. You come in, you say, "Okay, I want to put the cable with balloons and replace the uh sequoia."

Okay. Is that good? Yes. I don't know. That's fine. None of us will be here by the time the mirror gets changed anyway. So, I think Natalie's on the hook for review. I'll be here forever. We'll live there by Perfect. I have a lot of opinions I'm sure. Okay, what's next? Are we through the presentation portion of this? Yes. Thank you. Um, can we can we turn to design com or engineer comments been for a lot of

Yeah. Um, so we do we do have to be able to close these out. Um, we could go through these one at a time um and see what remains by the end of that process. Would that be amenable to folks? Yeah, we're going to have to. I guess it's either that or do it offline. I mean, we've gone through a lot. Yeah, but we we got a we got a checker box. You have to go through each one for sure. And Jim has to. Okay. For sure.

Okay. Um, who wants to drive the bus on this? Do we want to let our design or engineer? I say that Jim. Jim, do you want to go through these one at a time and lead the discussion on this? Is that okay? Or do you want the the other team do it? Well,

it doesn't matter to me. Uh, I can do it if you would like either way. I think the sound might have cut out. Were you guys talking? I can't hear you. Can see your mouth moving, but I can't hear you. think I heard something.

Can you hear us, Jim? Oh, I can hear you now. Fix it. Good. All right. [laughter] Quick, start with number one. Tell us if you're good with it and move on with number two. [laughter]

All right, let's start speed reading. Um, so I mean the first two are pretty straightforward. I don't know if we really need to get into them. Like one, the first one is we had a hard time reading the plan between existing proposed work and just recommended grayscale. Um, so I think that's an easy one that they probably addressed. Um, the second one is stamped by licensed professional. um which it seems like they provided so no issue there. Um the next one is about um saw MW we wanted to clarify you know what that was. It looks like there's existing monitoring walls on site. Um so they said that they would be abandoned as part of this project. I wasn't sure if the town um would like to reinstate any of those modering wells um that are there. Um that would probably be my follow-up comment to that one. Um,

sorry, you're you're very faint right now if you're talking.

I do not know that. My suggestion would be

inactive. Um, I don't think this is a board item just for some reason they want to claim that's not Jim. Thank you for

Okay. Sorry. You're like really faint, but I I think I heard you said that it's not a playing board item and that we can move on. Okay, thanks. Okay.

Uh, okay. The next one, granite curve is shown as flush adjacent to the pavement per. So, I think this this is more of like a a detail. Um, so they were showing flush curve before in the detail. So, I was a little confused whether it was going to have a reveal or not. Um, so also want to confirm the materials such as asphalt, concrete, pavers throughout the site. So they they said that in their presentation that they revised um the curbing to have a six-inch reveal and they provide hatching to better identify the different materials used on site. So that should be addressed. Um and then the next comment is um they were using Cape Cob BM and granite uh curb in the parking lot. Um the recommendation was to use granite curb uh throughout the parking lot because it holds up better against snow plows. They've revised that to now use granite curb everywhere. So that's been addressed. Um, let's see. It's recommended that the curb line on the eastern portion of the site uh it's re uh the moves the curb cut to the property line since the old curb cut for the garage door is no longer needed. uh the existing their response was the existing curb cup on the eastern portion of the site is now proposed to be removed to match the eastern edge of the frontage since there will be no garage there after this project is completed. So um to make sense of that there's an there's an existing building there right now that has a garage door with a curb cut.

Um, and that building is now being removed and the parking lot is there and basically like the if the curb cut would remain as is. Um, it would be kind of going into that their landscape area. So now the curb cut is extending so that it lines up with the neighbor's driveway better. So that looks like that's been addressed. Um, and then is the existing wall being removed and replaced with a new wall or are the walls going to be next to each other? Any items should be removed called out in the plans. Proposed walls should be detailed on the plans with existing walls if they are to remain. Um their response was the rail trail retaining wall is to remain as is and the other wall replaced with the unit the other wall replaced with a unilock retaining wall. The labels for the walls have been updated. So, um, so it sounds like the retaining wall in the rear of the site will remain and they're going to have their new wall abuing abuing the existing wall. Is that correct? Um, so I guess the concern is, you know, how how do the footings interact if the walls are right next to each other abuing each other between the proposed and the existing retaining wall? Um, has there been any investigation into that? Um,

I think I submitted a section cut to you of the retaining wall detail and then the the current garage is half of the existing retaining wall. So when we remove that building that will open up that bank for us to install new retaining wall and then we would remove the existing retaining wall and the new retaining wall will be all on our side of the property line. Okay. I I haven't had a chance to review that that cut sheet yet. Um but

and and I do want to clarify that the the proposed wall the proposed new wall is meeting the existing wall at a a perpendicular angle. So it's not like it's um parallel with it where it meets the existing wall that is to remain and and the existing wall is a cast inplace wall which would presumably have a much deeper footing. The proposed wall is a segmental retaining wall, a block wall which typically is only 6 in below grade and then there's typically a 12 in of compacted aggregate below that. So would have the question about footing interaction really shouldn't be an issue with a 90 degree intersection in the two different ball types.

Okay, that that makes more sense. Um, I think when we originally reviewed it, um, I think we were getting confused with the lines on, you know, how how far that proposed wall extended adjacent to that existing wall. I think we were thinking that they were parallel to each other up against each other, but it sounds like they're not. They're tying into each other, so they're there should be no uh impact of the footing. So, that sounds like that comment has been addressed. Thanks, Um, okay. So, the next one is comment number eight. Uh, please clarify if all the sidewalks south of the site will have vertical granite curb. There are several existing curb radi but only one is noted to be removed. The line work seems to indicate that there will be vertical granite curb. Is the sidewalk and curb along Main Street being replaced? Proposed grade shall be provided to confirm ADA compliance. If the sidewalk will be removed, sock lines should be added to replace or reset the curve. Please revise. Um their response was all sidewalk along the front edge of the property will have vertical granite curb. All existing curb radi except for the two for the proposed parking entrance shall be removed or relocated as shown on the plan. Per DPW the entire sidewalk along frontage is to be replaced. Sock out lines have been added. Spot grades have been added. Um so you know based on their response it seems like this has been addressed. Um, you know, I haven't had a chance to review, you know, all the spot grades uh yet,

but I did see um, you know, the site plan had the hatching showing the the full limits of the sidewalk being replaced and, um, the dash line showing the the saw cut um, for the granite curb. So, I would say that um that sounds like that's probably has been addressed as well. Um the number nine, please confirm while the driveway entrance is angled, promoting a left turn entry over right turn entry. Please provide turning movements to confirm cars can turn right into the parking lot. Um and their response was the driveway entrance is proposed to maintain existing curb cut and avoid existing fire hydrant utility pole. Turning simulations are now provided in a detail. Um so the applicant did provide the turning movements in the presentation earlier. Um and you know as they noted there is a utility pole and you know hydrate in the way which uh prevents them from having a normal uh curb cut turn into the parking lot. Uh so they they have like a sharper right turn in um based off the auto turn. Uh it required a three-point turn to get into some of the parking spaces. Um, so, um, I guess I would defer the board. Is the board okay with, um, you know, potentially a three-point turn into those parking spaces?

Board didn't have any comments during the presentation, but we can see if there's any now. I have no concerns. Yeah, as long as the turns don't go over the sidewalk, and it doesn't look like they would. Okay, good, Jim. Um, and to move things along, number 10, it looks like that's also a waiver request for um question on that to you, Chris. Does that require a separate action? I mean, does that need to be listed in what's being asked for or is that just wrapped into a site plan? I think it's a w a formal waiver request. So, we're going to need to

we have a separate fill for the waiverss. Typically, we list them in the decision, right?

And then Jim 11 also is a waiver request. Um, that's correct, right? Well, sort of the is I guess I guess is is 11 a waiver request? Well, that's I'm say here's there's a special permit request for parking. So, anything we could wrap under parking relief would be part of the special permit, but anything that wasn't, I would say we just include as a separate item for the

So, 10 10 would be a specific waiver based on uh setback requirements, but nine but 11 that 10 could be setback requirements, but 11 could just be parking relief generally. early. Well, 11's definitely parking relief. It's a special permit criteria. And it can also be like employees will park in public lots. That can be conditioned. It's not a waiver. No, I don't think it's either.

I I think it's addressing it because because I would say that under the DoD parking criteria, it's encouraging you to shed parking. Okay. It's definitely not a waiver. No. Yeah. Okay. I I I I I still have a major problem with that because Well, those there isn't a viable public parking lot anywhere near there and if these employees don't have lease parking somewhere else, I would not vote for this. What do I think the on street parking there is is when we go along there after leaving. But you got at least five employees parking all day.

Well, if it's two-hour parking, then they'll get ticketed, right? But the site is asking for it already has minimal parking requirements and it's asking those to be had and it's not practical. It's just going to create more problems and more people complaining for no reason. They could build what they need to build and park what they need to park. But just saying somehow these people will just park somewhere else with this, you know, on the other side of the river. I think that

that's absurd. Well, that's the board to make that. Yeah, you guys. I I in that area I I just don't see across the street that the on street parking is is that um talking about on street we're talking I mean maybe they could go get those spaces reszoneed as 10-hour parking or re tagged as 10 or whatever but I think they should get if they can't put it on site then they should get it from a Well, we can't instruct them to get them from the mill.

No, but we've had plenty of people come in and say, "Yeah, here's our lease agreement for off-site parking." Right. And that's part of it. And that's fine. Let's let's see it. But I don't see it. I mean, or they could, you know, they could assign, what do we got? Two business units. I mean, we could give them two reserve spaces on site and each apartment could have one reserve space on site. That's better than just depending on employees. Well, not parking everywhere else. But I don't understand how they can't. I mean, if the on street parking there is all two-hour parking, right?

Well, it's going to be a problem. Practically speaking, Bill, what what are options in the area? Well, they can lease parking or they can go to river the river street law which is not two-hour parking. It's just public parking. River Street. They're not going to is behind CVS. Is that allowed to park? CVS lot's full now. Well, CVS lot fills several times every month. Now, I'm asking though if it's available for for you know, but it's not No, it would not be worth it for a special permit. special permit says that it's not doing any harm,

but you know, throwing people in conflict with what is now a very reduced parking supply downtown doesn't help. [clears throat] So, the only thing I can see if they want if they don't want to lease parking is three reserve spaces for the apartments and two reserved for the businesses, it's better than nothing. What about some sort of requirement that employees We've done that before. We did that with marijuana. Yeah. That employees can't park Well, we we've designated they have to park in a in a municipal office. Yeah.

But also and the special permit though, remember I I don't I'm not borrowing with you about the intent of it, but it's it's not a question of does it not do harm. It's question does the good outweigh the bad. That's right. and and and that's going to be you know board can decide that but but I think that um we've been very careful all of us have with adding unnecessary party if it's unnecessary if there's a compromise and we say with the um like we did with I can't remember which marijuana place but at the time we were really concerned either Nason Street or where it was it was street

and and we were concerned about employee parking because we didn't know what's going to happen. We said, "Okay, you shall not park in this lot. Here's your park street lot or the um summer street or whatever we did." So, that's a possibility, too. Leasing from the mill. The mill typically does not lease spots. We know that because we've been trying that with I can't remember if I did with you guys or not, but we have a project on Hillside zoning board and that they are not All right. Well, phenomenal.

Well, let's do this. Let's applicant has heard uh the concerns and the team has the students do a mic check. Can you guys still hear us? Okay. All right. Team has heard the concerns. Uh let's continue to get through this and then we can go to the special per criteria. So, uh number 12 Jim is snow storage. Uh the board has these comments too in front of them. So, um, are you what's your thoughts on on the response on number 12?

Um, yeah, I mean, I think that's sufficient that they can store in the green spaces as long as, you know, it doesn't impact the landscaping that they have. Um, and then any excess will be removed from the site. So, that's sufficient. Then number 13 is about the ADA parking spot. It look like you're you're referencing federal regs and it looks like the applicants referencing uh CMR, so you know, Massachusetts state rags. Is that your read of this as well? That's correct.

Um I'm I'm not an expert in here. Um, what's what what what what dictates what here? Is it the federal regs, Jim, from your point of view? Um, it's it's tough. So, I I looked more into the federal rerecks as well. Um, and they specifically know the residential area as well. So if any residential unity units have like are set up for mobility like impairment um then that used to have a um handicap spot um but I don't think any of these units do. Uh correct me if I'm wrong. Um and I think the number of units that they have in the in the building is under the threshold that would require accessibility units as well. Um so that kind of negates that portion. And then another of the the federal said if you have any um parking that exceeds like one parking space per unit then you would need to have a handicap spot. Um, so I guess in terms of that regulation, um, then it would be required, um, unless kind of like what Bill said, the other two are are dedicated to the business um, and they're kind of separate from um, the residential units. Um so in that case then they wouldn't

meet it for um the federal regs. Um and uh they would meet it per Maynard's zoning bylaw and per you know Massachusetts CMR. So I think what they have is probably sufficient unless um you know the board feels differently. thoughts from the board on this. If if if an adequate amount of parking spaces were required, how many would that be?

I'm just so my question is what I'm getting at is an accessible space only required when a total of 15 spaces must be provided. Are we to that limit on this to where one would be provided if enough parking was available? What's the parking requirement for this project by the Maynard rules?

So, um well, so the Maynard rules require um one handicap spot if you have at least six parking spaces and the site right now has five. Um, and I'm sure if they had the required amount, they'd be over six. I don't have the number in front of me that they would need required. Um, I don't know if the applicant can provide that number.

Yes. Um, by the Maynard zoning, um, it is 1.5 spaces for residential units. We have um three residential units. So that rounds up to five. And then it is one space for every 500 square ft gross square foot square feet of retail or office space. We have uh 2400 square ft of office space. Um so that would technically require five as well. But the this project would require 10 parking spaces in total then and we're seeking a waiver for five as I recall. Is that correct?

That is correct. Does [clears throat] that answer your question?

Yeah. I mean my feeling is that if the the space requires 10 that kind of on its own to me feels like a handicap spot should be provided. Like asking a waiver for one doesn't say that the other shouldn't have to be met. They also supposed to have we don't I don't believe a handicapped space on that block on street.

The town is supposed to have one. Yes. We don't I don't So could one of the added on street spaces in front of the building be designated an on street handicap space which would be publicly available

they really were being added. I don't know if they offered but that would be that would take care of some problems. I think due to the building size, the upper floors did not have elevator access. And so the design team had discussed not to say that one of the first floor tenants couldn't potentially have an employee or a patron that came, you know, in a wheelchair. but that the upper floors as a unit occupant would not have a wheelchair specific uh uh user of that because there is no elevator in the building. Um I believe that as we looked at layout we would have to give up an additional space to provide a handicap space within the lot. Yeah.

And and understanding just the the holistic picture of the downtown and parking constraints and and everything else. I think West Conquered is in a very similar condition. And you know, West Conquered when I was on the Conquered Planning Board struggled with this on every application. Um, and the challenge between getting a robust downtown that has enough fabric there to support the downtown versus on-site parking is a challenging one. But maybe an on street handicap immediately in front of the building where we're closing some of the curb cuts off. Maybe that could could be, you know, an amenity and take care of, you know, the potential user or the building. First floor. about paint striping.

I'm just going to say I struggle with the fact that we're directing logically shared parking includes is accessing public parking and we don't have a we don't have a DPW who's willing to invest in more public parking. So, I don't know what to say. I don't really feel like it's appropriate to, you [snorts] know, talk to an applicant about not using the shared parking that we reference in many of our town documents if we don't have a DPW who's willing to support that anyway. You know what I'm saying?

Where's the closest space? We'll just make We'll just make We'll just make the town do it. It's fine. Whatever. I mean, the pizza joint, right? Yeah. Yes. The car. Yes. Actually, yeah. It has to be next door crosswalk. Well, they would put it on the wrong end. They put it down by the post office.

Well, let's do this. Obviously, there's some thought needs to be put into this sort of topic. Let's continue on. Um, I would say let's get through the comments and see where where we end up in total. Is that is that okay with everyone? Good. Okay. Um, I I because I I think we've talked about this enough and I think we all understand um the challenges here. So, all right, Jim number mic check. Can you do a

Yes. Yeah. 14. Yeah, system capacity analysis has been submitted to the DBW. Um, and it sounds like the DPW has confirmed that it is adequate. So,

and then 15 is fire alarm. Typically, we kind of stay out of that and just allow the fire department to help determine. Is that okay with you, Junk? Yeah, I I was kind of just saying have have they coordinated with the fire department at this point and you know make sure that they do if they haven't sort of part of the comment. Um the next one is the water main con connection detail. Um I think the DPW read our comments and said basically any any of the water comments that they would they would own. So we could skip that in terms of planning board review.

Sorry, you're cutting out a little bit there.

Oh, next one. Um, so the next one is, have test fits been performed to confirm soils are suitable for infiltration and seasonal high groundwater is at least two feet below the bottom of the leeching basin? The soil on site is potentially contaminated. have soil sampling been performed to confirm the contamination of the soil is okay for infiltration BMPPS. Uh they should be sampled and confirmed by a licensed site professional. Um their response was no. Uh site is covered by building and paving. Uh construction of the rail trail at the west corner did not encounter contaminants. Um, I I still think that a test fit should be performed for the leeching basin to confirm it has adequate separation of groundwater so that we know that it will leech into the ground appropriately as designed. Um, and if they are going to do a test pit, why not do a sample there as well? Um, since um, you're doing a test fit there. So that's my recommendation. Um I don't know how the board feels as well.

Um can you hear? Okay. Yes. Yes.

I'm not soil sampling. Is there so what's the structure? Is there infiltration galleries going in? Uh leeching basins like a Yeah. So it's like a catch basin that infiltrates into the grounds.

Say that again. Do you see? Is there I don't think you can hear me. Can you? I I can hear you now. I can hear you now. Yeah.

Is there a planning board ruler rag uh that this ties to? Um, this is I mean I could try to find one um but it is part of the uh you know uh Massachusetts stormwater handbook. Um that you know when you're designing a storm water BMP you have to have adequate separation of groundwater. Um so uh the soil contamination might not uh be exactly in there. Um, but the the adequate separation of groundwater is part of, you know, designing BMPs and making sure that, you know, if you're if you're installing something to infiltrate, you're putting it in a condition that allows it to infiltrate because, you know, they could have high groundwater and we're putting this, you know, we're putting this in and then it has water, you know, in the bottom of it so it'll never infiltrate.

Um, Another comment showed that there are monitoring wells on site and you can take groundwater data from monitoring wells, right? That's true. Um, so but I don't know if this is a I'll turn to the board. I'm not sure this is a how much of this is actual planning board item. I don't believe that we've required Yeah. when we've been provided with these test results in the past, it hasn't been at our request, so I can't say. Yeah, I'm I'm hesitant to go too far down this road. I don't know if we have

Bill Bill Cshaw, can I tap to your experience on this? Well, I'm just wondering what the consequences are if on adjacent sites. Is that the point here? or you know or if they test it and they find something they just do something else. I don't I don't want to get into testing. We're not planning board doesn't have the authority to say test soils. Um but I think since leeching basins are shown um it you know there is a need to confirm that the BMPs will be met. I think that's that's the only thing um and if they aren't what I don't know what would happen.

I don't know. I'll jump in here. Um, so we're already reducing impervious on site. So the addition of this leeching catch basin is over and above what we technically would need to do because we're already reducing the rate and volume of runoff. So the solution to if groundwater were a problem would be just to remove the catch basin. So in my in my opinion the addition of it is is you know is is an improvement because the the alternative would just be to remove it you know. Um how deep is this leeching basin?

It's um there's a 4ft sump and then it's about six feet I would say. And the the soil maps do show um sand here. So, you know, it should be have a good infiltrating capacity. I don't I don't know if it's a drawing is a planning board perview item. I don't know the answer to that question, but it would make sense to do the history of the site. Um, and you know, why put him in not doing anything?

Um, so I I'll say it this way. I'll leave it with this. Um, Jim, again, really appreciate the comment. Um, I think I think the the applicant should proceed how how you guys choose on this. And just remember that this if you need to remove the leeching basin and catch basin the infrastructure that may be a modification that you're going to have to come back to the planning board on. So that's the risk. So I would advise you to make sure that is going to work ahead of time.

Is that fair guys? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. report. All right. 18. Jim,

um is a water sewer crossing detail. Again, I think this probably falls under DPW um perview. Um same with 19 uh DPW perview. Um [clears throat] 20. Um this was uh one of the leeching basins was in within 10 ft of the building. Uh you know per um Massachusett storm water handbook it recommends having anything infiltrating be beyond 10 ft of building. So they eliminated that leeching basin. So that's been addressed. Um uh a detail of the crush stone in the rear of the building should be provided. It's unclear from the grading. Is the area able to drain out to the east of the building? So, uh it looks like they provide a detail um in an additional grading for that area to drain behind the building. So, so that's good. Um yeah, the concern was that, you know, the building the back of the building has has the wall and then the building. So, I was concerned with um you know, water pooling back there getting stuck. So, it looks like they're able to get it out from behind there. Um 22. Please indicate on the plans where each erosion control measure is being proposed. Um the response um you know based on the response it looks like they've added you know all the erosion controls uh needed. I just need to uh give that plan another back check uh quickly to confirm I agree with all the locations. Um the next one 23 are you are you saying something? Sorry

I can't hear you again. Should I keep going? Yeah. Okay. 23. Um same thing. Uh another erosion control measure um update. Uh looks like they have updated their detail to address the comment. So that should be good. Uh 24 uh please provide landscaping plan. Um uh they did provide one and our landscape architect is reviewing that. Um uh we asked if there was any irrigation proposed. They said that there is no irrigation proposed. Um so that's good. Um 26. Um the required planted buffer between the parking lot and 149 Main Street consist of ornamental grasses, a tree and a large shrub. Uh maintained ornamental grasses are cut back annually. It will not provide screening for some of the year. The design will not meet the buffer requirement of six foot height at installation or 10 foot width. Um the applicant responded that uh they are providing a fence and it wasn't clearly labeled in the plans previously. So um they're using the fence to meet the buffer requirements. Um number 27, a fence is required where a vegetated buffer is not practical. So similar comment they provide the fence um that wasn't uh observed before. 28 uh trash receptacles are shown. Uh there's a requirement for screen. There is a requirement for screening. Uh please provide details of trash enclosures or whatever screening is possible. um

they were changed to trash lockers uh to conventional totes with screening. Um I guess I don't know do anyone from the board want to see you know what they're using for screening for the trash receptacles or um or do you want to move on to the next one? I know they they sent cut sheets of those if you want to review them as well. the trash because I still don't understand how trash is being picked up. Private home. Is it one of those little trucks going in?

It's not going to block the sidewalk up, does it? Maybe momentarily. It would be more than momentarily because you got to pull the toads out, right? Each one. Yeah. Unless they pull in the lot.

I don't understand. Wait, you're assuming they're on the street and pull the totes to the street? They would, depending on the size of the truck and the hauler, they would either pull the truck into the lot and would empty the totes or they would park at the neck of the lot and pull the totes out to the truck.

Yeah, that's a problem. You need a small truck to get into the lot.

Yeah. Yeah, it's a brand new site. You're going to be able to figure out how to track a couple. But I mean, they make the small little city trucks to pull in, but you know, big old 35 footer with an ax sticking out on the street, that can't be good. Is your concern a truck on the public way? Right. Is that what I'm hearing? Like either a truck that's parked on on the just in the street.

Or is your concern on the sidewalk? No, I'm concerned about the sidewalk. So blocking the sidewalk. Yeah. Whether it's by the totes or by the tail end of the truck. There's a private hauler in conquered called Ye Old Colonial Trucking. He drives a small box truck that's maybe 18 ft long that could fit into the parking lot. We could condition that trucks are not allowed to block the sidewalk sidewalk in any way during this operation. Oh, I don't want the totes either or totes stored on sidewalks too. Yeah, we can condition that.

I agree. I don't want a bunch of totes on the sidewalk. I don't want any trash on the sidewalk to the extent practical for all these sites. Yeah. I mean, well, I mean, pedestrians have no options if the sidewalks clo either by totes or by truck, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, would you be comfortable with that type of condition? So, that last second was no uh vehicles shrunk sidewalk during trash collection. Yeah. For trash collection, you cannot at all block the sidewalk with receptacles or with vehicles, something to that effect.

It looks quickly scaling off the plan that even a 35 ft truck if it backed into the lane between the parking stalls, a 35 ft truck still would not obstruct the sidewalk. And that's a big trash truck. Yeah, I can confirm that it's approximately 38 ft from the back side of the sidewalk towards the retaining wall at the end of the parking lot. Excellent. Can you hear me?

Can you hear us? No. You're muffled. We hear you, but you're very quiet. And then all of a sudden, we'll hear you clearly and then it goes back to being muffled.

I'm like noise removal right there. Right near your Yeah. We heard we heard you say, "Can you hear us?" And then you cut out I'm comfortable with those. Can you guys hear us?

Very faint. very very faint. Um, you said the mass mass uh majority sounded good. Sorry.

I'm saying that um I think I think we're done with design review discussions tonight and we can instruct this here. Any Yeah, I can hear you, Chris. I can hear you, Chris.

Um, I think we're through this through the design review discussions. Jim, you're just going to need to formalize this um and send it back to the team. Um, we have a couple items that I think obviously needs a little more thoughtfulness and discussion. Um, in fact, I think there's only really one, and that's just the general concept of what public parking and employee parking is going to look like. Um, it sounds like the board has would be supportive of street parking for this and there may be an opportunity to do so, right? I mean that's the only Yeah. The only issues I have.

Yeah. But [clears throat] we're saying that's not a planning board item. And then the rest is just the special. So

normally accessibility. But that's a little bit of my concern is that by saying they can provide less parking, shouldn't also automatically relieve them of not providing an accessible spot that would otherwise be required. I had a little bit of hard about that. You're effectively making it unusable to some people intentional. And it's like where it's giving away all of

our railroad street parking only. that last.

Yeah. Yeah. They sold the land. They sold the sold the spaces as far. Yeah. Yeah. But if we if we could get a handicapped parking space there, I think that helps meet the criteria. Yeah.

At the end there, what about what about um putting one on the street near that intersection? Well, yeah. I mean, if they can [laughter] Yeah. to change the one to pizza place. Would you mind bringing up the special permit criteria so we could just review that? It's just unfortunate, but you know, it's a case of too much on the site, I think. Yeah. Um,

so so first I I I think we're through this. Do do you does your team have any other changes that they would like to present? Yeah, I'm happy to release them if you guys are comfortable with that. Okay. Can you guys hear us online? Yes. Through all the technical conversations here, uh Jim, uh Bill Dems will be in touch, but generally we just need the formality of your official review, you know, back and forth on this, the confirmed. Um we're happy to have you guys sign off and have a good evening. We're not going to have any more technical conversation tonight. Thank you. Okay. Great. Thank you. Have a good night.

Thank you very much. Great. Bye. I think it's the refrigerator that's messing up all the microphone. Yeah. [laughter] Not kidding. her office.

You don't know where our Sorry. If I can offer one handicap [clears throat] spot solution, but I think it impinges on the landscape regulation is that we could push the trash into the planting area and we would be limiting the the green buffer, but we would free up that pile, which would allow us to make a wider stall for handicap parking on the property. Right. So that would be there's three three parking spaces on the property. One is handicap.

Well, there would be five spaces. One would be handicap bases. So that's it. Good. Cuz it requires a wider stall width and then access to the accessible sidewalk. Bill, would you Yeah. When you're done finding what you're finding, maybe you could bring up the plan. Oh, okay. Uh, all right. Do you want Here's the criteria for special. Yes. Yeah, that's all. I just want everyone to see what the remind us what the um the parking criteria is essentially for parking

the special permit criteria, but the standard special criteria. Yeah. 946

the DoD. This is This is not This is not a DoD special permit, right? No. Well, it it's in the 946. So, it's 946. Should be right at the beginning. I guess. Yeah. See it? Can you You got to make it bigger for me, man. I I can't. There you go. All right. We all know the high quality development.

Yep. Which is number one. Number two is storm water water runoff. Yeah. Number three is one of the following. Significant improvement to the number of parking spaces in the downtown. Significant improvement to the effectiveness of parking space allocation of the downtown. Significant improvement to the pedestrian experience. That's definitely true.

Significant improvement to the water quality. and increased views of the river, significant improvement to the functioning of the downtown. So, Bill, how many of these do they have to meet? One only has to meet one of these, which is um one of those, but these are DO special permit criteria. This is Are we doing DoD as well as the general special permit? Well, it's a special permit that's that's in the downtown overlay district. I don't see how. So, we got to do both. We got 104 and I would that would be my special permit. It's no different. It's a use permit in the DoD and the standard.

Then go to 104 real quick. Okay. So, the answer is yes. I have one of these and um and what do you want next? What do you want me to do? 104. Go to 104. Okay. Right there. Uh, it's the conditions. Yeah. The conditions. Did [snorts] we put it in this? Do we It's above the conditions.

It's right a little further down there. There. Okay. There. There it is. So the consideration for each of these. Mhm.

And here's your question asked. But the permit is general, but it must al include consideration of those, right? It's not just

Yeah. Right. Yes. needs to consider all of these. So now um I think Chris Klein has a reasonable point which is about and I was thinking this too like I don't want to try to skirt ADA or accessibility particularly for a parking spot if possible. Well, if you took one of the five parking spots and it made it ADA.

Yeah. Okay. Realistically, if um I mean, if you had a resident that lived there, I suppose that could end up being their right their spot. On the other hand, if um if you didn't, it would be for whoever came in that was handicapped. And I I mean there's street park then for the employees. So, if you're comfortable, I mean, is that [snorts] comfortable if you made one of those spots accessible to five? Could that work in there? Cuz there's what extra 3 ft I think as a an addition.

And then where what do we do with the commercial parking that becomes municipal or street parking? I I haven't that's my my opinion is I I don't I think there's adequate parking there for the for but I don't want to I mean that's just my opinion. vote. But um it means it's the whole package like we're reducing parking from being requested to reduce 10 to from 10 to five for the for the property which is a decent request right it's 50% reduction right it is

um and so that has impact of course and so how do we mitigate that impact

well I I I I think you know going back to philosophically when we were talking about planning reductions before we came to let's let's stipulate we all agree with the ADA thing that that Chris um Klein brought right no argument there number of parking spaces we figured I mean for that's developers call I I think in the downtownly district and if people park illegally they there's a penalty for it um that's my view I'm I'm totally comfortable with the way we've done our other DoD projects. On the other hand, um, for the ADA, um, I I I think these are good points and and, uh, it's important and, um, I would say is is would the board be comfortable with that or is this just, you know, if there was an addition of a ADA spot in there cuz ADA adds how what do we say it's an extra is it 3 ft? I think

well it's an extra eight. It's 16 ft wide for cuz it has to be a van accessible van. Yeah. Um because that was a problem putting on the street. Remember we said, "Well, it's not really handy any house. It's not really ADA spot." No, but you're allowed to if you're not changing the sidewalks, but we are changing sidewalks. No, we're just reconstructing. We're not changing the alignment of them. Well, is it it if [clears throat] let me look um theoretically the town is supposed to put a handicap spot somewhere on that block. So on the street

I I I like this application if it has a handicap spot on the street like that. To me on the street. Yeah. To me that makes sense. Sorry I keep cutting. No, it's okay. If during, you know, the process of sidewalk reconstruction, the applicant would be willing to stripe parallel parking spots on the street, including one that is a designated ADA spot. If if DPW is amendable, is does the board think there's any way they're going to close signs? No. Okay. We can't. I I need to I need Jim to formally submit that.

Here's what I would suggest and I don't think we have a good condition. I feel like we're very close. I just want to figure out how to make Here's what I would propose. How does this keep the parking the way it is with the proviso that um with the restriping for the new spots talk DPW and if they would be fine we put the handicap spot right at the point there. No, it has to be with how many as being the one next to wherever the curve is.

Would that work for you Chris? Yeah, I think that if we I would look at a couple things. I would look at possibility of on street handicap spot. Talk with DVW, see if you guys can come up with something that works for you. I'd also look at what you talked about, the possibility of can you reconfigure something within your lot to to make it work in there and provide five spots. It seems like those are the two most reasonable options. I would look at those two things and see what falls out. see if we can make one of those work. I agree. I think that we're we're close, but I I do want to make sure that we're not um you know, ignoring a part of our population.

I have to say I have less control of what I can deliver in terms of street parking because there is there are questions absolutely 100% whether or not we can make it work and which is why I encourage you to also look at what you can do on site. [laughter] We did have a six space parking lot at one time and we did have a handicap space [clears throat and cough] at one time but uh just through different permutations we are where we are. [clears throat] I mean if that's doable on site I know that for certain

would the board prefer the on-site handicap spot with a reduction of landscape space? Would that be acceptable to the board? Yeah, as the trade-off, because I believe that's as you commented before, that would be a trade-off. We'd have to push the trash onto a hard surface where the planting is and widen the stall and make access to the trash that allowed us to make a ADA space on that side of the parking lot. Okay. because I know we don't have room for it on the other side adjacent to the building because we have the proximity of the retaining wall. Mhm.

And the curb radius which is already tight. Um is there any I'm just thinking out loud here. Any possibility of moving trash to the acute corner to the west? Would that I don't know if that would even help you you know closer to the building. No. To the point to the Yeah. on this on the on the left side there. I think that's more of a town planning like do you want to see the trash at the point of the apex of the [laughter] intersection? I think the trash pickup would be a problem. It would be sure. I'm just throwing stuff out there.

Yeah, I think you're right. [sighs] Your point too earlier, Bill, on the um having by the crosswalks. I think if I recall there's a crosswalk a little further out here. There's one there at the point and then a little bit further towards town there. Are there any um handicap spots on the opposite side of the street? No, I was trying to do that too, but Oh, okay. There's none. Okay. I mean, it would be easy just to post a handicap spot on the opposite side of the street, but there's no legitimate path through that crosswalk.

Got it. Okay. Um, so big picture, this is the only um [clears throat and cough] this is the only item I see that requires further further discussion. Everything else I think the board has demonstrated comfort with is my feeling on it. Um, well is if the curve cuts that are eliminated, right? We're eliminating what two. Yeah. It's going from a huge amount of curb cuts to just a regular driveway. Yeah. So,

but you're saying that adding uh if we added a handicap spot on street BW's okay with that. Seems like it seems like it aligns. Seems like everything is aligned. But it does. Didn't we do that somewhere else, too? We tried to and they said no. Am I living in an alternative? Well, it Yeah, they said no. But that was part of um I thought it was cuz it was too small and they said it's not there there was a couple different reasons why this is this was where literally taking away curb cuts, right? We were last time too. It was the fire station,

right? And but there was some turning radi that made it challenging and then went down to two spots from three and some of that made sense. But this this seems very straightforward to me. We don't know the [clears throat] width, do we? Well, that's what I'm looking at right now. It I it it looks like it narrows a little bit. I think we're on the short side of where we actually need the width to get street [clears throat] parking both sides, right? Yeah, cuz it disappears in front of the pizza place. Let's take it from the other side of the street and put it on your side of the street. That was something Bill mentioned before.

Can you turn me there? It almost works, but I mean, you can't get to the crosswalk. There's not a handicap accessible route to the crosswalk. It's too bad, too, cuz it seems like a on street handicap spot would benefit not only this project, but also this town isn't that large. Yeah,

that's what I would think. I mean that was my if I I guess the only I get confused about was about the dimensions but if it because I couldn't forget it would be it would be an impact if there's no particular there's no handicap parking there and it was so then I mean maybe maybe it's just a question of DPW tying it up with that. Yeah. [snorts] Hard to know. Yeah. I mean, what if and even the possibility of discussing converting the spot in front of the pizza place maybe? I don't know if that would work with crosswalks or anything like that, but it's a thought.

Is there crosswalk right in front of the pizza place? No, there's no crosswalks [snorts] anywhere on that block [laughter] between the post office, right? There's no crosswalks. It's at the rail trail at the Q corner and the post office. So, it's a big stretch of not a Yeah. There's lots of parking on both sides. Yeah, it's just Except where they need it. It's just a tough little thing. It's not a square little block. It's pointy.

Okay. I don't know how to resolve this tonight, but I think discussion is the way to move this forward. Well, there's two we we have two ways to at least start on see works there and conversation with and I I I think all in all that addition of handicap spot in an area where there isn't certainly is a net benefit to town. Um if that would Chris is that size would that be okay for you if that work in DPW? Would that be a good venue? Yeah, I just I think that it's important that there be a spot in the immediate vicinity of the area.

Were you saying that there's supposed to be an ADA spot on the street there? Is that on a list somewhere? On the town's list? Yeah. No. Oh, you're just saying it. Yeah. It's a religently new federal law. What's the federal law? Proag. Tell me, tell me more. Uh, in regular people's talks. I'll make a motion to continue this hearing. Oh, sure. Second.

Um, sorry. So, yeah, motion made in second, I guess. Um, but, uh, any final thoughts before we continue? Um, I'd be very comfortable if the other side of the street was zone long-term parking instead of 2hour parking. What does it have to do with hearing though? [laughter] That has to do well that has to do with employee parking. Employee parking. But that on street parking was long-term parking instead of short-term parking. I wouldn't have an issue with the lack of options for employee parking. Is that a passive way to say the applicant needs to make proposals for the zoning? Well, actually, it' be the select board.

Select board or maybe it's DPW. I don't be select DPW. Bill, when when do you guys want to continue this? Well, we we don't have a meeting on 23rd. So, the board our next scheduled meeting would be um the 13th. me. Um, we could put a if you want to do a different meeting ahead, we could do that. Um, remember I I Zoe will be pinch hitting on the 13th if it's if it uh okay is there I'm having my thing on the 12th. So, I'll be out for two weeks. He's getting a bionic arm. Bionic arm. I don't know.

Um, what are your thoughts on continuous? And if the board wanted to do a different date, we could do, [clears throat] you know, because we It doesn't sound like there's a lot of technical review left. I would imagine we could have information for the department before the Christmas holiday. So, is that the closest hearing or does it need to be? Can it be done outside of the hearing? Um, well, we need to we need a day to continue the hearing for sure. I don't think that would be a good idea.

I I I I think if there was a um a date if you wanted, you know, we could do a a continue to date before our next schedule one, which would be in in um our next schedule one on the book would be January 13th. Um that's fine. But um if we we if the board wanted to do one earlier, we could do that, you know. No, let's the 13th sounds fine if you guys are agreeable that. All right. I'll make a motion to continue to January 13th at 7 I'll make a motion to continue to January 13th, 2026 at um 7 p.m. Second.

All in favor to continue, please raise your hand. with everything pretty much on this sense. Two things. What's the second thing? Oh, two options for hand. Okay. All right. Thanks, guys. Appreciate you guys coming in. Yeah.

All right. Meeting minutes or Thank you for page two, the first full paragraph. I just want to see if my name is spelled right anymore. Mr. Hall introduced his team. Yeah, it references room for six retail and office spaces on the first floor. That can't be right. No, I think it's two. Where you at? Where? Second paragraph of the second page.

There is room for six retail and office spaces on the first floor and three apartment units. [snorts] [clears throat] Retail. I don't know where six came from. Well, they could be six small ones. Chris, where did you spell your name wrong? You didn't. I just said that's the only thing I look for. Oh, right. That's the main thing.

And no chainsaw, unfortunately. I think you should just sneak an extra strange name in the others present. I'm good with it. We'll make a motion then. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of November 12 as amended. Second.

All those in favor. It's 40. Chris left the room. Chris Arsenal left the room. We are lost without him. Is that me? No, that's the applicant. Oh, [snorts] you mean um meeting? We did.

Okay, we changed the name. Good. Um, I really really don't want to talk about dark sky now because except that I think that that guy I think Jim Thorne was referencing the obscure dark sky PDF from 2015 that we referenced in our planning board rules and rags. So I do think we should update our planning board rules and rags lighting requirements which I am working on with some input from other people who like dark sky things. Sound good? Sure. Great.

Before we bring it to the um the board, I I'm sorry. I I didn't close up there. I'm not I'm not giving my whole spiel cuz I feel tired and mad right now. So, who pushed you off? Did he? No. No. No, I didn't. Me? Um No. I met with the dark sky people. They have some ideas. They have too many ideas. So, we're, you know, we're going to figure it out. A way for them to You're going to shine a light on the issue. [laughter] Our our dark sky references are very old and I do think that there are ways to incorporate some broad ideas that will not be too confining for us. Like a dark corner confining

like a dark corner. Uh we're going to talk about broadly about lumens and we'll talk broadly maybe reference color of light. cuz moths like certain colors. But we're not going to be too prescriptive. That's all. I have to admit I haven't fully delved into it, but I do think that there's plenty to work with that will work within our guidelines while they work towards a general bylaw, which is their own thing,

which we wanted, we didn't want to bring the board anything that, you know, we wanted to make sure that if they had proposals for amending the regulations that we that they were worked out ahead. Sweden. And any town bylaw has nothing to do with our zone bylaws, right? Well, yes, I guess it could. Like if you know, in other words, if we wouldn't if something was against the town bylaws and we made a a zoning determination, for example, it was against the town bylaws. I imagine that could be a conflict once we have a dark sky bylaw. If we do, right?

And it says no Batman signals. We can't approve a Batman signal on a new building. I mean, the applicant can't install a Batman signal on a new building if it's against the town bylaws, but it doesn't always have to be part of the special. Yeah, it's probably [clears throat] not good practice. Yeah, I hear you. But like we don't we don't we don't go through the town bylaws to make sure everything's compliant. That's true, too. You're right. Well, so but but I mean like if we said but I think it'd be egregious for the planning board to approve something that we actively knew was against town biologics. And now I know way more than I ever thought I would. So well now you know.

But hopefully if if we get ours in place and it's somewhat practical then maybe we can stop others from making impractical suggestions for into a real bylaw. Oh, sure. Sure. I don't think that's true. It's always good to drink cuz it is wicked hard to enforce lighting bylaws because they can't even measure it correctly or and I do think that one of the reason that they're interested in us is because we are the only ones who really do uh do what enforce lighting anything

but they we also as I was clear with them that we have the purpose of our rules and regulations is to implement the zoning bylaws in the what we're trying to do for the town. Um but they are limited in what we can do with it. So is a planning board regulation cannot is not a bylaw. Yes. Although right I mean we saw tonight that Jim Thorne was referencing the very pres prescriptive 0.02 light feed feed c foot candles. Right. So like that's technically that's referenced in our regulations. So

it is but we're implementing that. But but it also says like that in during uh plan review, you know, we're looking at the effect of light in the bylaws. It says for sure, but I'm just saying like we're already pretty prescriptive if we put a link to that PDF. So I think updating it would be good and Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you for that. You're so welcome. It was good. It was a good meeting. It was a lot. I think got a lot done. Thanks for coming for that. Yeah. Um I think the only other thing I have is that uh we did get the ADA grant. So great. What's funny about it?

Yeah, maybe they can [laughter] maybe they can talk some upping upping the paint in there for paint. Yeah, maybe we can up the paint for a 20 foot long stall on the street. Let's say on Main Street. No. No, [laughter] not cheap. Throwing that out there. No, no, it's I just want cat. I mean, you got a grant. Where are we going to spend the money? Why? Where? Well, we have to have a we want to have a transition a self assessment, which we have to have done first. This is for town. This is for municipal buildings. Municipal buildings and infrastructure like sidewalks. Sidewalks like parking spaces like along the sidewalk. What?

Public any public. Is this a study money or do stuff? It's uh No, do stuff is the next. It's a two-step. Oh, is this a study money? First part is $60,000 for a study the plan. Well, they're going to evaluate it and then transition how we're going to get over I know where they can put a curb cut in an ADA parking space. Well, that's what they should Well, like like evaluating where we could get more ADA spots. They're going to inventory what we have and like I would imagine if there's if like right here we have a you know there's a complete absence of it. I would say I would think they would say, "Yeah, you need one here. You do." And so for those

is it $60,000 just for the assessment of what we currently have or also for a plan? It It's for the transition plan and the um inventory. We have a transition plan. An old one. An old one is I I tried that. It already It's an update of the old one, right? That's

it's got buildings aren't even there anymore. It's I tried that. There was a half one done in 2018. Here's what I've done. Here's what I did. Before I sent that grand off, I had to like all the others. I had to get a basic estimate from somebody. So, there's a there's a company uh that does a lot of these that um uh Massachusetts Office of Disability has used them a lot. So, I had them write up what we need. Now, the second phase is considerably more cuz construction grants, but without this plan,

it [clears throat] can't beat us. It can beat us from applying for other plans. We have to do it. We've been fooling around with it for the last one that was actually done was 2008, I think, or seven. Um, so it so we got it. Nice job, Bill. We'll get it going. There's a lot of people work on it. Do you have any other planner updates? Zoe will be filling in for me on the 13th. Great. She can take I'll make sure she's up on it. She can take care of all this. And you guys, that basically it's down to the uh other thing. Let's let's have um if you could prepare uh conditions or like the waiver conditions um proposed. Well, we know what they are, right? When they do Yeah, I will.

Right. I will we'll have a sense in the next couple days. He's very on the ball with with everything that we Yeah. have him do. I mean, he he'll he keeps in touch and it's Yeah. I just don't want to put Zoe in the spot to like like re rework all the convention rework the language of the condition in the meeting. We'll work with her to get it done ahead of time. Yeah. And just very very you know clear for us right then and I can help you with that and and um usually you know I could be hanging out in the wings but this one I don't know if I can. So no. Um and um but I'll go over I'm not worried about that.

She'll be fine. We'll get it all. get it all cleaned up before and uh we just figure out what we're going to do with the uh DV. I'll make a motion to close the meeting. Second. All in favor to close, please raise your hand. It's 5 Z to close. All right. Thank you guys.