Planning Board - Regular Meeting

11 recording in progress 2026 uh at 700 p.m. This meeting is audio and video recorded as well as on Zoom and the Zoom call-in number is 3126266799 with a meeting number of 84552444313. Excuse me. Um, first item, no business. We'll take care of some g general business first. If I could go to Amy for an 81 P and ANR for Panther Way. You could give us a brief update on that.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, this is an 81 81P ANR for Panther Way. Um, there's an exist there's an existing lot that's already been built and then there's um a group plan um for an additional senior village overlay. There's currently three lots. They are going to break off. They're looking to break off the existing lot and then combine a smaller lot with the larger lot where the over um the senior overlay district's going to go. Okay, good. Thank you. And this was clean up the lot lines for the senior, right? Yes, that's correct. Um I'll go to Chris. Any comments, questions?

No. Okay. Anybody uh audience any comments, questions? No. Okay. So, I'll make a motion to approve the 81P and Panther Way. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? I I uh I'd like to make a note uh Eric's Eric's uh won't be uh in tonight. We need not remotely either. Won't be at the meeting.

Uh second item of business of general business. This would be for an endorsement for Panther Way. This is the senior village. Uh if I could go to Amy, please for department of planning. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, this is to endorse the plans for Panther Way. They were approved back on September 22nd, 2025. It was a special permit has not been appealed and they have included the certificate of vote on the plans. Okay. Anybody have any comments or questions? No. I'll make a motion to um I just had a question. On the first page of the plans, it says 48 units. But if you go to page six, there's 44. So what did how many units are there?

It dropped down to 44. I'm sorry. It dropped down to 44. 24. Okay. Okay. Good. Yep. So I'll make a motion to approve uh or endorse Panther Way Senior Village. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? I. Next item of business. This would be for meeting minutes for April 6th. Uh, do I have any deletions or additions? If not, make a motion to approve April 6th meeting minutes. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? I.

Also, for meeting minutes, this would be for April 27th. Do I hear any additions or deletions? If not, make a motion to approve meeting minutes from April 27th. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I

Okay, next item of business. This would be a reopening for Sunken Meadows uh Cranberry Meadows definitive subdivision uh subdivision plans. Um make a motion to wave the reading. Do a second. Second. All in favor? I Okay. What I'll do is uh Amy, if I could go to you first, please for a brief overview.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this was a modification that was approved back on August 25th, 2025. It was appealed at the land court. The land court has remanded it back to the planning board. Um, I've included the documents um from the statement of the land court um on sending it back to the planning board. They have requested four waiverss as well and I'll note that the applicants are here in the audience too. Okay. Thank you. Before I go to anyone else, I'll go to the applicant first. Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I just want to clarify that it was sent back to receive public input on the rehearing.

Correct. Thank you. the applicants just uh approach and just give you the name for the record, please. Uh good evening everyone. Uh my name is Neil Bingham. I'm council for the applicant Brendan Properties Burton Woods LLC. With me here today to my right is Brendan Gim Giblin. He's representing the ownership uh group and to my left is uh our uh engine a member of our engineering team Michael Hasset will will uh present to you the details of the plan. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So, uh as as you've already heard, uh we've been here before. Uh the last time we were here was in August of of 2025 and we're before you again with exactly the same application and exactly the same plan after remand. I think it's important to understand what it is that that the the remand that we're under uh dealt with and what it and what it didn't. Uh what it what it said very specifically is that uh this needed to be returned uh to the planning board for purposes of remanding for another hearing in order to give the the community an opportunity to comment if they desire. What it did not do, however, was to say anything about the substance of the actual certificate of vote that this court issued on August 27th of of 2025. It did not say that there was anything wrong with it. It did not say that the applicant did not meet all of the criteria under your uh bylaws for the approval of a subdivision modification. And it also didn't say anything negative with respect to your decision to to allow each and every one of the waiverss. Uh we were we we were uh representing the applicant during during the land court appeal. Uh and during uh during that period of time, we were uh we we were defending the decision that that this board uh made and the reasons that we did that we still continue to believe wholeheartedly and uh but we're here on a remand so there's not there really isn't much that we can do about that. It this brings us back to what you know what what are the chalk lines? what

are the guidelines that this board has to operate under uh as we proceed in uh on this application today. And it really brings me uh to the letter dated May 6, 2026 that's in your package from uh planning and community development which really sets forth uh which which which cuts and paste words from the the remand decision regarding what it is that it's is expected of the of the planning board today. I don't want to reread that for you. You have it here. But what I will say is those words are not new to us. when they arrived in the decision on remand, we had read them before and the reason that we had is because they come directly from the decision on a prior appeal of the Bellingham 40B project. So that is the standard that the court had in mind after years of of appealing the Bellingham project. And and that's that is what we're dealing with here today. And I think that it's very helpful to to look to that le look to that letter uh from planning to understand what it is that that we can do and we can't do. But one of the things we can't do is to lose sight of the fact that the approval in Bellingham was a 40B. So to the extent that it's that that this board were to do anything other than to approve it, there would have to be very significant and almost impossible findings in my view regarding health, safety and and the other matters uh detailed by by the judge in that decision. So what we what we when we put together the project from the get-go before we came here, those were the words that we were looking at. We believe we have a project that is that is safe and is going to be very very good for the community for for this community and for the Bellingham

community. So with that I turn things over to Mike Hasset um from GH for the record Michael Hasset carrier. Um so as he said the the project before you today um is a subdivision modification. Um and the the the gist of the work is there is an existing culde-sac at the end of something right away. Um you know per that court decision and back and forth there we are required to eliminate that culdeac and replace it with a straight road through the to the new site. Um, and so that's what this plan for you depicts. So showing this colored plan, you can see this this red hatching here. This is the the original layout of the the pavement of the culdeac. Um, and then this gray road is the proposed new road um that that ties directly into the site driveway for the uh the 40 project in Bellingham. Um so what we're proposing to do is essentially at the start of the culdeac um we're going to sock cut the road there. That's and that's also where a taper will begin. So you'll start at 28 ft wide and then as you get approach uh the Bellingham Town line, it'll taper down to match the driveway with in Bellingham at 22 ft wide. Um any pavement in the culde-sac that's removed will be replaced with lo and seed and grass and graded appropriately. Um driveways from the two butters that um front on the existing culverack will be extended to match the new road. Um any basketball hoops, mailboxes, light posts that are um in the work area will be relocated in coordination with the

property owners. Um and I I think that's that that's the general gist of it. Um there's it's it's not much too more than that really in terms of the scope of the project. um grades will all stay relatively the same. Um it's a net reduction in impervious. So there's going to be a net reduction in storm water. Um and so there's no storm water improvements proposed because it's going to maintain existing drainage patterns. Um slope granite curving on both sides matching the rest of the development. um typical you know pavement cross-section for Terr Franklin 4 in cross-section um and then you know there's the list of waiverss that you can get into um if you if you'd like um but the limit of work is really the um the temporary turnaround that that's going to be you know the limit of where we're working. Um there there's really not a whole much to it. Um but I'm happy to answer any questions about the project if the board has good. Thank you. Um

go ahead. For the record, I would suggest you uh enumerate the waiverss. Sure.

Okay. So the first waiver is from section um 310 um streets C the width requirements to allow a var with pavement within a private way where one consistent width is required and that is to allow the smooth transition from the existing width of something that a road to the private driveway width that we're that we're that we're matching. We don't want an abrupt transition in pavement width. And so, um, a taper of, you know, it's approximately 100 ft in length, um, is is what we're proposing to allow that smooth transition. Um, the section waiver is from section 300-11 storm water to allow for no storm water report to be generated where the subdivision regulation for fire one. And again that's because you know simple simple understanding of storm water will tell you that a reduction in impervious and replacing with with a grass in loan area is going to reduce storm water and as long as the general drainage patterns are maintained no adverse storm water impacts are anticipated and a full storm water report um documented that is not required. Um, waiver three, section 300-13, other improvements, sidewalks and shade trees. Um, to allow for no shade trees to be planted. Jade trees already exist in the existing subdivision and to allow for no sidewalk to be constructed. There are no sidewalks in the existing subdivision. So um the nearest intersection with John Edward Circle and Sunar Road from here upward there's no existing sidewalk and so um any sidewalk that we were to construct within this culdeac reconstruction area would be called this a sidewalk to nowhere and would just terminate um and so we're proposing no sidewalks

consistent with the current street configuration in sunken meadow at this location. Um and then section 3 on indestral utilities C2 street lighting to allow for no street lights to be added where subdivision regulations require them. Um there are existing lighting at the end of each owner's drive. So rather than a a you know a typical large pole street light configuration. This neighborhood when it was constructed opted for individual light poles at the end of each driveway. These are more decorative in nature and they're smaller. Um we're looking to cons, you know, keep that character of the neighborhood and just relocate any of those small light bulbs as needed. Um to to keep them near the new street um and and you know, not just add one giant light bulb where the rest of neighborhood doesn't have anything like that.

Okay, good. Thank you. Um before I go to uh the audience, I'm going to I'm going to go to Mark, but I also want to just make a note that we received letters from uh Department of Planning, Fire Department, Border Health, and DPW. Um all actually having no issues with the proposal uh that's in front of us. Uh that's all of recy as well. So if I could go to Mark uh Mark if you could give us a overview of where we are. I want to reference uh what's already in the record, which is a memorandum I did to you before your hearing last August. Memorandum dated August 22nd 22nd, 2025. It's uh basically a page and a half. Uh I summarized the procedural history and the uh decisions a result of a trial court decision from the land court judge and uh as well affirmed by the Massachusetts appeals court and uh and then based upon that uh gave my opinion which is on the second page. Uh, as I said, this is in the record, but for the record, I'll just read in based upon the land court judge's focus on the limited roadway area involved in the proposed modification is stated limited criteria for planning board review, i.e. safe extension into Bellingham of the existing roadway and his admonition to the planning board that it recognized Burtonwood's legally protected status as a chapter 40B affordable housing project. It is my opinion that the Franklin planning board is limited to reviewing any proposed

reconfiguration of the section of Hidden Meadow Road, which currently exists as a quote temporary turnaround end quote, as well as proposed roadway extension to the Bellingham Town line and approving the same with only such limited and reasonable conditions as the planning board deems necessary to protect public safety. And I note in passing that I was party to a case management conference as well as cross motion a hearing before the judge on cross motions for summary judgement. And uh the judge indicated he had no uh that I had accurately summarized uh his opinion as affirmed by the appeals court. Uh so uh the focus is the transition. Now that being said, in my opinion, it it would be uh a uh very challenging to deny the requested modification. You have more flex flexibility when it comes to the waiverss going both ways. both the grant waiverss if there's if you find that there's a a basis uh uh not incon uh in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent purpose of the subdivision control law. You can grant any or all or you could deny any or all. Uh I think the most substantial one to be perfectly honest is the pavement reduction. Uh I note in passing that this is referred to we've been referring to it as a as a culdeac. That's that's recent policy turnaround is more accurate because back in the 80s when this subdivision was

originally laid out, that's what the intent of these was. These were these were uh placed with just easement rights on either side of a main straightaway and then they would drop out when the road was extended as opposed to today where everybody views culde-sacs. Not only do they view them as permanent, but they're actually engineered that way with the whole circle uh description becoming what the uh municipality accepts as a roadway. So there's that distinction. I'm happy to answer any other questions both now and as we proceed.

Okay, good. Um before I go to the board, uh I'll go to the uh audience. Is anybody in the audience have any questions or comments or if you have representation? Just Paul Griffith 11 Sunk Met Road.

Yep. And I'm just going to do um just for everybody has fair time. do three minutes uh for each for each uh person. If somebody um agrees with the previous person that's speaking, just just acknowledge it so we don't have to hear the same comment over and over again. That's all. But um go ahead, please. Uh so I just want to start off by saying in an effort to support fairness, I wanted to formally notify the board and public that uh Chris Dickney, Eric uh Stetler, and William Lee are all members of a social organization I'm a part of and regularly participate in. Um, I did call the ethics attorney. Um, and they said that one of the main things with the ethics rules is a matter of appearance of bias or any ethical questions there and that voting on something that a fellow club member has any kind of financial interest in uh, is generally prohibited. Uh, so I just wanted to toss it out there. I think this is one of those where it's going to be very important that everyone is, you know, that we're trying to hold something fair here. Um, so I just wanted to give them an opportunity to recuse themselves from this discussion if they felt so uh that that was appropriate.

Okay. You have no financial I do. It's we're in the same club. I have the financial interests. I don't think it works out. Well, first it's a very sophisticated issue. If if you felt you were uh had a potential conflict, you had the opportunity to call the ethics commission and get a opinion directly from them. Uh I don't know the specifics. I'm not in a position to give you an opinion. Uh he doesn't have financial interest.

What? Okay. Um Chris Pson doesn't No, I it's it would depend on their relationship between the two of them and uh Okay. All right. So that's why again toss it. Well, that was the open. Okay. Um so I do want to understand what are the specific changes that are being requested for the approved amend uh the approved certificate of vote that you're looking to amend tonight? Well, there was wave that was just named off. Okay. But that that was on the original certificate of vote, correct? So, you're not looking to amend anything except for just allowing public hearing. Correct. Everything that we see tonight is what we saw previously. Correct. They're going to take a new vote tonight,

right? But the vote is going to be on amending the previously approved certificate of vote. Just same thing after public hearing. Correct. That's how it was noticed. The certificate of vote is enulled. So, we're here for a new a new meeting and this board will will make a determination and issue a new certificate of vote if that's your procedure or sign a plan if if that's your procedure. So, this is an entirely new process. Shouldn't we have basically the information provided previously is no longer a part of this unless it's re-entered. Um, this is supposed to be a totally denovo process. And if this is something that is brand new, the notice that went out said this is just a amendment to a certificate of vote. It did not say that this is going to be a modification. This is just Amy. No,

no, it's just a re This is just a reopening for public comment. That's all. Okay. So, solely for public comment reopening for public comment continuation. I I apologize. Yeah. No, all boards went through and they vetted everything. That is fire department, police, the police department. There's all new information already been put into the record. Correct. Even though we may duplicate earlier. Okay. Um, so were there any actual studies done to support the conclusions by those individuals? So like traffic, were there a sight distance study or anything like that? Already been vetted through uh was there a study done? MikeW.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, as far as the pavement, the waiver regarding the pavement width, we just looked at the transition itself. We didn't look at the site distance. We didn't look at a traffic study at all. We're just looking at the wave request for the uh transition of the width from 28 ft down to 22 ft. Okay. So just for that short window, no no addressing traffic, any kind of concerns associated with removing a or with the sidewalk being there, forcing children to walk in a busier road, anything like that you didn't look at. So we

I I can represent to the board that the judge made it very clear that issues of traffic, sight distance, whatever, had been fully litigated before him. He made his determinations and those were not something that that were back before the board tonight and that's per the judge.

Any more?

I'm I'm really trying to understand how commentary on a different plan and a different project in another town is being used here when the board's job is to look at data in front of them. understanding traffic safety. I actually sent you the site distance plan that was actually generated by Bellingham for this project showing that the end of Sunken Me Road, the only access into this entire project is not sufficient. Basically, you can't see for even 90 ft to the left, 115 ft to the right, which allows for about 20 m hour going down Pine Street. The supposed speed limit on Pine Street's 30. Um, and their recommendations were pretty clear, all associated with trying to make sure that that intersection was actually safe. So, I'm trying to understand we're the job of the board isn't to sit there and listen to a judge's opinion on a different project. The board is supposed to look at the data in front of them, the information in front of them, and make their own choices. I'm trying to highlight that I don't think that you have any information in front of you, aside from what I've sent to you, which includes, you talk about, you know, there's a lot of conversation around the lights at night. Great. Everyone has private lights. Almost the entire neighborhood doesn't use them. I sent you all pictures exactly how dark it is walking down that road. You're about to add 322 trips a day to that road without any kind of evidence to the contrary.

Okay. So, but you just got to take into consideration what the board is looking at is basically that 120 ft is what we're if I'm not mistaken. That's what we're looking at. Not looking at Bellingham. We're not looking at the other side of Franklin. It's that one section that connects point A to point B. That's what but taking that myopic of a view is like totally ignoring every aspect of what yall are supposed to do. That that's what was presented in front of us and that's what we went by. All right. So you're not basing this off of any data associated with safety simply 35 ft road the first time which is the same information that's of record now.

Okay. Um then I guess just one final question. If there's a gigantic like a 40 foot tall pine split hanging from this development onto like my property, would that something that you guys deal with, the attorney, Mike, anyone, or is that just It depends on whose property it is. So, it's their property. It's a big 40ft pine that split in the last storm and it's hanging over top of my property. Um, so is that something you guys would deal with or that's that's separate? That'll be separate, but I'm sure if you contact the developer, I'm sure I guess he's everyone we have a recording now that he knows about it. appreciate it. Thank you. Can I Sure. You want to chime in?

I just I just want to make note for the court of certain materials that are in the record. The original narrative that we filed had a number of attachments to the narrative, including the land court decision on the appeal of the 40B. Um, and that's that is exhibit uh that's going to be exhibit B to to my narrative. If you review that narrative, what you're going to find is that the court uh considered in great detail all the issues that we that were just talked about here, including traffic, sight distances, lawn, and the basketball, and then the elimination of the of the turnaround, and made determinations at that. At the end of the day, by just reviewing the last page of the decision, you will see that the the that the appeal uh was rejected and that that that 40B is now approved. It is not up for reconsideration by this board or any other board anywhere. It it is what it is. So if if you wanted to look at those, you would find that there is uh reference by the by the court to uh a traffic engineer named Kenneth Cra who was hired for purposes of that particular appeal. In addition to that to to the traffic study, sight distance studies that that gentleman did, there were also a number of traffic studies done during the 40B. Naturally, it had to be done. There were sight distances done and they were just referred to by the individual who who just commented. So there was a great there is there's a great deal of information before you and more than sufficient for you to make some determination about whether or not any additional traffic needs to be done. But let's not lose sight of the fact of what we're talking about. We are talking about an an extension to the town line. That's what your job here is. And there it might just be time for common sense which is we're extending this thing by 35 ft. There is absolutely no change in

the town of Franklin to what's to what's going on on Sunken Meadow Road by the by the allowance of this. Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. Yep. Just approach the mic. Name and address, please.

Hi, good evening. I'm Caroline Griffith. I'm live in Sunken Meadow Road. I want to start by saying that I am speaking tonight solely as a Franklin resident and a butter to this project and not um in a capacity as a member of town council. Um, I do want to clarify that the lawsuit that was just referenced that um was rejected was because there was no we did not have standing um because the project was not brought to the Franklin Planning Board and so we were told that we didn't have standing there. That's why that lawsuit was rejected. Um when I when my family first moved to Franklin, one of the first things that I heard was that this town has an agenda and will steamroll anyone and anything to accomplish it. Forget about doing things the right way. If there's ever been a perfect example of that criticism, this project is it. For seven years, I've have repeatedly had to fight to get the town to follow its own obligations regarding this proposal. First, I asked this board to intervene when Bellingham approved a project that directly affects the safety of my neighborhood and clearly requires a subdivision modification from Franklin. You refused to act even though both Bellingham and a judge acknowledged that Franklin's approval was required. Then when the project finally did come before you, this board and the town attorney willfully misrepresented the court order requiring a full public hearing. Instead, you repeated the nar the developer narrative that you had no choice but to rubber stamp the project without even debating the incomplete list of waiverss that was provided that this project would require. Um, now unsurprisingly, you are again ignoring the court's instructions that your previous vote had been anulled completely and that a proper public hearing is required. Instead, residents were noticed for an amendment for a certificate of vote, even though that vote no longer exists and cannot legally be amended. And now, in what may be the most egregious abdication of responsibility yet, the planning board is allowing the developer to frame this proposal as merely 35 ft of pavement, as

if it is not already known to be the sole access point to a proposed 28 home development in Bellingham. That access would extend my dead end street far beyond the safe limits established in Franklin's bylaws. Massachusetts case law is explicit. you are obligated to consider the practical consequences of the entire connected project, not pretend that these 35 ft exist in a vacuum. I've already submitted um a list of Massachusetts case law to support that. I have it with me and I'll provide that again tonight. The practical consequences of this um development are undeniable. A dead-end street in Franklin that is currently 900 ft long and serves 12 homes would become 1500 plus feet long and serve 40 homes. Our bylaws prohibit denon streets longer than 600 feet or serving more than 12 homes because anything more is unsafe. Sunken Meadow already exceeds this length, but it was never intended to be stretched to this extreme. This project seeks waivers for required street width and required sidewalks standards designed to ensure safe travel. The real real world result of granting those waivers is that my children would be forced to walk in a two narrow road with no sidewalks to reach their bus stop alongside an additional 322 car trips per day. The developer has not conducted a traffic study and this board has not required one. Bellingham's peer review already found that stopping site distance and decision site distance at Sunken Meadow and Pine Street are insufficient for the increased traffic that this development will generate. that intersection will become significantly more dangerous for anyone on my road or traveling on Pine Street. This danger is compounded by the developer request to wave required street lights on a road that is already too dark to navigate safely. Beyond these safety issues, the practical consequences include increased burdens on Franklin's infrastructure and services. Because this is the only entrance to the development, Franklin's first responders will be required in emergencies. Our DPW will be responsible for maintaining Sunken Meadow Road, including the additional 35 ft of pavement and the wear and tear from 322

more daily drips. Franklin will bear the long-term cost of roadway deterioration, snow removal, and public safety response for development that is not even in our town. I respectfully urge the board to do what the law requires. Consider the full imp impacts of the connected ent the entire connected development, not just the artificially narrow 35 ft of pavement framing offered by the developer. Before this project proceeds any further, require a full evaluation of the traffic safety and emergency access impacts on Franklin. And once you have that information and can clearly see that this project provides zero benefit to Franklin while imposing significant burdens and heightened risks, refuse to wave the subdivision regulations that exist to protect public safety. Thank you for your time and your service. Um, and I'm going to bring up the documents. I have the actual PL um, the site plan for the full development in Bellingham since you don't have the correct one up here with us, but that's okay. We can

Oh, sorry. I'm just I'm just going to list off what I have for you. Um, I have the list of case law that explains why you have to consider the entire project and all of the consequences. I have the um uh the um conversation about there's 322 daily car trips added by this project. I have a letter from a previous Franklin fire chief saying that this is unsafe and that is why we do not allow um deadend streets this long. And then I also have the um um sorry. Okay. I just want to make sure it's all read into the record. Mark, did you want to comment

what on some of the about the judge's ruling? What was if she was if if you have questions, I I would note that the uh Griffiths were represented by legal counsel. Uh cross motions for summary judgement were heard by the judge for over an hour. uh neither one of them was present to hear what the judge actually said. Um and uh I resent uh any extent that I would misrepresent to the board. My interest is solely the best interests of the Frank town of Franklin, the Franklin planning board. Okay. Thank you.

Name and address please. Um Jane Callaway trip 607 Maple Street. I am also here please.

I will do my best. If I have time myself, I am here on a residential capacity, not an official council capacity. I want that clear. Under the MGL chapter 41, section 81R, this board may wave this subdivision regulations only if the waiver is in the public interest and not cons inconsistent with the intent of the subdivision control law. Those are mandatory legal thresholds. public interest and here means Franklin's public interest. The municipality where regulations are being waved. Not Bellingham, not the developers, Franklin's. When we apply the standard, the waiver fails. First, Franklin's former chief of police issued a formal written warning that long deadend roads with no secondary access create significant impediments to public safety. He warned that residents could be trapped during storms. Routine deliveries could block the only entrance and exit and the fire suppression would be a substantial challenge. That goes directly to the core purpose of subdivision control law safe and adequate emergency access. Second, the professional site distance peer review found that the Pine Street Sunken Meadow and Stanwood intersection, the only access point for this project, already operates below safe standards. Intersection site distance is likely to be difficult. Actual speeds are 33 to 38 mph and available sight distance only supports 19 to 24 miles hour. The reviewer recommended a stop sign, speed posting, tree pruning, and a 48hour traffic study, all in the Franklin side of the line. But who's going to pay for that? In plain terms, the intersection is already unsafe. All project traffic must pass through it. Franklin, not

Bellingham, would bear the cost, maintenance, and liability. Finally, this waiver does not serve Franklin's subdivision. It does not improve Franklin's infrastructure and it does not solve a Franklin problem. It benefits the development in another town. The town that chose not to access the project from its own road networks under chapter 41 section 81R waiver cannot be granted simply because the board has the authority to grant it. It can only be granted when it clearly serves Franklin's public interest. Based on fire chief safety concerns and traffic analysis and the absence of any benefit to Franklin, the finding cannot be made. Franklin should not carry the burden for a development another town chose to build, especially when that town is not choosing to carry the burden itself. and to the comment that the only thing that we're here supposed to be voting on is the 35 and not anything in the project. To assume that doing that 35 ft road increase and the project that it's going to isn't affecting us would be ludicrous because it's still a deadend road and the only way in and out is that one entrance. So, you really should listen to the residents here, follow the laws, and vote no.

Anybody else? Just name and address, please.

Yep. Hi, I'm Jackie Spinelli. I live at 8 Sunken Meadow Road. Um, and I also would like to, but in a different way with different points, respond to the repeated claims that we're voting on 35 feet of roadway and that that is the only impact. Um, the impact is not just 35 ft of pavement. The impact, as my neighbors have said, is increased traffic, but more than that, Sunken Meadow and John Edwards are currently home to 15 children under 10 years old. Most of those children, I think 10 of them are under five. Those children have grown up. most of them their entire lives, especially the five and under, with this being a two dead end street. And I understand that in the 80s, it was written as a temporary easement. My 5-year-old doesn't know what that means. My 5-year-old knows that right now when she wants to run to the Griffith house, she can run across and there will be no cars that are coming down that road other than the infrequent Amazon driver because we're all at work or we work from home. The three-year-old who comes into my house without ringing the doorbell because he is so comfortable and friendly has no idea that he needs to expect road trips from 28 homes that are suddenly going to be a part of his life. And so as a mother and as a Franklin resident to sit here and look at you all in good faith and say that this is 35 ft of roadway when I know each one of these children's birthdays and what to get them to have it say that it doesn't impact their safety at all and that it's not a concern is hurtful. And as human beings I don't understand how you can sit in good faith and say it's 35 ft of roadway. 10 children under five years old, this is where they ride bikes. They've learned how to ride without training wheels. To say suddenly that they could have 60 more cars with one access point coming in and out and

they don't even need a new sidewalk. The reason there's no sidewalk is because it's 12 homes and half of the road does have a sidewalk. The area that doesn't have a sidewalk is in front of two homes and there's no one coming and going. There's no street lights because we're all home at 7 p.m. making dinner for these kids, sending them back to one another's homes. So to say that all of this new development exists in a vacuum and we're only looking at that 35 ft, I'm struggling as a Franklin resident and a Franklin taxpayer to see how that protects my public interest because my public interest and all of my neighbors public interests is our children's safety and us choosing this town because we wanted to be a part of this community. There's no benefit for the Franklin community. There's no tax dollars coming in for us. What is this development doing for us that is a benefit? I think that that's rude to say that it's a benefit to us. Cuz to me, I'm going to be up every looking out my window outside not able to work because I'm going to be terrified that one of these kids is going to get hit by a car coming in that they didn't know was going to be there. 15 kids. I think it's irresponsible to say that we're only looking at 35 ft of pavement and nothing else is impactful. So I would just put that to you as assuming parents, grandparents, human beings, uncles, it's something to consider.

Thank you.

My name is Susan Flity, 10 Sunken Meadow Road. Uh I've been there since 1993 and was very well aware of the temporary turnaround. Uh we were at the meeting last August and were uh extremely disappointed that the board chose to ignore the public comments. So I think that bought you a few months more of work for everybody. Um it is a tremendous safety issue. I think Attorney Serell just used the words that your opportunity here is to protect public safety. Um, I'd like you to keep that in mind. Uh, I don't see the the point of this board supporting everything that's already been done in Bellingham. I understand it's a 40B. I understand this at the state level. uh along with many other neighbors, we have attended many many zoning, planning, conservation meetings in Bellingham as well as Land Court and we have seen virtually nothing from this planning board. No support for Franklin, no support for the infrastructure. Um we'd like to see a little more of that. I have several questions regarding the project. I'm not sure where you're going to go from here, but I want these addressed. Uh first one is to talk about the circle being removed. That's in my front yard. When is that being done and at the beginning of the project at the end of the project? As you know, sometimes financing becomes an issue. Projects are completed. They're not always. Uh does the town require a bond to make sure that the Franklin portion of this is completed? If not, I would like to have you do that if that's possible. Um the other issue is uh the town engineer was recently at a wonderfully done uh DPW meeting on Karin Road talking about the major waterline

project that's going on on Pine Street starting any minute now. And I would like to make sure that this is deferred until that waterline project is completed if you end up approving it. Uh I agree that it should not be approved. There's a safety issue. There's a tremendous amount of traffic and I'd like the board to try to support the Franklin families that are here as well as the rest of the people of the town. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody in Zoom there? Um going to the waiverss I guess well let's go back one step if this should move forward would the color sack be taken out at the very beginning or halfway through and towards the end what would you what would your thoughts be I mean you're going to have to do a sit down with DBW and everything anyways but just to maybe answer a couple of questions.

You know, I think weather dependent, we would plan for that to be, you know, done more on the beginning phase of the construction. Um, we did speak and there was suggested bond amounts um previously. You know, we've been in kind of a holding pattern for a little bit. So, we would revisit what those values are and actually create a complete schedule with the logistics. But, we would think that that would be one of the first things to be done, assuming it was at the right time of year.

Okay. Just a point of clarification, we as a neighborhood also have over 500 town signatures and petitions with addresses and additional comments that we will be submitting after the record that you know we would like voiced as town and community concern for the project as well. It extends beyond Sunken Meadow and John Edwards. Thank you. I'm sorry. Clarification. We there's someone on Zoom who says he cannot raise his hand but would like to speak. Um, I don't know if you have that disabled, but um, there is someone who's trying to see anybody. Um, I don't I don't see anyone, but there's someone. Okay, wait a minute.

Um, I just saw a hand raised, but I don't see it now. Um, they can raise their hand and then they can then we give them permission to speak just I think Robert is he sorry, I'm trying to look at the list. Katie, but in the meantime, I'll go I'll go to Mike with DPW. Mike, um, obviously there'll be a bond established for the section that's in 91, obviously. Correct. Construction schedule. Last um, so yeah, the road construction. We actually have Hold on one minute, please.

We actually have a pre-construction meeting on Wednesday. Contractor is going to come to town. We're going to start looking at some of the dewatering activities. Expecting it to start up in the next couple of weeks. Um, saddled up with the work and it should go through I'm thinking July. the targets they have it done by by the end of August before school starts back up. We should be done and out of there for the sheriff. Um you're there. Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yep. Just uh name for the record, please. And address

uh Robert Gulart, 9 Sunken Metal Road. Uh my property is directly right next to the Griffiths. Um, for context, I have also along with Sue have been a resident since 1993. I had the uh I was able to grow up in that neighborhood and purchase it from my family. Um, I do know all the history on this project from its inception. I would say I agree with everything that everybody else has said. I also have two young children and would find it very atrocious that the town would not take safety into consideration on this. So, I would 100% look at the data before making any decision. I think that a vote tonight would uh greatly impact the town and I think you really need to double think what you guys are doing over there. um you're dra this is drastically impacting our neighborhood and streets abutdded to it. So I would say really look at the data.

Okay, good. Thank you. Okay. Um, let me ask let me ask the U developer. Um, would you be okay if all you would be amenative to putting a sidewalk in if they were looking for it in in street light if it would help the cause especially if they got little kids in there. I think you know

short answer being yes. The challenge with the sidewalks are sidewalks, you know, there's there's nowhere to put them. We don't own that property. Had previously suggested that we would do sidewalks. It was previously contested to have street lighting. All part of I think the the litigation on the site, which was why there were not the street lights, but either or. Um, we had, you know, informally suggested that we would be willing to do the sidewalks. you just can't control, you know, particularly, you know, Griffith's front edge. Um, had suggested that we could do that. That would be probably an easy one. The butter is we don't control that front edge or in order to do it.

We would certainly would certainly consider that. Okay. And it was marked if I wasn't mistaken. It was something lighting. It was something about somebody wanted lighting or didn't want lighting. discuss the lighting because the lighting was not wanted was all within the res in all the litigation. So then when the lighting was a concern

through this previous summary judgement he had questioned the fact that the lighting was wanted. Now we could certainly see to do something tasteful there. You know the rest of the neighborhood I think is all more private lighting. Um, so we felt as though the plan as strong was consistent, but if there was no overwhelming need for a street light or something, certainly tasteful, we would consider doing that. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, you can require conditions outside of this area. You can make that sidewalk all the way down. You can put street lights further down the road to make sure the whole thing is That's not part of the project.

It's not It's not unfortunately. It's not part of the project. So J, I think that the discussion about safety is is fair. I think that says neighborhood is uniquely lit. Um I'm personally not a fan of the style of lighting. Um you know, I'm a I'm a cobrahead guy myself. I I work in a different environment than a neighborhood like this. Uh there's no cobra heads throughout this entire neighborhood, right? Is that right, Mike? Um

you know what? So yeah, there I um I understand the concern with lighting. If we were to put cobraheads up here, I want everyone to understand how much it's going to change the character of the neighborhood. Um for the record, what's a cobra head? A light like the actual light that looks like a cobra head. Okay. Ben's on. on a light on at the end of a

Yeah. Like what we would consider a regular street like that. Something projects light down onto the to the roadway and not so much, you know, a directional light, right? The cobra head shoots light downward on the roadway. These are kind of more omniirectional, shooting light all over the place. Um there's different light bulbs in them. They have different wattages and all this other stuff. If this if cobraheads were to be installed in your neighborhood, it would have a vastly different feel. Right. So, but just to I we had considered the option just within that extension. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I just just I'll get there. So, I would I think that there's um you know, in that particular extension, you would provide some benefit. Um but to give you an idea of how much light that would provide by putting a single cobra head there is that would project enough light to light up John Edward's circle. Um the cobraheads are given about a 100 foot radius. Um so that's about how much light to just to show you um how much it would light up that neighborhood. So just so everyone's aware that it's going to um it will make it safer, but it's also going to make it a substantial amount brighter because it the two go hand in hand. So that being said, I would if that's the neighborhood's opinion support the installation of a cobra head in so much it doesn't you know

affect anyone's house traffic study. No offense not to interrupt the light. No, there was it was it was about lighting or something. Yeah. So, I mean that would be my my take on the lighting. I don't you know putting it through the entire neighborhood. I think it's a different discussion. Okay. I just have a quick question. I'm not a surveyor and I'm not an attorney, but with this development being privately owned and and I may I may be incorrect in my understanding, but it's not a ordinary privately owned road, but I believe each parcel owns to the center of the road. So, it's a private road,

right? It's a private road. And so, what you have is a series of parcels that own to the center of each road. So, as you move away from the the area that the court has ordered this this removal of this temporary turnaround, um I I wonder what type of legal um cover we would need to install sidewalks and lighting on this private property. I don't think we're looking for that, Mike. Oh, I'm just thinking just in general the adding of sidewalks in No, I'm looking to utilize the the public right away. It's not a public right away. It's a that the turnaround is not a rightway. It's not accepted. Not accepted.

None of that that subdivision has never been accepted. And and I think they own the center of the pavement is my is my layman's understanding of the of the property ownership situation. Basically, add in sidewalk is only going to be in front of one property basically if you think about it, right? I think there's only two that would require it. If we were granted, you know, without question the legal ability to do it, I would certainly consider to do it. Correct. Good. We would use right away for the rest of the sidewalk. Is that the idea? Because that that's not accepted. None of sunken meadow is accepted. Correct. So, it's a whole different story. Okay. Mr. Mr. Chairman.

Sure. Bruce Wilson. I'm a professional. Lance approach the mic. Rose is a my project. I am familiar with private roads. Um with it being a private road, you do own to the center of the road. Each side owns to the center of the road perpendicular to the lot corner. Um if sidewalks or light poles were put in, it would require an easement um in order to do that. Hopefully they robbing. That's correct.

Correct. Yep. And just to fully express my concern, if if the commission if the board were to issue a a um requirement that we provide a sidewalk or street lighting throughout Sunken Meadow or a portion of Sunken Meadow, we would need to require separate ements from each parcel, which I think could find us into a a potentially difficult position where, you know, they they say they want the sidewalks, but then when it comes time to grant the easement. Maybe that becomes hung up on negotiations and and on on certain things or well, we want the sidewalk, but don't touch my mailbox and don't move. You know, I have

I think it could become complicated quickly as my and I have a funny feeling the reason why the sidewalk stopped where it did is because as Mark alluded, um they're considered temporary turnarounds. they were considered access to an adjoining parcel and that's if I'm not mistaken Mark that's that's how these were developed. Um there's many of them in town. Um it's just it's just way they were built and and that was the access to other adjoining parcels whether it's in Franklin or in adjoining town. So that's that. So I'll go to Mark. Any comments or questions? Oh I'm sorry. No, we're up right now.

I I'll see I'll I'll say what you think I have on. Go ahead, Mark. Um, yes, Mr. Chairman. I guess a question for the applicant. It would be what kind of I guess traffic calming so to speak coming out of the development onto that part of sunken meadow belling in Franklin line any kind of stop sign any kind of thing that's going to stop or slow down

I think to to consider the way in which we're looking at the community I mean we're certainly mindful the kids that are on sunken meadow We expect to have young kids and families within our neighborhood. You know, the association strictly pleases itself on speed and pace and it is a small residential area entering into a small residential area. So speed as far as speed mitigation hasn't been something that's come up, hasn't necessarily been considered. There's not currently a stop sign. Would it be consider could you, you know, consider something? would be happy to work with maybe some kind of assignment that town engineer would speed on.

Could consider it. It just has not yet been considered or part of the the current plan. Um that Mark, don't forget that road's going to be a little bit narrower than what's there. Yeah. Narrow down. It's going to have them slow down as they approach anyways. Well, only from personal experience. I familiar with narrow roads and people don't always adhere to.

We we would certainly be open to a condition for whether it was a stop sign or a speed um you know whatever that that may be or the appropriate. I know I in in addition I would support if if we're be able to be done you know through logistics I would support you know a sidewalk on at least on that side but that's obviously not within my expertise but I would support something like that. Okay. Now mind you the temporary turnaround comes out so they gain that much more land on their property as well. So okay give and take I guess.

Yeah. Um, anything bad? You good? No, I I I'll wait till everyone else. Well, comments, questions? No, I got nothing to add. Okay, Chris. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, I agree with uh Mark's points about the speed the calming mitigation coming out of Pine. Um, my preference would be for a speed hump. I think it does more to enforce that calming as opposed to a stop sign, which can be missed or ignored. The speed hump, you're going to know it's there. Um, and I think as it relates to the sidewalk, obviously we have the the Griffiths here and we have uh Mr. Gulart on Zoom. Is that something that is in the conversation of increasing the safety of the neighborhood to at least work with the developer and the town about creating the easement to put in the sidewalk or whether it be a temporary or permanent easement for the sidewalk? Is that something that

This is uh Mr. Gulard here on Zoom. How are you? Good, sir. How are you? for safety of our children. I'll speak for myself and my family. Any conversations on the table because if any of my kids get hurt because of this, we got a bigger problem. So any conversations on the table?

Yeah. So in my opinion, this is part of the modification. You guys can require sidewalks there as part of modifications. So we can we can speak to the waiverss, Paul. Right. And but what I'm saying is it sounds like Rob would be agreeable. Yep. And that's where the sidewalks are. It's a matter of they have sidewalks all throughout their entire development. Yep. Everyone else in the neighborhood has sidewalks. My kids are being put in the middle of the road. Correct. So having sidewalks from my across our entire property past Rob's or Mr. Gulard's property that gets it to where they have a sidewalk continuously from start to finish. That's what I was trying to understand. That's it. Is there a way to condition this the trick

such that wait just one second such that the sidewalk does not get built unless all parties have agreed. Is there a way to do that? It would be to require uh the property owner to grant an easement to enable it to be built. So that way we would end up with this like half piece of sidewalk being built which seems to be the concern of a lot of people here is just make it so that's not a possibility. I highly suggest that there's a timeline on the easement agreement that the easement agreement does not get held up by either parties that an agreement should be in place within 90 days of like the certificate of vote. If it's not then there is no sidewalk because it shouldn't be something that should go back and forth for a long time on agreeing on an easement.

Correct. I'll reiterate, I'm open to the conversation because my property is the one that will be significantly changed because of a sidewalk. Paul's because of the circles coming in, it's temporary. That's going to continue across mine, but there's stuff on mine that need to be remodified. So, I'm open to the conversation and we'll leave it at that for now. Is all of this This is only talking within the 35 ft. Um, Mr. Gulard is the neighboring butter that's willing to work with the developer if they will extend what my property is the corner of John Edwards and property conditions

so the private the private individual would have to dement to the sidewalk as soon as the easement for that not a bunch of additional things to be done in order to obtain the condition. Gives you the legal right to put the sidewalk in basically is what it comes down to as as well as it's the Yeah. And I would say, you know, fe simple. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um Mike, I saw you raise your hand. I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that right now I believe that the the developer the sidewalk in the development is on the opposite side of the road.

That's right. And then the existing sidewalk on sunken meadow is on the um the same size as Mr. Gulocks and the Griffith side as when it goes from John Edwards to Pine Street. So at some point if you have a sidewalk on that side there will be have to be some kind of a crossing from one to the other going into the development. I just wanted to point that out for clarity. So pain marks could make make that up. Just people realize that the sidewalk's going to be on opposite side of the street throughout the two developments. That's all. Okay. Anything? Uh, anything else, Chris? Um, I I think I would prefer the speed hump over the light just in regards to the character. Obviously, safety is the goal, but um I think the speed hump Yeah.

slows it down um instead of just giving more light um to that. Clarifying question. Sure. Just approach the mic, please.

Um and I apologize. I don't know all the inner workings obviously of of this board but um I guess my question is I hear a lot of conversation about like what would make the developers life easier but like to us the residents like what I I understand the light and the sidewalk yes are two of the waiverss that they're asking for but like me as a mom like what about the traffic study like why doesn't that and maybe I'm wrong who I mean but I'm just like genuinely curious pine is like you're white knuckling it when there's No, you have to literally stop and pull over to make sure that someone's not going to hit you. And now we're talking about reducing that street on our street again on the internal. So like I just it's disheartening that there's no conversation about like what would make us feel better other than a sidewalk and the developer worrying that we're all going to agree to a sidewalk and then pull the rug out from under them with an easement. Like you know we're worried about the malinterest for them but not for us. And so like I I agree with the idea of a speed hump, but I want four because like or you know I'm just I'm thinking like one speed hump and to say it's a small development like it's 28 homes. We're 12. Like that's not comparable. That's you know to say it's one small community flowing into another small community. Nope. you're more than doubling what we have now on like a third of the land and then reducing the road to funnel it all through our neighborhood in a one access point and saying well that like realistically when I hear it they don't want the sidewalk because the road's already too thin so it's going to thin it even more so that's just my point of clarification

uh I guess the only comment that I would have is that 40B is a state level thing that puts the weight of the state's interest against the municipality's interest and for better or worse puts the states way ahead of the municipalities. I think that's been the common plate with 40B since it's been around. Um, and I just wanted to reiterate that with everyone. The 40B pathways for denying project are very very very limited. they do not get denied frequently. Um, and in my opinion, and I have spent a significant amount of time in this, both academically and professionally, there is not an overwhelming safety need to do this. I understand everyone's concerns and the board and we we live in town. We have kids. I wouldn't want

anything to happen to my children either. But, you know, that's why we're trying to look at things like sidewalks and lighting and everything else which are standard features and all these other neighborhoods which have vastly more than 20 homes and those are the things that people rely on to be safe. So, we're we're trying here within the the lines that we have to keep it. Just something new guys. It's Mr. Gouler. Can I just say one more thing and I will put myself on mute. Yeah, go ahead. It's 9 acres over there. Build six McMansions over there and move on and call it a day. That's it. Um, just something new.

Yes, kind of. I get the whole 40B aspect, trust me. Okay. Um, but it's not our 40B. It is Bellingham's. So if Bellingham wants to approve a 40B project or any other project, it's up to Bellingham to find access in and out of that development, not ours. And we're not also looking at I understand you got the department head letters, but what about the fire chief that just recently retire retired who stated that this project is a safety concern for fire for all of that updated letter that says otherwise, but that's okay.

But I mean, it might be updated and I understand that, but you still have to look at that one. and this is not our 40B project and we legally can deny these waiverss and they can figure it out on the Bellingham line how they're going to access this project. It's not about Bellingham or the developers. It's about Franklin and our residents and what's best for us and our lif style. None of this benefits this town or any resident in it. We've had this happen in other parts of town, too, unfortunately. And doesn't make it right.

It it it doesn't make it right. But going to Jay's point, unfortunately, this the state is just driving 40ps into every city and town.

And I would argue we'd be in a better position to fight the 40B. Not that that's what I'm looking for here. I'm just saying as a community, you'd be in a better position to fight if it was actually in your own community rather than being the bordering one and probably even less rights. It's just the way that 40B is. It's a very very very tough law and it's very comprehensive and that's just the nature of what it is. I think we've all seen the same when it comes to what what's the the thing the MBTA law right there's no escaping that and the state is very very specific that if you try to escape it they're going to punish you. So, when it comes to housing, that's the way these things are. So, they withhold grant,

but how can Franklin be punished by legally not granting a 35- ft extension when we're legally allowed not to when it's not our project. It because it comes down from the state level, but that's unfortunately that's what happens to us. So, it's it's happened in town before. Any new comment?

Yeah, I do. Yes. Um it seems like you are sometimes considering this a 35- ft um extension from Suncan Meadow to the Bellingham line when you don't want to consider the ramifications of the larger project. But then when you do want to consider, oh well it's a 40B in Bellingham all of a sudden now we're talking about the whole project. It seems to me that it is not able to be broken up like that. you're either looking at 35 ft, in which case um you're doing it wrong because the law says you have to consider the whole thing, or you're looking at the whole thing and you're recognizing that Franklin does not need to approve a 40B in another town. They cannot be required to approve a 40B in another town. The state might argue it, but the judges do not require that because

handed it down already once. He denied he denied it because because the developers refused to come to Franklin and they said we did not have standing because we could not fight. We told the the Franklin planning board to fight it to say you need our approvals and the planning board refused. That is why the judge um refused or rejected that and said that they have to go to Franklin for approvals. I I mean if if you'd like to see it, I think you have all of the the the um legal decisions, but that was why it was rejected. Not because we are not able to um adequately demand um that safety bylaws are upheld even when a 40B is planned in the next neighborhood or the next.

The 40B has nothing to do with us. Correct. So you do not have to.

So Mark, you were going to comment? I choose not to, but uh you've heard from several lay people at least they haven't identified themselves as attorneys. Uh you don't just read a statute. You need to read the interpreting case law. In the case of the 40B here, in fact, there was a trial, multi-day trial. Uh the planning board was not a party to it. The town was, but there was no relief being asked for from the town. the uh land court judge who was a trial judge heard heard the case a new made his own determination after a multi-day trial that that decision was appealed up to the Massachusetts appeals court which is the intermediate appeals court in Massachusetts between the trial court and the supreme judicial court and the appeals court upheld the land court judge. So our hands have been tied as to what authority other than the fact that the planning board clearly has the authority to determine how the connection was going to be made to provide access. But the the one thing that there's no dispute about is that this is a sole access in and out of this 40B project. There's no other alternative. That's it. Everybody was aware of that. the lawyers, the parties, the judges, and that's resulting and the and the judge if there was any ambiguity in the in his original decision following the first trial, he made it very clear to council uh that uh I had fairly described uh his position.

I apologize. I do have I wanted to clarify something. I said it was we were it was not rejected based on standing. it was rejected because it was not ripe because it had not come to Franklin for approvals. So we did not it was not that we didn't have standing. It was that it was not ripe for appeal. Um so I wanted to clarify that and I do not believe that the judge made any determination based on the actual project just on that it was not ripe for um appeal. Thank you. Thank you. So motion motion close. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Second. Second. All in favor? I I motion on the floor.

Uh what do we how we what's the right way to work? I I would I would like the developer to be able to work with the residents for the street some kind of lighting or sidewalk. you need to approve the modification, the requested modification or not to allow the connection to Bellingham. And then if you do approve it and you want to uh address the waivers individually. Okay. So what do you want to do? Make I make a motion to approve the connection point between Franklin and Bellingham. Cranberry Meadows. Yeah. Cranberry Meadows. Do I hear a second? Second all favor I I

now conditions. All right. So let's look at these waivers here cuz conditions and wavers. So the first waiver is 300-10 street C with requirements. One pavement width to allow variable with pavement within a right of way to align uh private way to align and blend with pavement in a proposed subdivision in Bellingham. Um motion. I'm make a motion to approve. Is this where we need to discuss the installation of speed hump? We can make that an additional one if we want. Okay. So, I guess we'll do waivers and conditions. Do waver to make that a condition. All right. Sounds good. Uh, second then. All in favor? I.

Waiver number two, 300-11 storm water to allow for no storm water report to be completed. Have a motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Waiver three, uh, 300-13, other improvements to allow for no street lighting and shade trees. I guess this is where this bit of discussion needs to occur on. Um, we can take we can take E and then comment on A. No, no, I'm looking at the waivers. Yeah, right. Three. Yes, three. Yeah, there's A, but there's two sections of there's A and E. Is there an A? Yeah. On the plan. Oh, yeah. I was looking at the waivers that was listed on here.

Say again. So, waver three 300,000. So, uh looking at the plan, there are two waivers. Other improvements A&E sidewalk and shade trees to an older shade trees were to be planted. Shade trees already exist in the uh existing subdivision and to allow for no sidewalks to be constructed. There are no sidewalks in the existing subdivision. Uh do we want to vote on those as separate? Y we request. All right. So to vote on uh so if the board wants to just wave shade trees because I don't think that's a conversation and they want to have a further conversation about the street lighting. Yeah. Can we move that to sidewalks? You can just you can change that waiver y to vote on it for just shade trees if that's what you want to do and then further discuss how you

I think that works great. So we make that waiver number 3300 other improvements shade trees to allow for no shade trees to be planted. Shade trees already exist in the subdivision. Okay. Okay. There is a second on a motion. Um yeah, do well motion to approve uh item number 3300-13 for uh no sheet trees. Second. All in favor? I.

And then we've got a fourth waiver here 300-12 utility street lighting to allow for no street lights to be added where the existing subdivision requires them. There are existing street lights at the end of each owner's driveway. What is the board's feeling on street lights? Um, at this point I would say we make the other one a condition. So we make a motion to approve the item number four 300-13 utilities for uh no street lighting but we would put a condition on street light at the end if need be. It's not really adding it's converting it. Converting. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Second. All in favor? I I

All right. question to just clarify the street trees just a is that a condition to consider street lighting or is it a particular street light to be considered? Oh, we haven't even gotten there yet. We haven't gotten We'll make that part of a condition. Okay. We're trying to just separate them. Actually, we want to try to keep the wave the wave and the conditions that from what the residents want and what we want as well. So, conditions speed table. Yep. applicant to add speed table uh in the extension at an area deemed to be suitable by the town engineer after construction meeting. Sure.

I would imagine most likely right at the town line would probably most likely but we can meet in the field and look at it and look at the layout and everything makes most sense for the development on that. Like just to make the comment now so we don't get down the road. If if we make it right at the town line, the configuration of the road puts the speed hump at an awkward non-perpendicular angle in that vicinity. I'm not saying specifically at that location. You think he's going to really put it that way? I just, you know, just Okay. Okay. Do you want to phrase that, Jay? How you want it to be written in the decision? Um, yeah. a speed hump to be located uh on the extension portion of sunken metal road with the location to be determined by the town engineer.

Okay. Is that what those are called? Speed. Speed up. That's goes for speed to be a little bit longer. It's a longer speed table. Speed table. Yeah. So it it causes people to slow down. It's not so abrupt and ripping you. Okay. Well, the speed hump speed table different things. Um let's see. conditioned sidewalk. You want to vote on that? Oh, we have to vote on that. Thanks, Amy. Uh, so make a motion to approve the um speed uh hump based on the DBW's direction to develop after meeting. Second. All in favor? I Yep.

All right. So, what's the feeling on the sidewalks? It seems like we have support of the utters here. Um, and I think that doing this in a conditional way where it's either everyone's in by a certain date or not kind of protects us against the possibility of having just pieces of sidewalk that don't get connected to anything. You guys feel it? And I think so from developer standpoint commitment to do it. I think that the challenge with this particular condition is some of the the easement preparation and just the the fe simple nature of said easement. So that's why we'll put a time frame on it.

So I would say the condition Jay maybe is um the timetable to get the parties to agree because the filing and all of that. So who are the parties and for instance is it is it Gulard and Griffith and on that side of the street then you should define it if it's yeah I believe it's Gula and Griffith is that correct figured out Mike and that would make the sidewalk connection to John Edwards they'd be on the same side that it is in Franklin from John Edwards to P. So it all makes it contiguous in Franklin once it gets into the new development switches to the other side. Okay. It switches to the other side. Could you the eastment be say again whose responsibility would the easement be? I believe the town would take does the town take care of the sidewalks currently over there?

This is not an accepted road and there's no assurance going forward that it ever will be. So the town not accepted you guys won't it'll actually go back to you guys but you'll be granted the easement to put it in but you won't own managing it management because it's not a town approved broker even though the town maintains it. So the oblig in the first instance, the obligation will be subject to the abiding property owner's grant of an easement sufficient to allow the sidewalk to be constructed. And I believe the sidewalk going in is literally you're at the edge of the curve if I'm not mistaken. I that's my recollection. So So you can follow the same. It's at the intersection. Yeah.

Yeah. So it's literally at the edge of curve. There's not a 5ft grass strip in between. So you probably take there'll be like a 6ft easement or whatever it may be for workability. Just I think just have it mirror what what is already there instead of add sidewalk. Yeah. How do we want to put that as a motion? Uh applicant to add sidewalk on the what is that? The north side of the road. Yep. The two homeowners. One of the two Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Uh, I'm just trying to think of the mechanics of how we get this easement in place within a a period of time. And

what if we give you a pretty liberal period of time? Well, what what if we did what if we did a we I don't think we need a long period of time, but rather than spending the the legal time, money, and resources to draft the easements that we have a a maybe just a simple letter that goes to both of these butters that seeks their confirmation that they would agree to an easement uh over the, you know, the the the that area over their property. and then they have to return to us their agreement. At that point, we'll draft them. If we only get one back, then the condition is is gone and we we're not required to build either of the sidewalks. If we get them both back, then we can go uh through through the effort of actually drafting them. Does that make sense to you? I think just one step further even with that letter. I think we could have a draft of what that easement would look like for you.

Mark, does that make sense? And then we can put a time frame. The easement is fairly standardized. It's nothing magic about it. So, okay. Y All right. And then then maybe except that we have to identify, right? But we got we might have the guy. Okay. So, it would be those two residents. For the record, what's the names again? It's Griff. Uh the last name is Griffith and Gulard. And my thought was my I was thinking 90 days to get to that letter, get it all approved or accepted with the draft with the draft and then after that period they would work to finalize the legal e easements recording that type of stuff. Is 90 fuel sufficient 120?

I think well I think we I think it would be 30. What I'm thinking is 30. We would have 30 days to get it to them and then then they would have 60 days to potentially get it back to their response back to us. We just want to make sure there's ample time for everybody to get the code. That's all. Does that time frame work for you? Yeah, I think that works and that's running in parallel with the rest of the with the work. So, applicant to provide letter within 30 days, residents to respond within 60 after. Yep. I like that. Okay. Do I hear a second? on the motion. Do you do you want to applicant to provide um within 30 days a letter

and an agreement for the easement to the arts and Griffiths and they have 60 days 60 days to respond in including a plan showing the sidewalk and then x amount of time to complete sidewalks when you get set of rules. Yep. Okay. I would I would stipulate that' be no different than the color. It could work together, right? Yeah. Yes. Just put the sidewalk down. Does that work? Yeah. So, do we have a second on slightly different timelines depending on how long it takes to obtain the approval? Yeah. Okay. I hear a second on the motion. Second. All in favor? I What was the last one? Street lights.

Street lights. Uh, what do you guys think there? Um, I mean, there's I'll streetlight the world. I'm the wrong guy to ask. I will read. There's there's lighting on every individual parcel down there. Yeah. Post lights at the post lights at the driveways. Is there a cobra? Mike, what's your feeling? Um, DVW side. So, the street lights are at the end of each driveway throughout the neighborhood. I mean, that's the character of the existing neighborhood. I didn't have a strong feeling either way. I was going to defer to the board on the street lights. Maybe maybe at the entrance to the Bellingham side, you do a couple nice

landscape areas or something of some stone with some varied lighting there that helps the neighborhood have light but not too much so you're not I would recommend the window some sort of lighting around the speed table. Yeah, cuz that that would especially with the reduction. Um, and I think it'll show the road. Yeah. Going into Right. You're lighting the speed table, so it's it's, you know, it's there. And and if if I can just offer it, I think we can kind of, if I were you guys, you might be able to kill a few birds with one stone here. Um, and just make that a raised crossing, right? Because you're going to have your sidewalk terminating on one side of the road. We're going to have our side termin.

Yeah. gray cross and that's that's even improving that level of safety there to another degree. I think the lighting consistent with the decorative lighting that's in the neighborhood rather than Yeah. So I think just I would be I'd make the lighting determination subject to the town engineers approval. Some Yep. I'm okay with that. just some form of lighting at the entrance of the new so you're not you're giving something but you're not taking away you're not flooding the whole neighborhood provide sufficient lighting there and that'll be agreed upon with the TPW coordinate with the position of the speed crossing

race crossing let's go to the race crossing the plan so everybody make a motion to approve the street lighting uh at the entrance at the speed crossing uh based on DPW's um final uh say with the development uh in a meeting. Second. All in favor? I it that's it. All right, that's everything. That's it. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you everybody. pre-construction.

Yes. Uh good. Make a motion take five minute recess. Second. All in favor? I recording stopped.

back on. All right, welcome back. Recording in progress. Welcome back everybody. Um, our next item of business, uh, this would be for 70 Daniel Street, uh, Gorilla Estates, private subdivision. If I could go to Amy uh for a brief overview, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, it's been a while since they've been in front of us. I know that they've been um working with our town engineer and with Beta um on different storm water um issues and they've um have it's a one lot is adding one lot for our two lot subdivisions. Um they had listed several waivers. I noticed that they listed 10 waivers, but two are duplicates. So, there's really eight waiverss that I listed on the second page. Um, just as a quick update, I know that they had sat down with Beta and Mike this morning to go over any of the outstanding issues um that I believe that they're going to work on um to conclude for the next meeting. Okay, good. Thank you.

Um thank you. Um I I'll go to I guess I'll go to Mike uh before I go to the applicant. Mike. Um, yes, M. Jim. So, as Amy indicated, we did meet earlier today and um I know Matt Cwley was on the call earlier, but I don't see his name up there now, but he's on over here. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah, Matt is on. He is on the call. So, Beta did have a few comments. I'll let Matt speak to the specific comments if he wants to. But, um, I think it was more just a lot of housekeeping items, a lot of cross referencing on the plans, uh, different details, that sort of thing. But, I could say that we're all pretty much on the same page. A lot of cleanup work needs to be done to the plans, but that's pretty much it. And I think we're all on the same page as far as where the design's going. Okay. And that. Okay. Um Matt, before I go to you, um I'll just go to the applicant. If you guys could just uh introduce yourselves.

Like they said, it's a lot of house cleaning, a lot of details. Um adding a detail of a cross-section through the pond. We had one where the the spillway was and he wants one going the other direction. So, we're going to add that. Um added the uh Latin names for the vegetation we had. So, we we put that in there. of a snow snow stockpile area at the end was added. Um you just simple little stuff. So tweak tweak to the detention basin. They wanted us to pick the pipe up a little bit so that it would have more water being recharged. Um just minor minor stuff. We should be able to get that all wrapped up and be set to go to be able to close and vote next meeting.

Okay. Good. Great. Uh Matt, you there? Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Hi. Hi, Matt. Matt, do you want to just give us a brief overview based on what you've seen and where you are?

Yeah, sure. So, uh, our latest, uh, letter to the board is dated, uh, May 2nd, and I think both Mike and the applicant have given a pretty good summary. Um, that really what's left is, uh, primarily non-technical comments. Uh, a lot of housekeeping, bookkeeping type things. Um, providing consistency between the plans, details, and calculations. you know, things like updating the on andm plan and the storm water checklist, uh additional labels on plans, things of that nature. Um, so there's a number of those to be addressed, but uh again, they're mostly non-technical in nature, and um I I don't see the actual final product changing much from what's shown on the plans today.

Okay, good. Thank you. Um before I go to the board, does uh anybody have any questions or comments? Okay, we have I've got one T1. Um, I guess it was mentioned last meeting. Was there any pursuing of the chapter 61 or anything like that? I mean, I think Eric actually had the question about whether you're going to file for that. Just we'll keep FYI for me. The land will be staying in chapter on the project. No, I took All right. So, you're keeping it in chapter 61. Yeah. So, what does that mean?

They can keep it in chapter 61. Okay. So, watch that. Okay. Yes. All right. Great. Thank you. Well, no comment. I guess the only thing I I'm wanted to comment on was the waiver for no pins. I'm down for like no pins along the entirety of East Co way because it doesn't offer anyone anything. But can we get two pins on the end of the like where it meets the rightway? I've actually I'm putting pins um on each of the points that normally would have bounds on it just you know. Yeah. So where it meets the rightway, right? Okay, that's fine. Cuz it's you call out no pins in the waiver. Oh, I didn't mean to.

Yeah. So if you if I we could just get pins where the rightway and in in East Oak way meet, I think those are the only two that I would want. They have a total of nine or 10 pins. Yeah. I didn't think you were going to set them though cuz it says it says to be set but then you asked for a waiver. Um actually that I meant to state the waiver was not to set bounds but to set iron pins. Oh, okay. Let me see what it says. Oh uh to allow iron pins to be set where concrete bounds are required. Yes, that's iron pins. Oh, okay. I read that wrong. All right, never mind. I thought that meant no pins. I was like, can we get two pins? Yeah. Okay. Never mind. I retract that. It's been a long meeting. You good? Now I am. Okay. So, question. Um, you'll be able to wrap everything up before the next meeting.

Yes. Okay. Um, is the board privy? Will everything's all set? We'll uh close it and vote on the next one. That way that we can take care of these guys. I'm good. You that too, Mike? Yes. Okay. So, Amy, our next meeting uh June 1st. June 1st. Wow. Okay. Okay. So, I make a motion to continue uh 70 Daniel Street Grill Estates till June 1st. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? I thank you. Thank you. Tough crowd. Ah, that was nothing. Come prepared and uh it won't be.

Yeah. Thank you, gentlemen. Have a good night, guys. All right. Uh last uh item second item to last place of business would be for 47 uh Patrick Street. This is Don Estates final uh definitive subdivision. Excuse me. If I could go to Amy, please for the planning.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um we were kind of pretty much wrapped up with this about probably about a month and a half, two months ago. Um they've been through conservation for the past several months. not just this past Thursday night, they did get their order of conditions from conservation and was approved for the project. Um, couple things we had talked about. Um, a suggested special condition was just to note that the water and sewer extension will be dependent on the town council decision and then they've um requested two two waivers. Uh, I want to note that the engineer Rick Gro is on Zoom as well. Um, and Matt's here to any questions that you want to ask them.

Okay, good. Thank you. Um, I'll I'll go before Matt before I go to you, I'll go to Mike. Mike, uh, you comfortable with everything uh that you've seen and Yes, Mr. Chair. Last meeting we all our comments were the previous comments were addressed. Okay. And then you mentioned one or two go through the process. Okay. Good. Uh, Matt, you there? Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. And I, uh, echoes my comments. Um, we don't have any changes since the last meeting. We're all set with this project. Okay, good. Thank you. Um Rick, you there? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Good evening, Hawaii. Uh did you have anything addition to add or no?

Um just wanted to reiterate what what Amy said. Uh we've been working through conservation for the last few months. We appreciate the board's uh patience as we've worked through that process. We know we've continued a few times. Um, we did appear to give you an update. So, uh, as I said, we're through that process. Um, and just wanted to, uh, thank the board for their patience. Okay. Thank you, Rick. Okay. Everybody comfortable? J, I'm good, buddy. Um, I just want to make sure we at least mention or add the condition that the I got to close first, though.

Okay. Um, is this have they submitted a plan for the retaining wall that been? Um, Rick, real quick question. You had a you had a retaining wall in there. I couldn't remember the height of it. What was the height of that? It's less than four. It was under four around the basin, right? I believe it's under four feet. Okay, that's what I thought. Anything on the floor? Okay. So, make a motion to uh close the hearing on Dunovan Estates definitive subdivision. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? I I um conditions. Chris,

want to vote on the project first? That's how we did it with um Cranberry Meadows. We voted to approve and then went down then went down to the waiverss and conditions. Okay. So, make a motion to approve. Dunovan Estates uh private subdivision um with conditions to follow. Second. All in favor? I the conditions. Chris,

uh the one condition that I would like to make sure we have in there is that the proposed uh green arborite trees shown on plan page 8 uh for the abuing property at 19 Partridge Street uh will be installed prior to any site work uh for the two proposed lots on the uh applicants land. Okay, that's one. You want us Amy, you want us to vote on these separately or as a whole? You can vote them on as a whole if you want. Okay. If you want to read them.

Okay. Uh second one would be uh suggested special conditions for the water and sewer extension depending on the town council. I have one note in here. Um I would still like to see a water man down the middle of the road. I mean a sewer man rather than going into the interceptor. That's our recommendation. We'll work with the okay town council on that in the Charles River pollution district control district because it's their actual interceptor that there just based on the depth and the location. I think um for all intents purposes it could be uh better run down the road with a main with one connection point, you know, a dog house at the end rather than

that's going to be our recommendation to the town DPW's recommendation to town council. Okay. And town council you guys good with that too? Okay. I have no dog in the sewer fight. Yeah, I don't care if they have a right 18 foot chimney. And that's one of the suggested conditions and the uh requested waivers um to allow one sidewalk where one is uh where two is required. Is everybody okay with one? Okay. And the next waiver would be for a request for less than 42 uh cover 42 in cover on drain pipes. drain pledge to the uh class uh five RCP. So I hear a motion on the approval of the special conditions in the requested waiverss.

I hear a second. Second. All in favor? I anything else? That's all I You're all set, Rick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and board members. Have a good evening. Thank you. You too. Okay, last item of business. This would be uh for 900 Washington Street. All of the states subdivision. I believe they're looking for a continuation. Uh Amy, duration of time, uh June 22nd. June 22nd. Would that be an update or more formal?

Uh you know, this is this was the one where they were trying to split that lot. Um, I haven't really heard back from them other than that they they kind of start the project without splitting it because they have the four no matter what. Um, talking with our zoning enforcement officer, it might be a little bit to get the frontage waiver, they actually need to create the lot. So, you know, we were talking about they'd be left with about 20 ft frontage.

Then they're creating their own hardship for variance. So, it's up to the ZBA if they want to grant to them. You don't typically create your own hardship and get a variance. It typically already exists, but that's the ZBA's decision. Um, but I have not seen any updates from them what what they're choosing to do. So, we'll look for an update basically. Yeah. Yeah. They have something together by then. They'll let us know. So, I'll make a motion to continue 900 Washington Street till June 22nd. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I and I believe that's it. Anybody have any general comments, questions? Well, make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor?

I I Thank you everybody. Just the truth.