Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

7:06 p.m. This open meeting of the Grafton Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted both remotely and in person consistent with the temporary provisions of the open meeting law which extends remote meeting protocols through March 31st, 2027. This [snorts] meeting is convening by the Zoom video conference [clears throat] and in person as posted on the meeting agenda, which can be found on the town of Grafton website. Please see the meeting agenda for details on how to participate remotely. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. All participation within this meeting will be visible to others. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may be able to see you and that you should take care not to screen share your computer. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording of this meeting and the recording may be published or re-broadcast at a later date. This meeting may feature public comment for anyone attending virtually. If you'd like to request acknowledgement to speak, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. And the meeting administrator will enable you to speak when it's your turn. For anyone on the phone exclusively, the meeting administrator will enable you to speak. For those in person, we ask you to step up to the podium to speak. And all speakers, please state your name and address prior to your comments or questions. And each vote taken during this meeting will be done by a roll call the vote. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Pasker. Okay. I invite the applicant to come forward

[clears throat and cough]

I assume you'll want to update us on what's new. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Jason Panos for the record, practicing law at 246 Andover Street, Peabody, Massachusetts. Uh I've come in at the tail end uh primarily to assist the development team in wrapping this up, consolidating information, making sure that um the latest round of information provided to the board on March 26th compiled all of the plans reflecting all of the changes through your um hearing process. Uh if you don't like to read plans, we put together a little project summary that has all of the project statistics. Uh parking, building heights, that type of thing. And we completed uh with that transmittal our table of uh waiver requests from various town bylaws. Um as we went through this process, we really did a deep dive not only into the bylaws, but all of your rules and regulations. We uh scrubbed the plans, made sure that the information provided to the board was not only compiled uh in one place so that you wouldn't have to refer to plans from last year uh to pull into your decision, you'd have it all here in a final set, but also to make sure that um whatever we were asking for by way of uh waiver requests uh gelled with those plans. Uh so, for example, we noted a minor discrepancy um

in building one, in the height of building one. It wasn't measured according to the definition prescribed in the town bylaw. Uh that actually worked out to the benefit of everybody. We shaved uh almost 10 ft off of that building height, which is the tallest building. Why is that important? That led to a waiver request. In your bylaw, for example, on a multi-building uh development like this, you measure distance between building according to your tallest building. So, that was important. Uh so, instead of a 65-ft variance, we're now at around 56 ft, something like that. Um and there are other changes by way of more information, clarification of information. We've added We're closer to overall development parking ratio per the bylaw than we were when we started this process. Um So, there were a lot of um clarifications, more information, and that was really the point of that exercise. And we appreciate the indulgence of the board in allowing us the extra time to kind of get through that. It was critically important that the information provided to you uh was not only uh consolidated, but accurate.

[clears throat]

Um So, with that, uh what I propose through the chair is that we do a uh brief technical presentation more along the lines of perhaps refreshing the board uh as to where we started and where we are today, where some of those changes ended up. Um and uh kind of giving context to what was provided to you on March 26th. So, with that, uh by the way, for the record, I'm joined by John Grenier from Grenier Associates, also a project principal. I'm also uh joined by Jim Van Casa, who is also a project principal for the Apartments of Snow Road. And Owen Babcock, also a principal. And I think online, Steve is uh Steve is um watching. So, with that and through the chair, if I may, I'd like to turn it over to John. Um so, yeah, I can just give you um a bird's-eye view of where we are um on the overall project and statistically where we are uh in terms of um you know, parking, in terms of units per acre, etc. [snorts] So, um this is as Jason said, we uh as this process went on, it was iterative. As we were going through, we were making multiple changes to layouts, building configurations, building locations. Um and along the process, we were more concentrating [clears throat] on making sure we have

Yeah, I don't know. She gave it to me. making sure we have a layout that um It Hang on a sec. I'm sorry, go ahead. Yeah. You don't have a copy? have a copy of the plans. I'll give you the [clears throat] originals I have in here. Sorry. No, it's okay. So, Yeah. I'm sorry. That's uh that's That's the answer to the you just gave us. Not the waivers. No, I know. Do you need the waivers, too? No, I have that. You have that? Okay. All right. Okay.

Sorry about that. No problem. Uh so, as we went through the process with the board, there were multiple iterations of building locations, configurations, whether it was the townhouses, the number of um apartment buildings, etc. So, as we were going through the process, we weren't necessarily um updating every drain manhole, sizing every drain line as the process as again, it was iterative. So, um what we have before you now, [clears throat] as Jason stated, is a complete set that is um not only a completed layout set, but this um also incorporates um all of the the parking tallied up for the entire project. We have full engineered grading, drainage, utility plans, storm water plans, um all of the [snorts] the calculations that back up all that, as well as all of the architectural elevations, floor plans, uh particularly for um all of the buildings, including the rear building, which we have labeled as building one, which has subsurface parking. And then, with that, with the calculation in the zoning, as Jason stated, um the way it's calculated in the zoning, you have to look at what the elevations are around the perimeter of the building, which where that building one has a subsurface garage, well, the grade drops. So, that altered what the um the technical elevation of that building is, which then transferred into um you know, what the separation what the required separation between buildings is. So, this was um a process of kind of compiling everything, making sure all of

our plans were consistent, any of the waivers that we were requesting are accurate. Um and so, with that, what we just kind of give a [snorts] recap on the entire project, what we are proposing um with [clears throat] and this is what we talked about at our one of our last meetings is to we reduced uh the number of 24-unit buildings in the quad area in the center. Originally, we had four or for a number of iterations, we had four 24-unit buildings. Now, we have three. We have two four-story buildings in the back, building one, which is the one closest to the northeast, that has subsurface parking. [snorts]

Um the benefit of those buildings, as we stated, is we have elevators in those buildings. We have covered parking in those, so that would uh give itself to providing people whether they uh elderly or they have um issues with mobility, that we have elevators and we have covered parking, so it's a good amenity. That also enabled us to provide more green space in the center quad area. Um if you notice, we have a rather um good-sized clubhouse with amenity areas. We have a pool located in the center of the quad. We have a dog park, we have a playground, and then even beyond that, we have good just grass open space. And uh we have good pedestrian walkways throughout the site that will be lit. So, I and then we obviously have um some townhouses along the front edge. So, we have eight townhouse units. Uh those are set back so that we have adequate areas for landscaping and walkways in the front, so it's a good presentation to the project. Uh green space, and that also is more in keeping with the the flavor of the neighborhood, the the the residential flavor of the neighborhood. We have our center um access point with which is I believe we have 18 Is 18 ft wide? Uh Yeah, so that's uh driving aisles of 18 ft wide with a center island, so we have a nice wide entranceway for access. Um and a good [clears throat] island area, which is good for landscaping and just a good presentation for the overall project.

Um during the process, as you know, this was reviewed by the fire department for the ability to have um access through the site for emergency vehicles. As part of that, too, we do have access around the rear buildings, as well, so that we have good um access for emergency vehicles throughout the throughout the site. So, uh what we believe we have before you now is a a well-thought-out plan, and um I think it was a good I'll call it a good collaboration with the board. I think this is a first-class project. I think this is something that again, we started off with 300 units originally before we went to the selectmen. Then we were at 268 units, then we were at 236 or 234 units. Um right now, the total unit count is 200 192 units of apartment style and then the eight townhouses, so at 200 units, I think this is a good project [clears throat] that provides good parking ratios. I think we're we're at 2.18 parking spaces per unit overall. Um we have good open space, good amenity areas. Um [clears throat] So, I think this checks off um in our opinion, checks off all the boxes. Hopefully, in your opinion, it checks off most all of the boxes. Um so, that's kind of a a bird's-eye view of the of the overall um development. We did, as I said, put together a comprehensive waiver list that we made sure we dotted all the I's, crossed all the T's, checked off all the boxes, and we poured through the zoning

and the plans to make sure that we were uh complete in in compiling all of the the waivers that could be associated. We went through the zoning, the subdivision regulations, the um stormwater bylaw, the wetland bylaw, and so we we did a a fairly comprehensive review of not only the zoning, but all of the bylaws that would [clears throat] be potentially um affecting this project in terms of waivers and compliance. Um So, with that, I I think that's kind of a a quick overview, bird's-eye view, so we all know what's before you, where we stand right now. And then if I know that Dan had um provided a draft [clears throat] decision. We have all of our proposed

[clears throat] waivers, so I think which is why we brought Jason in, because um it it was he's very he's very thorough. Um and and he tortured me. [laughter] [clears throat and cough]

But it's for the benefit of everybody. Um I you know, I was the fall guy. I I took the heat. So, but he was very thorough, and that just so that we can have one complete decision that is completely thorough and will make the process easier not only now, but in the future. Uh John, through the chair, if I may, can you talk a little bit about because there is one significant plan change um that was presented for the first time, and that was the point of discharge for the stormwater management outflow. Yes, so

Um and the 99 98% TSS removal, if you could talk a little bit about that, because it's important. Thank you. Yes, so um with our as you know, we have our um stormwater management area in terms of infiltration Which sheet are you looking at right now? I'm sorry, I'm looking at C5. The grading plan?

Grading plan? Yep. So, if you look at sheet C5, that is where um we are um capturing stormwater from paved surfaces. As you know, um we are distributing stormwater from all the the roof runoff, that is getting distributed through the site through subsurface recharge. We went out and did soil testing with with Jeff Walsh, there's good sand sandy gravelly material throughout the site, so we are um distributing and recharging water throughout the site. But in terms of our infiltration basin, which is located at the northeast portion of the site, that is receiving and treating stormwater runoff. Um with our TSS calculations, that's a DEP standard for making sure that we provide um adequate stormwater treatment. As you know, the state requirement under DEP is for 80% TSS removal. With the implementation of a a a swale, uh a stormwater swale along the northerly side of the property, and uh two sediment forebays, uh as well as obviously, we have catch basins with deep sumps plus the infiltration basin. We are close to having 98% TSS removal. I know that was very important to the board, because we do abut the um the Grafton Water District. There is a well located to the southeast of the site, so it was critically important that we don't just meet the bare minimum for stormwater treatment, that we we more than exceed the requirement. So, um with our stormwater design and using all different elements, whether

it's swales, deep sump catch basin, forebays, and an infiltration basin, close to 98% TSS removal. Additionally, um there is a isolated wetland that um kind of bisects our site and the water district site. So, [snorts] although that is not um subject under the DEP regulations, an isolated wetland is not jurisdictional, um and it could be a potential a uh isolated land subject to flooding that does not have a buffer zone under the state regulations. However, just to provide as much um treatment and not having any discharge within 100 ft of that um local resource area, we do not have any what they call direct discharges within 100 ft of that isolated wetland or or potential isolated land subject to flooding. The only outlet that we have from that infiltration basin is an emergency overflow. And if you see kind of behind the um where the near where the forebays are from the basin, you see it looks like a a stone uh hatch pattern. That is just for an emergency spillway from the basin, and we made sure that that was outside of Although, again, it's not required under DEP regulations, just to make sure that we are in compliance to the extent that we can with all of the the local bylaw um even though we're not necessarily subject to it. We kept that emergency spillway outside the 100-ft buffer to that to that isolated wetland. So, um

we made sure that we were the the only disturbance within that area is just some off-grading for grading so that we can have access around the berm. So, um we also made sure that we were um adhering to the 25-ft local um bylaw for no disturbance within 25 ft of um a resource area. So, uh we made sure that whether it was met all state codes and to the extent practical we met all of the local um local bylaw regulations. So, uh we were cognizant of those and to the extent that we could and we did um make sure that we adhered to all of the bylaws that that we could um whether it's local, state, etc. So, um I I I think we were able again with this design to achieve a lot of those environmental um concerns and and design guidelines um and went over and above to the extent that we could to to not only meet but exceed the requirements. Okay. And I I I think if memory serves me correct, um you and the peer reviewer agreed that this is not ISLF. Right? Isolated land subject to flooding. No, there was another There was another area that we had looked at.

Is that another area? Chairman, um Jeff Walsh, Graves Engineering peer reviewer. Um with respect to the isolated land on the northeast side of the site, um that was not a topic of my comments earlier at the beginning of this application with respect to isolated land subject to flooding [clears throat] under the Massachusetts um Wetlands Protection Act. This isolated wetland being fact B, I also isolated land subject to flooding under the state Wetlands Protection Act. That would be vetted out with the Conservation Commission.

Mhm. Um to qualify as isolated land subject to flooding, it has to hold at least a quarter acre-foot of volume at an average depth of at least 6 in of depth um at some point during the year. And if if that's the [clears throat] case, it is the highest water level observed or there's it also a method where you would run hydrology calculations, see if on an annual basis it qualifies as isolated land subject to flooding, and if the answer is yes, then you rerun them at a 100-year storm event, get that water surface elevation, figure out the perimeter, and that is the um resource area defined as isolated land subject to flooding. This one probably qualifies as ILSF as far as I'm concerned based upon my experience. What doesn't qualify is the northeast corner um Northwest. Thank you. Northwest behind [clears throat] the properties of uh number 18 and 18 and 1/2 um Snow Road. There's a depression there. And I I visited the depression. Um I couldn't find any significant staining that told me [clears throat] that there's typically standing water there. Um in the hydrology calculations I saw earlier on in this process, there was enough information that led me to believe that it doesn't if one were to rely on hydrology calculations alone, um it doesn't meet that threshold at the 1-year mark. So, therefore it wouldn't qualify. Mhm. based upon hydrology. And again, the other way is by visual, is water physically there? Um I didn't see evidence of it. Um So, so I I doubt very much that that northwest corner is isolated land subject to Mhm. All right. Um sir, you had your hand up. I mean, to everyone, we'll we'll take comments and questions later. Um unless there's something very urgent we can't see something or can't hear

something. I just wanted to see if you put the cursor on the overflow [clears throat] point. Right. The emergency spillway? Yes. Right. Yeah, right. Uh the dock area down below, just a little bit lower, a little bit lower, a little bit lower. there. Yep, right there. [clears throat]

In that area there was a likely vernal pool. That's what the commission

We'll we'll get into that later. Okay. So, I think we're wrapped up uh with this portion of the presentation. Um I think after we reviewed uh Mr. Walsh's peer review comments, taken together all of the information we've compiled, we're uh we're pretty confident that we've addressed throughout this long hearing process all issues raised of local concern and um we are I don't want to say we're ready to close the public hearing. I think there's still discussion left to have be had and for other reasons uh we just got the draft decision today and um I'd I'd like to reserve having the opportunity to go through them, work with Dan Hill, and we've had a good working relationship over the past few weeks, I think. Um and and not close the public hearing and preclude uh any any additional comments and discussion uh lest it be construed as new testimony. Um but with that, we're more than happy to to answer any questions from the board or from any of others. So, um any comments or questions from the board with respect to the onsite that's um been presented um and you'll notice I said onsite because clearly missing is offsite and we'll get to that in next, but I want to address anything that anyone has on the onsite stuff. On on the plan itself. Yeah. I'm just [clears throat] curious on your test pits. And I know it's a small item. Um Three of me only went down 108 in. Why?

The other two you went down 10 ft. Just curious why. Um It said coarse gravel. It was all coarse gravel. It Let me I mean, you usually stop if you hit water or ledge, but Now, which I Let me take a look and see which Uh the grading plan. Yeah, no, I'm lower lower right. Test hole three. Either what page is it? And it's just a curious Excuse me. is C5. C5. Sheet five, C5.

Yeah. Lower right. I'm trying to see where I did test. Oh, there was test hole four, test hole five, test hole three. It had to be in the front. Um

The two front ones were both at uh 10 ft, 120 in. Where's test hole three? Where is test hole three on here? There's four. There is um I'm trying to Test hole three is at the back right corner of building number one. Oh, there we go. Yep. Um you know, it [snorts] was all good bony material. I don't know, maybe we could we have hit a seen a rock or something? No. I went out and witnessed I A lot of times I'll do my homework. Okay, if if it's a shallow basin, as long as we get deep enough to demonstrate there's at least two two to four foot groundwater offset, we may stop. I wasn't leading the parade, so however deep they wanted to go, I I I didn't take exception to it, Peter. Um quite frankly, beautiful material sitting

Oh, I imagine. Yeah. I believe we were deep enough that they could demonstrate they satisfy the groundwater offset requirement for when they were intending to get a some kind of infiltration facility over there. Right. And [clears throat] the well, that's what, 9 ft? Yeah. Uh 8 and 1/2, almost 9. 8 and 1/2, 9 ft. The with the recharge chambers, these are fairly where they're just capturing the roof run off. It's not like you have to be down You know, when you're capturing, say from a catch basin, you know, man, all of a sudden you get deeper, deeper, deeper than where you end up with a recharge, you may end up being, you know, 3, 4, 5 ft deep. Where these are just capturing the downspouts, you only need a say a foot or two of cover.

not I know you're not going to be down that deep.

deep. So, and that's the case with with all of these buildings. So, um I don't know, we were on a slope and maybe there was something, but you know, we're only going to be down, say, 3, 4, 5, say 5 ft with the bottom of any of the these recharge chambers. So, it wasn't like But you didn't hit water or refusal. No, it was all good sand [clears throat] gravel material. There was no issues. Okay. Are there comments or questions from the board? So, um I have one. Um This was discussed, I think, at the last, uh, hearing, that fire lane in the back, I believe, the fire department wanted paint, and it looks like it's still not necessarily paved. What What they They want to be a solid surface. Um, whether it's asphalt, concrete, something that is going to be plowed. Something that's going to be, you know, we're we're not going to just do, you know, a gravel pathway that's not going to be solid, or if they have to put their outriggers on, which I believe they need 18 ft. Um, what we would It will be solid, it will be impervious, it will be plowable. What we're talking internally about is trying to provide that access, but also make it something that looks nice, it could be part of a walking path around the back, so it doesn't look like someone just, you know, put down the paver and ran a strip of pavement around the back where But, um, and it was stated by the fire department, cuz we did meet with two gentlemen from the fire department, that they want that to be solid, and they

want it to be plowable year-round, not something that in the wintertime is, you know, everybody's going to forget about it, and it's just going to end up being, you know, um, disregarded. So, our We're looking into something that is meets the qualifications of obviously being impervious, being drivable, being plowable, but something that we can incorporate into almost an amenity, have a nice-looking walking path, um, around the back of the building. Okay, so that's an open issue at this point. Yes. Okay. All right, um, And we obviously would If we If it came down to it and we paved it, okay, we'll pave it, but, um, if we can think of anything else that might be more aesthetically pleasing, we would all we would all obviously run that by the fire department to make sure that that cuts muster with with them. So, why not show it as paved and propose that as a change later once you determine it? We can We can do that. We can do We don't have an issue doing that. We We're just kind of kept on running it running it around the block, so to speak. And and they've and they're okay with the 20-ft wide? Yes. They Their outriggers 18 ft wide. That just means they got to line up stead center when they go

[laughter] when they go to park, you um, They got a foot on either side. Have they got a set of these yet? Yes, I when I emailed it out to everybody, I emailed it to all the departments, also.

Mhm. Are we waiting for comments? Yeah. From the fire department? I know Mike's been in and out. I will reach out to him again tomorrow morning. But, that we did discuss we did discuss 20 ft with them when we when we sat down with them. We didn't pick that out of a hat. Okay. Uh, on on my perspective, um, in addition to being able to carry the weight of the fire truck year-round, um, with respect to the surface treatment, I don't like to see gravel and topsoil over gravel, because there's the time of year when this topsoil will be wet and be slippery, and you can't get traction. And there is a slope behind building number one. So, there are things like pervious pavers, pervious pavers infilled with, um, topsoil and and some grass, uh, pervious pavers that are infilled with pea stone and such that that will support the weight of the fire truck. So, there's there is a number of different options, and those kind of pervious pavers do have the friction that you need to to be able to get through in those conditions. So, So, Dan, um, you know, because this is, um, you know, privately owned, privately maintained, etc., there's a lot of things we don't necessarily have to get into, right? I mean, they're going to have to plow the driveways, or their tenants are going to be upset, you know, we But, something like that, I mean, is there What can we do to make sure that it is, in fact, plowed? I mean, I suppose we can make it a condition of the permit. There's probably not a whole lot more that we can do here. Nothing I can think of, no. Okay. All right. It's an enforcement issue. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Um, you you know where I'm headed. I just, you know, as I can see it very easily being ignored, and nobody will know, cuz it's all the way in the back, there's there's absolutely no way to see it, and,

you know, no nobody's going to know until the fire department shows up. Yeah, right, and I think you know, obviously the fire department can do do inspections, [clears throat] and surprise inspections during storms, and Yeah. find them, or bring enforcement actions if they want to. Okay. All right. We'll get to them about access to the area. Okay. Um, any other questions? So, then I'm going to go to what's going [clears throat] on with the offsite stuff. So, I mean, that that really was a huge focus of the last call. [clears throat]

Yes. There's a lot if I could step in, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Um, I wanted to get a handle on process, and I think we probably, uh, hit town council and maybe the town administrator's office at a time when everybody was prepping for town meeting. That town meeting warrant, uh, closed, I believe, on March 26th, around the time we filed this supplemental information. Prior to that, I was trying outreach to town council on unsuccessfully, and I suspect, too, if I'm town council, I'm probably waiting for a decision from the board, as well, to make sure that whatever we're asking is baked in. So, I don't have a sense of process with regard to takings, which would be required. I know there was significant discussion, and I'm glad you raised it, honestly. Um, I know there was significant discussion about this condition. I just drove out of that intersection, and there needs to be some improvement, without a doubt. Um, uh, and the project team members have offered to to help the town out, um, in that regard. However, I think what what makes sense is, regardless of the taking schedule with the town, and we'll work that out, I think we ought to start thinking about maybe, uh, as a suggestion,

[snorts]

that the condition be tied to an application to DOT at around the same time the, um, building permit application, or the building permit is actually granted, because the fact of the matter is uh, I can't see DOT, uh, acting, the taking set in stone, and the actual construction of the intersection take place. Whatever DOT decides, by the way, it's a discretionary permit. Level of service, sight distances are going to improve, so I can't see DOT significantly getting in the way of, uh, an application, but they could change the outcome. They could say, "Well, we don't like this idea. Why don't you consider this, that type of thing." So, we let that play out, but not hold up the building permit, because I can't see all of that happening within a year, and then your units fall off the SHI. Um, and you're you're basically going to be 200 units down. Um, so I think that if we can commit to getting the application into DOT, getting the process going, letting that play out, but also, uh, being able to have our building permit, uh, and start construction, I think that's a good result. Um, I can give you also an additional update, um, because obviously the housing authority Oh, right. And you met with them. authority is obviously an integral part of this. As you know, we we stated to the board that they they're on board with, and we did actually, um, meet with them a few weeks ago.

Um, and we had told them, well, actually it was probably around beginning of March, I think. It was beginning of March. Mhm. March 9th, I think.

Time goes by. Um, we stated what we were looking we were reaching out to town council, we were trying to get paperwork in order, trying to get, you know, a a draft warrant out. Um, and Jason said as He said he had reached out. I'm sure everybody, you know, between town meeting, everybody's going in different directions. We were unsuccessful with that. We did give them an update that showed that last plan, obviously having the the, um, the turn, so we're more 90° to 122, the turning lane, the sidewalk. Um, we also relayed to them that we might need some temporary grading easement just for sight distances when you're looking to the right coming out onto 122. So, they are fully aware of what we're doing. They are still fully on board with what we are doing. Um you know, we also suggested to them that um oh we also confirmed that there although you know, they do have some ties to mass housing because they do have affordable but they there is no um type of uh review or approval that we need from from the state. They are they the housing authority own and are in full control of this. So, there's no other outside agencies that that need to chime in. I think we already have enough. Um hm so, they they are in full control of making the decision. Uh we did suggest that they may want to have their Attorney look at this too. We will be having a a a a deed. We did show them a plan. So, we're trying to put all those plans together in conjunction with um

input from uh town council etc. So, um it it's it's hurting cats right now. Um so, but we are we're proactively reaching out proactively trying to work towards this and um we did have some internal conversations saying well, um nothing is preventing us [clears throat] from um at this point you know, with with your blessing getting an application moving with DOT to start the the curb cut modification process with them. Um as you know, we are this was a hot topic. Um we are definitely um you know, committed to making these improvements. Um it's the the issue is with different entities involved. It's it's time-consuming. It's time-consuming. So, I think uh just if I could supplement that. I think all of this can be accomplished through DOT through letters of intent and that type of thing without actually having the takings in place and I've been authorized by the development team to work with town council and do the yeoman's work of drafting the warrant articles and that type of thing. The uh easement deeds if we go the easement road or an actual taking in fee, doesn't matter as long as we can accomplish um you know, the uh the the improvements the the offsite improvements. And I want to make it clear too that this is offsite mitigation. We want to make sure that even though it's uh referenced in the permit that it's not a project related improvement but at home uh improvement and that's important because we have a MEPA

trigger if it is part of the project and we want to we want to avoid that. Mhm. Um and it is an improvement. I mean, the level of service the the sight distances today are are horrible. I mean, Okay, so there's [clears throat] So, a couple of things so I'll Three three things Dan, I'm going to ask you to address the last point on the MEPA thing. But okay, let's back up a minute. Yes. I think this board was very clear that we did not want if I remember correctly, we we did not want building permits. I think I was actually saying occupancy but others were saying building. I think the consensus was no building permits until this was [snorts]

you know, until this was constructed. Um and I I don't think we want to back away from that. I I do not want to get in a situation where for whatever reason these things come off the rails and you guys have buildings and and now we're in a position where you know, what are we going to tell you to tear the buildings down? You know, I don't want to get in that situation. So, Right. Um and I don't think the board wants to get in that situation. So, I do believe that all of that needs to be addressed Mhm. before we get into construction. Okay? And and by addressed I don't mean starting the permit. I mean, you've got shovels in the ground building that intersection. The

hopping over Mhm. a more important issue and that's at at the last meeting we talked about different grades, right? We talked about a proposal for a lesser grade. [clears throat] I think Jeff actually proposed it and what happened with that? Did Did you look to design that and and where do we where where did that end up? So, we [cough and clears throat]

our understanding was well, we do have for a short I think it's about a 100-ft stretch going from the landing area at 122 going up to about the first driveway for Maxwell Drive going a short stint of 10% um through that. If we did reduce the slope I want to say by 1% and we would have to extend that out just about to where the the driveway that that accesses number six and number eight. Um that would extend it out and reduce the slope by 1%. Um we did Jeff had drawn that out. Um we we have that pretty much wrapped up. We were kind of inundated with you know, compiling all the plans and and whatnot for this but we do what it comes down to is we could reduce the slope. We'd have to extend and drop the road um a little bit to extend that out with by dropping the the grade from a short I think it was about 100-ft long at 10% to drop it down to 9% which um you know, I would ask Jeff his opinion whether that accomplishes anything you know, meaningful where it's just the 10% is for a a short a short stretch. Um we do have an adequate landing area. So, um we do have a plan. I just wanted to make sure it was complete and had all the information on it um before that was finalized but um in our opinion it you know, and obviously your opinion is is is critical in this too. I for the additional length and disturbance of of the road,

it doesn't really accomplish a whole lot by dropping the per for stretch from 10% to 9%. Um if if I may, I'm sorry. Uh John needs to provide that plan. We committed to providing it and I think that discussing it and out of that context um you know, is is kind of not discussing it with full information and I I

I agree with you. I I just need to clarify cuz I I was almost hearing two different things from you. So, what I I think what I'm hearing and I think what the attorney has just backed up is you can design what Jeff had proposed. We can. You you don't you're not in love with it. You question whether it's necessary but you can and and you plan to design that. Yes. Okay. Yes. So, so that is another open issue. Check that. Um you know, with respect to whether you know, we can get some opinion from from Jeff as to whether it's accomplishing anything or not but Right. None [clears throat] of us are traffic designers or you know, that sort of thing. So, I think we tend to um you know, Agreed. Right? So, Agreed. And and he did propose it and I assume for a a legitimate reason. So, you know, I think we're You mean you don't know the AASHTO handbook Exactly. like the back of your hand. So, um all right. So, that's an open issue that needs to be addressed. Right. The other item then we did um I I just sent it into Katrina earlier was the um we did previously show the um the distance from the right-of-way and from the abutting stone wall that is on number I think it's number six Snow Road um and we did update that to include What What page are you I'm sorry. No, this was a separate You could probably

it. I gave it to you in your packets today. Okay. I'll pull it up. When did this come in?

When was this filed? With you. Yeah. This was We just included all of what the existing widths Oh, that's your that's the plan you filed last month. Yeah, I I added additional information to it which includes where the utility poles are, where the existing crosswalk is going across Snow Road from Maxwell Drive the widths of the driving aisles, where the striping is. Um so, the purpose of this was to show that to install a sidewalk on the um easterly side of Snow Road along the frontage where we don't have the ability to cross onto about our properties. We only have 3 ft of width before the shoulder of Snow Road. Um the driving aisles between because there's a you know there's a center double center line. Um yellow center line in the center of Snow Road and then there are on the shoulders the the the curb line stripe. So those driving aisles are only 10 ft wide each. So um if we were to widen up the or add a sidewalk we 4-ft sidewalk you need you know 6 in to a foot for the curbing. We would be significantly going into the northbound driving aisle. Um and on the other side of the road there is the existing curb there is existing utility poles and a rather narrow sidewalk particularly

where you have to walk around the backside of the utility poles that it it necks down the sidewalk. So what we have proposed and again committed to doing is to um redoing the sidewalk on the other side. The there are areas on both sides of Maxwell Drive where they they have minimal or non-conforming handicap ramps. We would add a crosswalk across you know going from one side north side to the south side of Maxwell Drive and making meaningful improvements to the sidewalk on the other side of the street. And um we've been out there a number of times. There are residents over at the Maxwell Drive Apartments. There are I believe mostly elderly uh residents over there and to have the improvements on that side of the road have improved handicap ramps, improved crosswalks across Maxwell Drive to tie into the existing sidewalk that's closer to to the Grafton Country Plaza. That would be um a nice improvement. I think they're going to be the the the highest um intensity users for sidewalks and crosswalks on that side. I have seen some elderly women you know walking and then trying to you know make their way to get over to the existing um sidewalk that's on closer to Country Plaza and um it's narrow over there in that sidewalk. So I think if we concentrated on that and made some good improvements and they made that really functional and up to code, I think it would be a big big improvement um

particularly for those folks. I got you. So the reason I had asked for a plan that had more of the details on it was to test the feasibility of constructing the sidewalk on the east side of Snow Road which for obvious reasons is preferable because it doesn't require any project resident to cross Snow Road. Uh without that a project resident would have to cross Snow Road twice to get to Stop & Shop. Um so what this plan shows is what we thought which which is that there's 3 ft of available width between the existing property line and the existing um edge of pavement in the northbound lane. Mhm. Um the wall's actually not a limiting factor which we thought it was but it's actually not because it's on the other side of the property line. So the the limiting factor is that there's only 3 ft between the property line and the northbound lane. But if the road is reconstructed in accordance with the plan that Jeff had drawn up which creates the 8.9% grade, that work is going up to just south of the driveway that's between eight and number six Snow Road. So can you actually Yeah, just point use your Yeah, so so south of that right around That's too far south. Yeah. That would be the end of the work. So if there's work happening at Snow Road at that point anyway then this road could be shifted west. The paved the travel lanes could be shifted west by a foot or two and if you see on the plan there's actually space between the travel lane

and the existing curb. There's a probably a foot there and then there's an an additional foot or two before you get to the property line. So and there's a there is a utility pole that's in the way. But there's there's multiple right down the There's one right there where we have the labeled utility pole but there's yeah there's a line of utility poles that Well, I think there's only one more, John. Isn't it? The other one's north. Uh there's one north but there's other ones that are south going down toward 122 as well. Okay, but but in terms of I mean I know the concern was moving utility poles to build a sidewalk. But if if that pole is going to have to be adjusted anyway and I don't I don't know if it will be. But if you're if you're changing the grade that pole may need to be moved anyway. If you're changing the grade if you're going up you you run into the possibility of compromising the clearance under the wires and if you're going down you run into the possibility of compromising how much utility pole is in the ground and whether or not it's going to be stable. It has to be reset deeper. Um these poles in the sidewalk are in-line poles. They move a lot easier than poles with intersection of wires such as down at Worcester Street and Snow Road. Um with that much wire on the poles coming in and making an intersection there's a lot of work a lot of money in my opinion. Um moving a pole an in-line pole to make it deeper if you have to put it in deeper because the sidewalk got got cut down because of road cut down to me that's the equivalent of replacing a pole after crashing to a pole that was damaged. Um and if it's got to be moved to the left or right a little bit that's probably much very low effort. The equivalent of again replacing pole after crash. Um I'm I'm just trying to think about the big picture

[clears throat and cough]

and and if if it could achieve a sidewalk on the east side the entire entire length that's a huge win in my opinion. I have I went out there um the day I was there with Dan there were two individuals walking down the side of the street without a sidewalk. Um again I've said this before in this meeting I wouldn't do it but other people will. Um nevertheless you know if there if there can be a slight shift in the location of the road enough to the left to make the sidewalk work that's a huge win for the town. And for the project. Uh and I think I've heard differing opinions as to how hard it is to move a pole. And Peter you were telling me that you've had some experience with this. Well, I just done a Quinsigamond Corner it it took a year or two. But it was a major intersection, too. Right. But when you're talking about a pole that's as Jeff described is not a major intersection and a car crashes into a pole that pole gets replaced.

I I don't think most of the work is moving the pole. Most of the work is just paperwork. Getting the next scheduling Right. So I I I I think we would be well served by having Jeff look at this plan give us an opinion and maybe talk to Paul Knoer have him give us opinion as to whether as part of the Snow Road Snow Road reconstruction work that's going to have to happen anyway is it feasible to add a sidewalk on the east side by shifting the lanes over?

This pole is totally different than the ones at Quinsigamond Corner that took forever. I mean this would be like the the one right at Worcester Street that we're going to go around. That would be a major like Quinsigamond Corner. Yeah, that would be a major one. This is just in-line pole. It's getting in there. [clears throat] So there's a pole that's going to have to be relocated at the intersection of Worcester Street? No. Originally under the original layout that was going to be required. Um the proposed intersection the horizontal layout is avoiding moving that pole which is a T intersection of wires. The easiest way to get them there let's face it it's when they start doing the digging to fix the intersection is just back into it hard with a loader.

[laughter] It'll be moved in 2 days. [clears throat] And insurance will cover it. You [laughter] are You speaking from experience? Any volunteers? [laughter]

Yeah. Um I look I I I think if if I may it doesn't make sense to um obviously the board has discretion but it doesn't make sense to continue talking about this until we see John's plans and the different concepts and um and the different design alternatives and we can't ignore cost, right? Um [clears throat] you know, there's a cost tolerance in this project and the improvement at Snow Road and 122 is significant. And the more that gets piled onto that has to be evaluated in the context of whether or not we're uneconomic now. So all of it needs to be really looked at and I I agree with the chair. It's an open item and we need to look at it more carefully. Mhm. And we need to know what our options are and me coming in over the last couple of months, I certainly am not in a position to to suggest I know what the options are. So Right. It We'll provide the plan. We've committed to it or the alternative plans. And it's now a priority really. Right. I mean it's been a priority but now it's the rubber's meeting the road, right? Yeah, so I I I think the takeaway has to be that that you know, the you know, I'm I'm looking at the uh

[clears throat] the Google uh images of Snow Road right now. Mhm. That sidewalk on the west side where the poles are in the middle of it is the public housing side. Yeah. Yep. Quite frankly, it's all Uh uh housing authority. Yeah. You know, I I don't think somebody could you know, maneuver a wheelchair down there without going into the grass. At a couple of points, two or three different points. Yeah, no, it's all

So I I I think there would be an opportunity to make it a lot better for the town. Mhm. And I think I think the takeaway is I think we'd really like you to look at it hard. Understood. You know, especially you know, with there's a lot of work going on. I just I'd hate to think that this road is getting rebuilt and we didn't actually take the opportunity to try and make everything everything right. Understood. Mr. Chair. Yeah. I just received an email from a select board member to remind the developer that part of the lip that you agreed to with the select board was to put a sidewalk at from the development down to [clears throat] Snow Road. Right. On the on the east side. On on the east side? No, on the west side.

On the west On the west side? Yeah, we reviewed that. Okay. I it was just brought sent it to me so I was just bringing it up. No, we did and and at the time as part of the lip we did commit to um making sure we had a sidewalk not on the east side but on the west side making improvements on that side. Cuz that came up I don't know number of months ago. Yeah, it did. I remember that. And we went oh no, [laughter] and double checked it. But understanding our options is critical here. Understood. And I think you know, I don't want to waste the public's time or the board's time.

Right. Right. So that that remains an open issue. Mr. McCusker. Yes. I wanted just to apply a little pressure to the development include to take a look real hard look and thought about the 8.9% up to the just short of the driveway Yeah. Um as proposed where um there would be a 10% grade, that grade would tie in at the south side of Maxwell Drive intersection. That intersection would not be um affected by the um improvements but what it would create is not a smooth transition vertically. Um there's a bit of an abrupt change. I can't It might be somewhere around 2% change abrupt change. Anything over a half a percent you want to make sure you have a vertical curve. That's that's not on what was originally proposed with the 10% grade. The 8.9% does achieve vertical alignment and vertical curve when necessary. Um Okay. I know what you're saying. Yep. Yep. I don't think it compromises sightline. I was just doing a little um sketch if you will here to see if sightline over the abrupt change was compromised. I don't believe that's the case but it's still an uncomfortable abrupt change um and the smooth transition is much better. Um and and again it it takes it it takes it down from 10% to about nine 8.9 I came up with but I I was drawing by hand so uh there's plus or minus but only a little bit but I I think I think transitioning it's another 150 ft worth of work but of course it's also at the Maxwell Drive intersection. There's excavation and removal of earth so it's not just a linear distance of square footage amount of work. It's it's also volumetric as to how long it takes to cut down the road, replace the gravel base and so on and so forth. But again, if that's looked at and then and then they're look able to look at

if does the road shift away from the east side a little bit created room for sidewalk on the east side and then find locations for the telephone poles they'd probably only move a few feet in order to make the west sidewalk much better and of course provide the handicap um ramps that are missing over on on the two Maxwell Drive intersections, it's a huge win for the area. Just one final question and I'm for the east side but I did notice the existing concrete sidewalk is on Country Plaza's property. So to tie into that Yeah. What's that involved? I do not know if it's on private property.

do we make an S to to go into it or go aside of it for a couple of feet or I would I would [clears throat] just get in touch with those guys and make a deal. Yep. They're not going to complain about it. They're giving them business. I wouldn't think. [laughter] Right. No, I wouldn't think they would. Can I keep this, chair? If [clears throat] if if necessary, yeah, you could curve it in. But I don't want it to come up later. Right. No, that's a good very valid point, Peter, cuz I see the sidewalk is essentially entirely on private property that of Grafton Country Plaza LLC. [clears throat] It gets trickier too if we're sliding the road to the west then it's even further out of alignment with the sidewalk that's already there.

[clears throat]

Good point. Yeah, it looks like that sidewalk was probably built when Country Plaza was built. I think it was done because they did a whole if you look where they have steps going up to it and there's a concrete so that was done I think as part of By the way, I I heard a rumor at one point of of you're looking into maybe going directly from your property down onto something uh Going there was a number of months ago a brief discussion um with the owner of the plaza to try to go around the back of six and eight and try to create a path that way. Um and the communication kind of feels like they're in the the prop they're in the process of of selling that property as well so um I we had some discussions I think it was before the holidays. Okay. With them. Is that a 20 or 30 ft drop? Where? From your property down to Country Plaza? Oh oh yeah, no, we're talking about going a- around six and eight and then coming back. We had discussed going around them and there is a strip you can see on that plan Peter, there's a strip that where the sidewalk ends. There's that strip that goes perpendicular to Snow Road that's also owned by the the plaza. So we're going around the back side of those two lots and then Oh oh, I thought come around the back way and then no, not going straight down the hill. Okay. You you need skis. Going around the back side of six and eight and then popping out to the to the existing sidewalk but that would um be

kind of just direct access from the apartment project around the back side of of those abutters to get out there. So instead of going across their front edge we'd go around the back side of them. Yeah. But I as I see it, it's about a 20 closer to 30 ft change in elevation to get from the 14 Snow Road project to the back pavement area behind the buildings. Closer right around 30 ft. If you went straight Yeah, no, well, you got to you got to you got to come down 30 ft whether you do it in 30 horizontal ft or 300 horizontal ft. You're still going to come down 30 ft. Right. And also on the the back side of Stop & Shop in that area they have um uh there's a I think a good size retaining wall. There is. There absolutely is. Yeah. Yeah, but that's not what we're talking about. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about looping up around the

Yeah, and actually if if you actually were going to do that, it might actually bring six and eight to the table about Okay. Yeah. Let's put it in the front. That's going to go unnoticed. Well I yeah, I know that was yeah, like well, that might make us less popular. All right. Um Dan, the point about the MEPA review uh I don't I hadn't heard that before. [clears throat]

Um Yeah, I mean the it's the applicant's responsibility to file an environmental notification form with MEPA if this project trips any of the triggers um and I don't think it does. I don't I don't think this project does. That does The triggers have to do with a number of parking spaces, the number of trips that are generated, the impervious area, whether there's a sewer connection. There's like what? 15 or 20 different criteria that that could apply. I don't think this project trips any of them. It doesn't really affect us at all. Um it's there it's a state law they have to comply with. Yeah. So. Okay. Yeah. All right, but I mean I mean you know what what what what I heard the applicant saying was he wanted to separate the offsite from the onsite and I'm not even sure necessarily what that means in in other projects we we've issued a comprehensive Yeah. We've issued a comprehensive permit and it includes conditions that require offsite improvements and and and that's that. I mean so I I guess I'm not understanding what that really means or what your point is.

So yes in in the general context there are offsite improvements, there are onsite improvements. Um the improvements to Route 122 and Snow Road uh should happen regardless of whether this development is built or not. I mean it's a pre-existing historic condition that needs to be dealt with by the town. It's convenient uh that we are proposing this development and it can be all wrapped in at the same time. But it's really I guess the point I'm trying to make is it's really not a project related um uh improvement. It's it's really mitigation for the town. It's an improvement for the benefit of the town and to the benefit of remedying a historic problem on Snow Road. Um and I think we need to make that that clear in the in the condition that it is an offsite town mitigation. It's something that we we offered you know, to do or agreed to do as a part of the lip. But it's not essential for this project to move forward. Does that make sense? No, because it is essential for this project to move forward because without the improvements the service level of the intersection goes down. And you know, for the density that's being proposed um you know, this is a requirement. If if we can't fix the service level then the density is going to have to go way down for this project. My understanding is that the service level uh

goes down to an F without this project in the future. In the future or today? Yeah, right now it's an E. It's an E, but And then in in few with future traffic increasing Got it. Regardless of this project or not it goes to an F. By us doing um I don't know how many years down the road they will What's the projection? I guess 5 years. Because you usually in a traffic study project out 5 10 20 years. Um we we can definitely get that for you. It's it's in the traffic study. It's in the traffic study. I don't recall that.

It does There's with or without us it does go from an E to an F. With us and obviously with the with the turning lane it's it goes to I believe it's a B in the morning and a C in the afternoon in the peak. I think that's what it was. So it um with or without us it it goes to an F. Um with the improvements that we're we're obviously obligated and and committed to doing it will significantly not just and we did talk about this level of service is is more you know, the the the queuing of cars. So and then we had talked about the with the traffic engineers we could keep the same alignment have a right turn lane the level of service still would be a B and a C. From a practical standpoint by realigning it and making it more of a 90° that's that's not built into the into the numbers, but it's built into the reality. Right. Right. Exactly. But but the bottom line is I'm not understanding the point. I almost feel like like you're trying to kind of hedge bets here a little bit by you know, by saying something you know, you know, there'll be a condition in the permit that says these offsite improvements can be done period. Correct.

You know, the fact that it is or isn't historical problem the fact that there is or isn't something that has to be done eventually anyway I don't see where that has a role in our comprehensive permit. Where we are Am I out of line there? No, you're right and this is really an issue between them and MEPA. So it's I I you know, I we're going to have our condition that's going to require this work. You can convince MEPA if you'd like that you don't have to file an ENF. I guess that's between you and them. Yeah, I don't take that position honestly. Um and I think there's a way we can craft it that satisfies the project development and satisfies the town and gets you the improvement at the same time. It's as you pointed out in our conversations Dan it's a matter of word smithing and making sure that all of our expectations and outcomes are aligned. That's that's all. No one's trying to game anything. No one's trying to change what the ultimate outcome is going to be which is to create an improvement [clears throat] there. Yeah. It's just the manner in which we do it. But I but I think that the timing and the sequence is important.

Exactly. Exactly.

Um so I I really encourage an offline discussion about the timing. Um because Why why an offline discussion? Well, if we can do a side workshop and have a fully vetted discussion either between me and Dan or maybe John the the the peer reviewer and again, we don't we don't walk we don't suggest walking away from the responsibility that that that has been agreed to by the project team. That's not what's at issue. Um I think it's in our mutual best interest to figure out a way that we can maintain these 200 units on your subsidized housing inventory while at the same time allowing us to proceed with the building permit so long as the commitment uh figuring out a way to hold our feet to the fire if you will so long as the commitment is actively in in process. Because Yeah, I think this this board has been pretty clear on that. That's not going to fly and and speaking just for myself I could care less about the SHI. That's not one of our goals. Um so you know, I think this board has been very clear. Um and actually I you know, I've been more lenient. I'm I'm the one who was saying occupancy, but everyone else I think everyone else has has been pretty clear that you know, no building permits and I understand that cuz I I know exactly where this is going to go. There's too many places where this could come off the rails. Town meeting could say no. So So you know, this there's different places. I mean that pole in the center I can see where DOT is saying you can't do that. So there's so many places to come off the rails and I don't want to be in a

situation where you've got buildings built and and we're here because you're asking for a change to the comprehensive permit. There's no way in heck we're going to be able to say no. Right? The reality I mean we could, but So [clears throat] let's let's play that scenario out because I'm glad you raised it. Um we don't expect that the DOT is going to say no. They might not say yes to every aspect of the plan. They as I indicated before. But what if they do say no? What if town meeting says no? Now I have a condition that renders the project ultimately uneconomic and unbuildable and then we're at the housing appeals committee. That's the reality of it.

you came back here first. Mhm. You would have of course. Right. And and and we work through what is the issue and and how do we get through that? Right. And what I'm suggesting is that we have that conversation now. Because no one is suggesting that we're trying to shirk the responsibility of of doing it. We just want to at least have the board consider that you know, we do it in a manner that align aligns with mutual We've been considering this for 18 months.

Yeah, no I know that. We we How much We [clears throat] can't do it now. We don't know what we don't know what the problem is. Okay? If if it's if it's town meeting said no, okay, that's that's a bigger problem than you know, this is just going to cost us way too much money because we got to move that big pole. You know, you know, there's maybe ways we can deal with that piece of it, right? You know, so so we can't deal with that issue now. So you know, it's it's going to be a case of no building permit until that is being at least being constructed. We know it's happening. And if it comes off the rails and it can at multiple junctions then we come back and we talk about it. We work through what what's it going to take? Right? And if it turns out that the only thing you can do is is you know, is the turn lane that had been proposed then maybe we need to make some adjustments to density or do some other things. But but we we work through the problem once we know what the problem is. Well, I think we know what the problem is. We've got a We've got a difficult intersection at Snow Road and 122.

the what what problem is preventing you from from from doing it from from making the improvements? Well, there's a process and and it's not it's not a matter of if it's it's it's the the the time frame in which the process is going to unfold and it's going to take a very long time. This That's what I'm suggesting. for a year and Sure. no progress has been made on that intersection. Um and I I'm sure some

Well, you know, conversations could have been had and um but at this stage it's not something that I'm willing to just start over and Mhm. look at this as a some new problem you're running into. We've raised this from the very first meeting. Probably the first minutes of the first meeting. Mhm. This was problem A number one and to you know, revisit this now and try to you know, change the sequence when we've been absolutely clear

Mhm. that there would be a condition that this intersection was improved prior to building permits. I don't know why we're revisiting that now or why Yeah. there's any indication from the board that we're going to waver on that. Brian, if I could add on I I think Yeah. I I think with with due respect I I think you're kind of panicking a little bit too much. What you need is DOT approval, okay? Mhm. We're town's going to support that. Zoning board's going to support that. This is an improvement to the intersection with this project or without the project, right?

Mhm. The other thing you need is housing authority deeds. You've already met with the housing authority. They're willing to give you the the the easement or the deed. Uh they say DHD approval's not required. I'm not sure that's correct, but whatever. We'll figure that out. If it's required, you get DHD approval. They're not going to say no. Mhm. Then you get town meeting approval, right? Mhm. And town meeting approval is to shift the road or or change the layout of the road a little bit Mhm. and accept the deed from the from the housing authority. So, why wouldn't the town I mean We don't know, but We don't know and

but let's not panic, right? As Bill said, we're we're we're worrying about something that's happening 6 months or a year from now. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. There's no reason for us sitting here today to think that those three approvals are not viable. I think they're completely viable. I'm not suggesting they're not viable. And I'm and I think we're saying somewhat the same thing. I'm not even suggesting that we're not going to get town meeting approval. I'm not suggesting we're not going to get DOT approval. I'm not suggesting any of that. We we might not. I I you know, I could easily see and uh the chair raised the scenario, not me.

[clears throat] Uh I could easily see uh people showing up at town meeting as an end run around the board to try to defeat the project. [cough]

I could certainly see that. Um I don't know what the what the environment is for housing in the town, but if it's like anywhere else in the Commonwealth and I'm at several communities throughout, it's you know, these are difficult conversations. I don't think it's Um Grafton's a different town. Grafton is very supportive of affordable housing and I I just don't see Mhm. sitting here today that being even a possibility. When when the when the votes are not for the project, the votes are for the intersection. And everybody uses this intersection. So, I I I think it's really something that we should be worrying about down the road. And if for some reason one of these three approvals doesn't happen, then you come back to the board and we talk about modifications to the project that might be acceptable with fewer improvements on the intersection. I I I think I think the reality is in in in Stephen Acostas said this at the last meeting or or a past meeting. Mhm. You know, I I think you all want to get going and and start building. We did. And I get that. Um you know, and and maybe it's a case [clears throat] of you know, you you you get through some of this process and and maybe you get all your approvals, but you know, what we're it's going to take us another year before something can happen or or but you know, for whatever reason. I mean, maybe you have to move that pole. Yeah. And it's going to and it's going to be a year. Then you come back to us and say, "Look, we we got we got this, we got this, we got this. We're ready to roll. We'll put some money here. You know, we'd like to start building." Then maybe the board says, "Yep, looks like you guys are really good to go on that." And and and we make that change at that time. Okay. I mean, you know, I've I've been I've I've been with I think it's at least 10 40Bs. Not a single one of them hasn't had to come back and ask for some sort of change to the permit. So, we just do it. Okay. We we cross that bridge when we get there, but but we're not going to you know, I think the board has been clear that we're not going to give you you know, start building before we know

that that intersection's going to get fixed and as as certainly, John, as you know, we spent more time talking about that darn intersection than anything else, I think. So, It's important to this point. Okay. You're just saying that it's it's we're we look we're looking to work together. And what we I mean, one of the Yeah. We know that right now you've fallen out of safe harbor. This project will keep you in safe harbor. So, it the the opinion was, "Well, if we can keep this pro- project moving forward, it keeps you you know, at your at your numbers and it allows us time because it's like been herding cats, so we can try to grind through some of the administrative part. So, that was that was the rationale, not that we're trying to look for a loophole or Yes. shirk a responsibility. We're looking to do it, but we were Right. impressed that it would it would be mutually beneficial. And Keep your numbers where they need to be and it gives us time to kind of get moving and and herd some cats and get through process, whether it's with town council, through town meeting, through DOT, but Um again, we're we're fully committed to making improvements to that intersection. And you know, the suggestion that we're somehow speculating down the road and we're not being proactive. We have been proactive. John met with the housing authority. I've been reaching out to town council. I spoke with the town administrator's office maybe 2 months ago. Um so, we are trying to get that level of engagement. Mhm. Um it's and it hasn't borne fruit yet. And I I don't know what the motivation is for

town council to not return multiple calls. I I can only imagine maybe they were getting ready for town meeting. Maybe they want your decision first [clears throat]

before they move forward and commit. Um we were trying to get the process advanced and we had every intention on getting on the town meeting warrant from our you know, and it just didn't happen. Mhm. And do you [clears throat] need those discussions to be done before you even start a conversation with DOT? Uh no. No, we can uh I I don't know that conversations with DOT have been started, but no, I I think I mentioned this earlier that uh we can start the conversation with DOT. I think we would probably need at least some um non-binding commitments from the housing authority through letters of intent and that type of thing to present to the DOT, but uh it's a chicken or the egg type thing, right? Uh what comes first? Does DOT want to act without the uh property being in place? Um on the other hand, does DOT uh want to tie their hands that, "Gee, you've only taken this amount of property, but you we think you need that that amount of property. We think you need something different." You know, so

DOT doesn't need to see the the actual property being conveyed at this point. No, they do not. That's my point. would be comfortable to show them that there's an agreement in place to do it, but Right. I don't think it makes sense for the housing authority to convey land and for the town to accept land until DOT has approved the project. So, that that definitely comes first. And so, as soon as this permit is Right. the next day, you should be at DOT with an application for a curb or [clears throat] not a curb cut permit, but road modification permit. Yeah, it's a curb cut modification, but um All right, so think I think we're in sync on this.

We're in sync. We are. Um Mr. Weichert. Yes. Just in terms of the sequencing, cuz I had this thought [clears throat] when I was going through Mr. Hill's um conditions and it seemed drastic to me to to hold the building permits until the completion of the intersection. Especially since you know, just thinking back to um to Pleasant Street and the the improvements to um to that cross street. Like part of the goal is to do work while you have equipment in the field and you're killing two birds with one stone and that sort of thing. If the biggest hurdle or one of the bigger hurdles that we anticipate is DOT approval, would [clears throat] we be okay with allowing for building permits once the DOT approval is in? I I don't know if that would go far enough to um to allay any of the the applicant's concerns, but to me, I think that that way with a bond attached to it um so that you know we know we've got approval in hand. We've got you know an interested party in the the housing authority. We've got a bond in hand to complete the work ourselves if we have to. Um That gets me comfortable enough but I don't know about the rest of the board. I think that's something we can talk. Um Okay. I think we can I think we can talk a little bit more about that as we really start you know getting into the conditions. And that's a minute. We can also we also could come back. I mean they they could come back at some point as as I just kind of described as well. Um you know look hey we're all ready to go here but you know I think we can get into that conversation a little bit more. That's a reason. That's a reason.

That's that's a totally reasonable suggestion and I think that's the kind of creativity I was encouraging and that Yep. maybe we can align our Yep. our thinking on the condition but I mean to get the to get the modification permit in place I think and then and then be able to apply for our building permit. Keep in mind we have to go through final approval with MassHousing as well or through EOHLC because it's a lip right. Um I mean there are so many processes that are going to be happening simultaneously as you know. I understand. So I I just

And just to go along with what you said just to walk clear. Yeah. Uh no occupancy permit if it's not done. Yeah. Got it. Right. Right. Um other comments? Just bonding companies. discussion after all. Peter up to the mic. [clears throat] Just cuz you have a bond. Oh I know. You pull the bond it's 3 years from Tuesday before something gets done. we've been through it in town here. In in a couple of different places.

Right. I I understand that. So I'm not thrilled with Yep. I I got to admit if they started working on that road and the equipment's there and they got it all tore apart then I wouldn't mind talking about a building permit but uh they have to be there. Well and and keep in mind the timing of the comprehensive permit. 3 years and we're out if we haven't pulled the building permit on the project. Well we can extend it. You extend?

You can extend it but the composition of the board can change, number of things could happen but It's been a fisherville for what? 10 years? 12 years? 10 years. Actually actually without a building permit? [laughter] You guys are patient. 2010. Was it? That was my first case. I just 20 yeah 2010. application came in. That's good. Give or take a a year. So 16 years. Well the first the first 40B on that development was in the 80s. Holy moly. Never built. Really?

was approved in the 80s. But at any event there are timelines in place that would force us to really move. Understood All right. I'd like to spend Jeff if you can maybe briefly go through any real important highlight not not that everything isn't important but [laughter]

Don't waste our time with your No um No I think a lot of these things get worked out between the engineers, right? But if you could kind of go through the if there's any real things that we need to pay attention to tonight. With respect to the latest revision of the plans to your letter. There's Actually that's a very that's as clean of a letter as you probably get from me at this point. Um I'm I'm good with the storm water management, the hydrology and all that. I last saw hydrology computations back in Septemberish or whatever. They're recharging a tremendous amount of water. To the best of my recollection that open basin doesn't overflow. The point is um the the there's no issues with respect to hydrology. Um pipe sizing calculations, a last run of hydrology based upon the last set of plans that should come during review of the construction plans. There's no reason to look at anything else. I I've got no issues with with the onsite improvements whatsoever. Um I do want to point out to the board that I appreciate the development team giving the board statistics on parking overall but there's eight dwelling units that have two garage parking and two driveway parking for four parking spaces per dwelling unit. As far as I'm concerned anybody in the multi-family buildings isn't going to be able to use one of those driveway parking spaces so I looked at the parking based upon the what's available to the five large buildings in the surface and the garage spaces and all that but even at that it's 2.10 parking spaces per dwelling unit instead of 2.18. I'm very satisfied with the parking. Yeah. That's Um I'm I'm good with the onsite improvements and the plans do reflect what what um during the public hearings I've been hearing what's been brought forth as far as onsite improvements. Offsite improvements we've covered everything I wanted to share with the board. I have nothing new to offer. Okay. All right. So you'll work through whatever is

there. Um then I think you know I I I think you may have been looking to go to the waivers but I think what I want to actually do is is talk through the conditions that Dan has proposed and I've got something to say. I haven't had a chance. We just got this in the last day or so.

I haven't had a chance to look at this. Um so I'm going to ask Dan to just kind of lead us through the draft conditions so we can make sure that I'll let you share. We're kind of we are on the same page and understanding what's going on here. So so we're we're going to Dan's draft decision that we all should have had in our packet. And Dan I'll kind of turn it over to you for kind of lead us through what you think is salient to talk about tonight. Okay. Katrina's just uh switching the screen so I can share my screen. But it's not giving me the option. But Should I go on to Zoom? Probably. I don't know why it's Oh that's yeah. You have to be in Zoom for me to let you share. I've done it in the past though. I know. I don't know why it's not letting me let you share. All right. How do I get to Zoom? Through website? We should have gotten an email. Oh. Right. I sent you an email. Yeah it's not giving me the option. I'm glad it's not just me. It's [laughter] like every time I'm it happens to me and I'm like I can't share. I'm not having any problem with my computer.

[laughter] Usually it says let others share and it's not even giving me Was that today Katrina that you know? Yeah you should have gotten one at 6:00 tonight. A reminder. Who's it from? Zoom. Zoom. If you go to the town website it's the board's website. [clears throat] Yeah. It's on the agenda. But that would be as But that's a Oh is a Yeah he gets one as a participant. Got it. Yeah I don't know why So you can let him in if you have [laughter]

Share settings. Yeah I got the reminder Dan at 5:55 tonight so somewhere right around there. Can Can somebody forward it? I got it. Okay. I mean I I could do it but I think Dan wants to drive too. He does which is I have no But it's not even giving me the option to let Dan share. There he is. Has he joined? Is he in it? Yeah he's in. And I think you want to make sure you're muted or [snorts] Host tools for share. Okay.

Oh wait here we go. How do I share? All panelists. You should be able to share now. Okay. They moved it. Funny how they just change things. Zoom. Good. I love it. All right. So this template is the same template that you guys have seen for all of our projects particularly the more recent ones. This I just basically took the Upton Road decision and used that as as a basis and changed the the uh the language that we needed to change to make it unique to this project. Um so the first couple sections are are really um preambles that Katrina's going to help me fill in with dates of hearings and things like that with public comments from. Um the finding section I've not drafted yet. This is just the language from the Upton Street project so that'll change once the conditions are finalized. And the conditions start um on page four. And Bill if it's okay with you I'll just hit the highlighted portions.

Yes. Cuz the rest of it's I think standard stuff that we've seen seen before. Um So condition A1 is the really the probably the most important condition that requires the applicant to file final plans addressing all the comments in the conditions that we've raised in this document. Um so we acknowledge here that what they presented so far are preliminary plans. Now they have to come back to us and give us final plans that address all the comments and provide all the supplemental information that we asked for. Um So section A10 I we need to fill in now that we've got the final revised plans. I think they were dated March 2nd so we we can fill all this stuff in. Make sure we have the full list of all the plans. Um section A11 I think needs to be updated. Um and I know that I think Cohen had sent us the revised statistics showing how many You you still have some 50% units is that right?

No. No. Mhm. What was it? Oh you don't have any 50% Just say yes. [laughter] No, they're not. They they were only doing 80s. 80s? Why didn't the select board require lower? Oh, I almost got in trouble with the select [laughter] board trying to get them to do that. That was the first time we met, Bill.

Oh, I I think I watched that [laughter] meeting. Okay. I almost ran out of the room. I wasn't involved, so [laughter] hey. So, no. It's it's all the it's a 25% right. So, I'll change that table to reflect what the project really is. Um section B is is the submission requirements. Um nothing really unique here. It's basically everything we've asked for in other projects. Construction management plan. Uh proof of permits that they need from federal and state authorities. Um then we get to section C. This is site development construction conditions. And C1 is the section that deals with the offsite improvements. So, it's worth just taking a minute to read what I've drafted.

[cough]

Shouldn't Shouldn't we Should we be specifying in paragraph A um Grafton DPW director? I mean, we We don't need to. It's your call. [snorts]

I mean, we would incorporate his approval. We we should I mean, we should obviously get his approval, but I just would I don't want to end up in a situation where we say, "Okay." and he says, "No." or something like that. What What are you saying, Bill? Well, paragraph A says um complete Snow Road reconstruction work to the satisfaction of the Grafton ZBA and the Grafton Z Grafton DPW director. Right. And it usually I generally in comprehensive permits, we we are the ultimate decision. So, you know, we should get his input, obviously. Well, it's a little different because this is a public road. It's not It's not on the site. It's off the site. And so, this won't this be under his jurisdiction after this is all done as a public way? Sure. Yeah. But we would just withhold approval until we had his approval. I I I I I just don't want to end up in a situation where, you know, Well, I suppose if he wants to withhold his approval Well, you know, he would withhold his approval. Well, I mean, we wouldn't approve it till he did anyway, right?

Right. That's what I can't imagine us or or new members of the board, I can't imagine. Yeah. Okay. If I may, I would imagine that the work along Snow Road outside the MassDOT right-of-way is jurisdictional to the Grafton DPW and there would have to be some kind of permit, just like there is with MassDOT, but that portion would be just along whatever section of Snow Road. And so, the the point is the in theory the the applicant probably needs a road opening permit or something to do the work in Snow Road that is not in the MassDOT [clears throat] jurisdiction. I just I just get a little nervous when I see that something has to be approved by two different entities. That that's it you know, that is but um

[snorts] I it probably makes sense. I'm fine with that. But if I may, uh just a quick question. This is still an open issue because we're still deciding whether or not Uh yes. we're going to condition this on DOT approval or completion of the work. Right? Yeah. Okay. I'm not sure what that means condition on DOT approval. That the For the construction of the road opening permit. Right. The building permit could issue uh to Brian's suggestion. Right. So, that's where the where the first language prior to the commencement of construction activities. Right. So, that yeah, that might get Right. Adjusted.

[snorts] I'm just jotting down a list of open issues. I I I didn't mean to Well, I did mean to interrupt you, but [laughter]

I think I addressed I think I addressed my issue. So, paragraph B actually speaks to easements. Is Is Is that the intention or is it land? By the way, I thought they were actually going to It It It honestly from the 30,000-ft overview doesn't make a difference. Yeah. As long as you have the legal right to uh lay realign the road and do what you need to do. Whether it's an easement or a taking in fee six one half dozen of the other.

Yeah, I think most towns generally prefer easements when when they're acquiring land for roads. Okay. And we can talk to Paul or whoever is in charge. I I had a conversation with Paul a number of months ago and he was saying on other projects where they've needed land for say to um for a sidewalk, they've done it through easements. Easements.

Yeah. And there'll be a there'll be a takings plan. There'll be some temporary easements as well. There might be some grading easements. You know, all of that will be addressed accordingly. Have you been in touch with the housing authority's council? Their council, they claim, is EOHLC, so So, no. [laughter] The answer is no. Right. So, maybe That was the first question I asked. Maybe we should be putting them in touch with a lawyer if they don't have one. Yeah. Yeah. [clears throat]

What's EOH whatever? Uh it's formally DHCD that uh looks over your SHI, for example, looks over your compliance with uh 40B in general. It's the It's the quasi-state governing authority. The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, formerly the Department of Housing and Community Development. So, every time that's to the state state level. So, every time they call, they might get a different lawyer answering their question. Well, that's not even really applicable. They they don't do They need uh you know, a land or real estate Right. not the state's attorney. I'm happy to step in if they'll sign a conflict waiver. [laughter] Hey. It's take it up with Bill.

[laughter] Right. It's a housing authority. They don't have money. [laughter] Mr. Chair. Yeah. Um through either the town or the applicant's council, um I don't know if this is one of the questions that would have been out to to our town council, but wouldn't easement need to go in front of town town meeting like a taking cuz, you know, speaking of sidewalks, you know, when the DPW did the work on on Millbury Street, I don't remember anything having to do with that sidewalk project coming before town meeting. Um but there were easements all up and down Millbury Street. were just temporary use. They didn't

in the right of way. They didn't take any land. They just if they had to step on cuz my brother had signed one of them. The if they wanted to had to step on his land to make the sidewalk, that was what the basic agreement was.

permanent. But it's uh Yeah, basically look at it this way. Um it's any disposition of land of real property whether in fee or easement. The only thing that would be exempted from that and I can tell you right now DOT is not going to rely on this uh is a license. You could go to a property owner and enter into a license agreement which is revocable at will of either party. So, obviously, improvements aren't going to work. So, yeah, an easement where the town is taking jurisdiction and control of the way or that portion of the realignment would have to be done acquired by town meeting. And what I'm hearing, too, is permanent easement for this versus temporary easement for construction purposes. And we can do I mean, it's with the housing authority. I'm probably suggesting that these are going to be friendly takings, if you will, for nominal consideration. And it sounds like everybody's on the same page to get this done. It Yeah, it wouldn't have to be a taking, right? It just could be an easement.

I think so. I know Well, it would be a taking by easement. Right. I I don't think it actually has to be a taking, but it's the town could acquire the interest that it needs for the road just by an a grant of an easement by the housing authority. You could do it both ways.

But they have to accept it. Right. You still have to have an acceptance, but it doesn't have to be an order of taking. Right. [snorts] Either which way it ends up at town meeting. I mean, it again, it's a difference without a distinction. Legally is Yeah. Okay. Right. So, I I don't have any other comments about what you've got in C1? I mean Anybody else? See if you knew what we talked about. Quickly, it's not highlighted, but in C2, there's a reference to the town planner, which is currently vacant. So, I don't know if you wanted to say or designee or make that the DPW director instead. Well, we have an assistant town planner. So, it's or designee. She just She doesn't have the title. Interim, does she? Yeah, she would assume it was Um, she does have Right now, she is until they have come in. So, Natalia is doing it all right now. All right, so I'll scroll down to the next highlighted section. The hours, by the way, just use the same hours to Upton Street. Where was that? Is that C8? C8. Yeah, okay. It's a topic of conversation. Oh, yes. 7:00 to 5:00. Blasting. Yeah, do you guys have any Are we blasting? No. No blast.

Does the applicant have any concerns of the hours of operation? And here's an equipment delivery. But is it typical Cleaning construction work shall not occur before 7:00 or after 5:00 Monday through Friday. I would typically 7:00 to 7:00. Is that for What What And I haven't looked at this. I apologize, but what do the town bylaws prescribe? Or is there any prescription in the zoning ordin- uh zoning bylaw? Our bylaws are the same as the state state. I think it's 7:00 a.m. till either dusk or 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, then Saturday 8:00 to 5:00. None on Sunday, none on legal holidays. Right. And some of them they say you can work on a holiday, but you have to go and get out of there. Yeah. Yeah, good luck. No.

[laughter] I don't like those phone calls. No. I get enough when people are showing up at quarter to 7:00 and starting equipment. Yeah. Or a paving day when they show up at 5:30 and unload. Yep. Paving days are always

And that's the one thing you really have to be very cognizant of cuz we we get phone calls like you would not believe. Where I've had to have my building inspectors there as Bill knows at 6:30 in the morning watching. So, we get complaints from short-fighting neighbors. So, Sure. I mean, your guys can't even show up until 7:00. Like, they can't get there early. They They had They can't arrive until 7:00. And that's what the last couple of sentences in this condition are really trying to address. I think those were added because of problems we had at other sites. Yeah. Is that for outside work? Is that for all work? All work. Cuz if someone's, you know, inside doing wiring and they're not, you know, Still. Yeah, okay. Cuz we did have that question come up for Fisherville if they could have inside wiring, inside painting. Right, right. And so The problem is delivery trucks come at like 6:00 or 6:30 and they're just fiddling [clears throat] outside. Right. And people are still sleeping, they're getting ready in the mornings. So, it's a real It's a real problem. Okay. And so, obviously, you guys can come back to us with comments before the next meeting.

That's the hope. I I I must admit I have not even had a chance to look at this.

No, no, this just came out. I mean, I I haven't looked at it myself, but And I just Like I said, I just wanted Dan to kind of take us through um Yeah. [clears throat] kind of the highlights and make sure we're all on kind of on the same page. And And it's appreciated. So, open space section D uh the first couple paragraphs are the same language from Upton Street. We have the tree protection um paragraph D1 which I don't think is going to be an issue with for you guys. Um So, D2, I probably should have highlighted that cuz that's actually a new provision or it's unique. Um The proposed language is that there's there would be an open open space buffer along the northerly property lines to the that abut the residences on Suzanne Terrace. This would have a depth of 40 ft. Um And what that precludes is structures, driveways, utilities within the buffer, but the drainage utilities and the grading that's in the buffer would be allowed. So, you you do have We do have a lot of grading. We have grading for that water quality swale. Um But I think the garage, if I'm not mistaken, I think the garage is set back at least like 40 ft. It's in that ballpark, but I'm not sure.

[snorts] I'm right around 40 ft, maybe just under that. But I'm not using a scale. He's talking about So, Right here. Yeah. If while we're talking about the garages, I just wanted to flag that I I didn't really focus on this before. These garages are really close to each other. There's no space between them. Um And so, I There's two concerns with that. Number one, does the building inspector [cough] or the fire chief have anything to say about that? Because typically, our our zoning bylaw requires, I think, 20 ft. 25 ft, 20 ft between buildings.

Something like that. I'd have to Separation between buildings. Um And the building inspector and the fire chief have said in the past on past projects that they like to see separation for access and fire protection. The other concern is that this does kind of create a wall effect when you have like these long, narrow buildings basically touching each other. Um So, aesthetically, do we have a concern with that? Maybe not. I mean, in some respects, the line of garages on the north side actually provide a screen. I thought that's what we kind of talked about. Yeah. So, maybe it's not a big deal. But was there a waiver request for the Yeah. distance of separation? There is. Yes. I did email all of them. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I emailed Mike today and There were I think there were two bylaws. There was one that governs the primary buildings and then there was some other one Yeah. Somewhere I I think I saw the waiver for the space between the garages. Okay. Pretty sure. It's in there. Okay. It's also [clears throat] too. Okay. And that's for the 40 ft. It almost looks like condo number one may actually be closer than anything else to the property line. Yeah, we broke it down by building. So, I can move on. D3 is boilerplate, D4 boilerplate, uh D5 should have highlighted this. This is This comes out of the the comment from the conservation administrator. Um So, she wrote in recently that she wanted to make sure we had some language about the potential vernal pool that's, I guess, in the ILSF. Jeff, is that right? In the northeast corner? Right. Right. Yep. So, there's there is a belief that that that might be a vernal pool, in which case I mean, that This ILSF is already jurisdictional, they're already going to have to go

before the conservation commission under the state act. Um The bylaw and the regulations do have enhanced um provisions governing activity adjacent to vernal pools. And so, she she and the commission, I guess, want the board to uh protect those provisions and make sure that the vernal pool area is investigated in the spring, which is actually right now. Um so, I maybe they're already doing it. Um I know you guys have a wetland scientist already engaged. So, that that area be evaluated to see if there is, in fact, a certifiable vernal pool. And if there if there is, then that the applicant then get it certified through the state. Um And then, the town's vernal pool protection would apply to this area. What that means in practice is that um they can't do any work within, I think, a certain number of feet to the vernal pool unless they get approval from the conservation commission. Um But under the state act, they just can't discharge runoff to the vernal pool, which they're not because they're proposing the outfall 100 ft away. Right. So, it may not even be consequential if this is a vernal pool, but Right. We have um I forwarded that comment to our wetland scientists. And from [snorts] what I understand, let me set up so that people can hear me. Um There is no required mechanism for under the state or the local bylaw for certifying vernal pools. Um it's it's a voluntary act by a you know, by a property owner. There is no provision requiring that under state or local regulations. Notwithstanding, we are treating it like it is and that's why we pulled that any

of the the potential point discharges outside of the buffer zone to it, but there is no There is no provisions in in the Wetlands Protection Act or the local bylaw requiring that. It's It's an exercise for the sake of an exercise because we will be um observing it. So, I think the commission can require you to investigate it as part of the state act permit. And then the commission can certify it if it if it in fact is a super helpful. So, it's kind of just So, we'll have we'll have Matt um take a look at it and we we may we may propose an alternative to it just to so that we're again, making sure that we're meeting all the regulations, but not um doing something just for the sake of doing it if we're going to to be um you know we're we're going to be um adhering to it anyway. [clears throat] So, we don't want to just you know, do it for the sake of doing it if we're going to be um you know making sure that we um are [cough] aware of it and and [clears throat] following the regulation even if it is or it isn't. So, but I'll get Matt. I already forwarded her comment to Matt and he'll he'll give his

Is that the wetland scientist?

Yes, Matt Matt Marrow is our wetland scientist. Who's who's he with? He works himself. He's He was um a conservation agent in I don't know Sterling, Dudley I forget where else. Um I I think he was up a lot of places north and then he was down in He's been in a handful or more. Um and now he he's pseudo retired. I think he's the chairman of the of the Sterling Conservation Commission now. Okay. At any rate. All right. And then D6, [clears throat] uh you have a no take letter. Um Do we? So,

We don't. I think so uh again, Leah, the conservation agent suggested that the conditions in the no take letter be just incorporated as additions here. Yeah. Um I think you need to go back to MassWildlife though once the final plans are finalized. Because if they approved your project under the set of plans that was dated July of 2025. Right. And we did we did send them an updated um an updated not full set, but showing the you know, obviously the work within there. And it was [clears throat]

in in line with what the previous plan was. But that's fine. We'll So, we will we'll keep them updated. That's not an issue. Yeah, but I but supported that you get a revised letter that reflects the current plan because the current plan shows a plan which wasn't there before. So, that's Mhm. the buffer that was supposed to be protected, so. Um [clears throat]

All right. So, D7 Yeah, this is the width issue. Um So, we'll we'll wait to hear back from the fire chief and the building department. Did [snorts] you ask the building? I did ask Tracy, but I'll ask her again. Who is it? Tracy. I don't think I met her I'm I'm still I'm just wondering is D7 really even necessary since they're going to be asking for a waiver to allow the 20 ft anyway? So, we'll have it in the waivers if if we don't have it here. I mean, it doesn't hurt. It's just a flicker. Um [clears throat and cough]

Cuz the the bylaw requires 30 ft, so they've got 25 ft between um two sets of buildings and 20 ft between two other sets. Yeah, yeah, I suppose you're right because if they have they have to build what's shown in the plans and the plans show deviations, so. That's a good point. And they have to build what the bylaw says they can build or they have to ask for the waiver.

Right. Yeah, good. Is there a difference between primary buildings and accessory buildings? Are they considered garages [clears throat] accessory buildings? So, that I'm [cough] not sure The bylaw that the waiver's requesting um is under multi-family dwelling requirements. And it says if there's more than one such structure on a lot of record, there shall be at least 30 ft between each such structure. So, the right now the waiver request asks for a waiver for 5 ft between the garages. Um but I had a note [clears throat] saying I didn't even know if that was necessary because it sounds like they're just talking about the residential structures in the bylaw. Um off the federal That's is my recollection of section five of the zoning bylaw. multi-family I'm sorry. [clears throat] You're saying it was primary structures? Is is I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but to me there's a difference between inhabited buildings, people sleeping in garages. And yeah, a bicycle. Yeah. But I'm not the building inspector or the fire chief. Oh, there it is. Is there a law that says how many garages you can have in one building? I mean, why aren't they all hooked together? I think they [clears throat and snorts] can. To the best of my knowledge, Peter, there's nothing in the new draft in the regulations that say minimum or maximum number of vehicles in a garage. Why are they separated? Why are they separated?

Yeah, six each. Why are they separated? Why isn't it just one continuous garage? Um Nowhere to walk around. Yeah. Walk around to where? Um there is a and I don't know if this triggers it, but there is a uh bylaw requirement that have a building that's no longer than like 140 something like feet. that we're not Right. We're not triggering that. No. Okay. But Peter, practically, you can get a fire hose you squirt a hot fire hose between the buildings if one of them's on fire. Yeah, that's true. Okay. Yeah. [snorts] [cough and clears throat] massing No, break it up a little break it up a little bit. But 5 ft isn't much.

Yeah, that's You get a good view from the apartment that's in between the buildings. [laughter] That's where somebody's going to store their bicycle. Okay. All right. So, [clears throat] section D9 uh says that before the project gets its last occupancy permit for the building, the [clears throat] applicant has to complete the all the improvements located in the site, uh landscape improvements. So, that's the landscaping plan. Um That's been attached. It's right here. Uh L1 L1, L2

Yeah. Uh L1, yeah, it's this is the the same uh provision that we put in for Upton Place that we said the last before the last building is completed they have to finish the landscaping. Um You had you had already pulled it up. It's right here. Oh, okay. No, I okay. Condition D11

That's what it was received. is saying that the land that's within the 200 ft setback area shall remain in its natural state uh except for the uh utilities that are shown in the area, which are of course the infiltration basin and then the um fire lane. Mhm. I made a note here that in the past we've I think required signage to that effect. I think actually for your project maybe, Peter. Um [clears throat] Whenever we have open space, sometimes we require signage to alert the public that this is open and not open to the public. Um that might be important here given that this is a zone one and we don't really want people thinking they can go out there and throw their garbage or [clears throat] paint cans or something like that. Walk their dogs. down into the craft and hot craft and water did No, seriously, walk it That's a steep slope. Good good luck. Good job.

[laughter] Well, not behind building [clears throat] two. Uh there is a flat spot there and it drops off. You're right. Once you get onto the water district property, it drops off. Yeah, you're right. No. All right. So, moving down to D12 Can I ask on D10? [clears throat] This the snow storage, I know um Jeff said there was room by the the dog park to put snow. I don't see that happening myself with two bad storms this winter. I don't see him jumping a sidewalk and piling dirty snow on a lawn, but [cough]

if they want to, that's fine. I'm just wondering do we even think about putting a condition on trucks hauling snow out? requiring it or prohibiting it I mean, it adds traffic. It adds everything to that intersection. I mean to me there's not much area to put snow except to pile it on sidewalks with all these parking areas. And another another thing, do we want to think about limiting salt use? Because everybody is using pure salt now, no sand, so they don't have to sweep. And calcium chloride, liquids uh salt all kinds of chemicals. It's just do we consider that? salt storm Um I'd leave it to the board. I mean, and it's a hard decision because when somebody falls I don't want somebody calling me saying you didn't let us use salt. Were there any conditions along those lines at Pleasant Street cuz that was a zone two as well, wasn't it? It was a zone two, but it was much removed from the wells compared to the proximity to the to the wells for this well. I can phosphorus maybe. but not I'm sorry. Didn't we limit phosphorus? Yeah, something like that. Fertilizer

[clears throat]

Um but I don't think there was anything things wrong with it. I don't see how we could put an amount of salt. It it's Yeah, they're driven by economics. They want to use as little as possible, but on the other hand, they've got to use enough to make sure it's safe. Right. Satisfy safety of the persons and the insurance company. But this is a zone one, so On the edge of a zone one. But the water district didn't request anything like that. So The water district didn't really weigh in. So Well, you know, to Peter, to your point of of limiting truck hauling snow out, I that that doesn't feel good to me. You know, I I don't I can't I don't want to get in a situation where, you know, they can't get rid of the snow. No, I know. They're going to end up to me, they're going to end up hauling it up. Yeah. That's what this is. I mean, little storms, no, but when you get when you get 2 ft, yeah, that's there's no place to put it. Yeah. Um Do we limit hours?

[sighs] I I guess I mean [clears throat and cough]

I mean, are they still bound by the construction clean up? For snow removal? It it's a tough it's a it's a tough thing. But they'd be bound by the town bylaws, the general noise bylaws for Yeah, but during snow removal, I mean, the plows are out 24 hours a day. So I mean this year in the middle of the storm, the they heard they heard an all call for a fire call and went and plowed the street and the driveways so the fire trucks could get in. So plowing. They're probably not going to be removing [clears throat] snow. Well, then, probably not, but You know, you get a couple of big storms, you know, so you're going to have a loader and some dump trucks. They're going to get them in there whatever time they can get the loaders and the dump trucks in there. Right. Which is often times for a place like this when the people are at work. I I mean, that could be the case, but it also could be the case that, you know, the only time we can get the contractor is you know, at midnight cuz he's too busy clearing these other places. Yeah, I I just don't feel good about any of those sorts of restrictions. You know, I I I think if that's the if they're in a situation where they can need to get rid of snow, they need to get rid of snow. Right. You know. It's probably helpful, too, right? Getting rid of the snow. Yeah.

[clears throat]

And it's definitely in the interests of the applicant and the management company to clear the site, make sure people can park. Right. I can find language. I'm sure I have language somewhere in a decision that deals with salt use on on roads. All right. Now, that's a good point. So, uh D12 talks about the MOU that was signed with the select board. It's basically incorporating your obligations and from that um Mr. Chair Just on that that one, the only part of the the requirements on the applicant that aren't detailed in the plans are the $300,000 donation um to the town. So, I didn't know if that would be worth calling out cuz everything else is going to be a reflected in the plans. Um

[clears throat and cough] So, it's safe including the offsite improvements. Um but that won't. So, I didn't know if you wanted to spell that out explicitly. That would imply that we didn't call it out explicitly for um Upton or Pleasant. Cuz they they they have the same donation and uh you you wouldn't have removed it from the decision you're copying. Yeah, I think this is how we handled it for the other projects. Um leaving it just more broad.

Yeah. Yeah. So And if the It's covered. MOU or the agreement of a change is, you know, we don't have a condition that's not consistent with the change agreement. All right. Um the next one I just threw this in here because I sort of struck me that do we really want [clears throat]

these two garages right next to the zone one? Um I yeah, my concern is that these garages might get used for some other nefarious purpose that might not be great for the zone one. And I guess the question is do I do you really need all these? Like right you you already have more than two spaces per unit. Um Two car And if you are going to keep these, I I think it might make sense to put a condition that restricts the use of these garages just for vehicle parking and nothing else. At one point, this is where the main maintenance facility is, maybe? [clears throat]

So, where where's that actually? We got rid of that. It it's under the parking Oh, yeah. I'm in terms of garages, we got rid of that. And then they're going to have that in the I think in building one, is that Correct, Glenn. In the parking garage? Yeah. Okay. We don't want to eliminate park. Well, I I assume if those garages did go away, it would just convert to open space parking. Right. Right. We're talking about these. It's funny, most developers don't want parking. [laughter]

You want to keep it all. Well, [clears throat] I mean, the the density reduction uh the the increased parking ratio is a function of density reduction. And the fact that we added some. We're we're happy. I mean, as far as a parking absorption it's a nice amenity. It's a we're over parked on this plan. There's no question about it. I I I can see these garages becoming or at least one of these becoming storage for landscape equipment and things along those lines. And I know you guys would like me to say no. That won't happen, but you know. I I We had it as a it was a a different structure. It was a bigger, deeper structure, so if they had, say, a you know a dump truck with a plow on it, they could get that in there and still have room to, you know also have you know, weather sinks, [clears throat] faucets, things that, you know, toilets, things that break so that they have them, you know. Well, I I believe that stuff's going to be stored in in building one. It's just That is. Everything will be. So, but right now the they're practical, obviously, for um a car. It's not practical for, you know, meaningful storage of of anything else. And again, the the reason they're on there is um the experience is that it's it's another added quote unquote amenity that people, you know, they they want to have a car, they want to keep it inside, they want to keep it out of the weather, they want to park it in the garage. It's worth a few extra bucks to to rent a garage space. If if I may Glenn Babcock through the chair. Um the reason we added those garages to the side there, if you look at the plan um the 24-unit building in the quad had garages directly across from it, which would be an amenity in service to that particular building. And

you have the garage under for the partic- for building one. And with building two, there weren't any garages within the proximity of that building, so we put a garage just so there wasn't an amenity that would be provided for that particular building. So, the bottom line are we okay with the restriction? Absolutely. For car parking, [clears throat] no problem. It's very strict. [laughter]

We've spent too much time on that one. Yeah. We're fine with You added the amenity for eight out of the 60 units. Right. Um Yeah, so I I mean, the thing that that's on my mind is the fire that they had in Northborough Avalon, right? And that was in a garage and it and it was landscape equipment, as my understanding is. So, those those garage units that caught fire were So [snorts] you know, that sort of thing. So, I I can just see where that's what happens, right? The you know, the landscaper uh you know Okay. They I'll give you a bit of a break in price if I can store stuff in a couple of these units, and you know. Oh, okay. No, I I missed I misread it. Yeah, for for cars only, you're not going to Yeah, yeah. No, we're fine with the condition. Oh, that's fine. We're fine with the condition. I mean, does the board want to modify the Is that a condition we can enforce, though? So You know. I mean, we you know, we can make sure it's in our management agreement with the with the property manager, that type of thing. I mean

[clears throat] Yeah, I know like for some storage facilities, not that that's they say, you know, you can't store flammables, you can't store this, you can't store that. But of course, it's not I mean Well, yeah, then they'll say, oh, you know, if you do, they kick you out. And and I I'm I'm not I'm not concerned about the the garage catching fire, and I don't want to say that flippantly. We're more concerned about whatever's being stored there. causing a problem. Right. I mean, that's that's kind of the issue. But most likely, there there's going to be Yeah, it's 22. paying extra to put cars in there. There's going to be cars in there. I don't think anybody's going to pay that much.

It's a lot extra so that they can, you know, store gas cans in it. That wasn't my My concern was not that. It was it was that they wouldn't rent them out and they would use the the stuff. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. No. It's right next it's right next [clears throat] to the trash compactor. So, I don't know. I'm just saying You're right. Now, they If they need oil for the compactor, they'll put the oil in the bay or something, you know. Or so, the option is do you like the language as drafted? Or do you want to get rid of the garages altogether? You know what? I I as I think about it, I think Kate's got a a great In the fact [clears throat] that there's only eight garages available to those 60 units, I think they're going to be used for garages, parking cars. I think that I think there's going to be demand. You know, and I can see them using maybe garage number seven, which is on the other side of the trash compactor. You know, if if if there was a garage to be used for storage, it would be maybe that one more so than the ones in that corner.

[clears throat] I I I think we just put the condition on. Okay. And and that's my thinking. Yeah. Okay. And [clears throat] we're fine with it. Chuck. [snorts] We don't have the the rest of that condition. Not to beat a dead horse, but shouldn't that condition just apply to all the garages? Um storage of hazardous materials. That's an excellent point. Hazardous stuff. But I think To Mr. Krosky's point, how do how does it ever get enforced? Yeah, that's fine. I mean True. Well, Cohen what you're saying for [snorts] insurance purposes, if if someone calls up and says, "Hey, there's gas in this garage." Right.

Yeah. Then we go and enforce it. Without the condition, we don't have the ability to enforce it. I mean ultimately, if there was a complaint, that's to the building inspector to come in and But but so so I agree with Brian's point. It's you know, it's not the two garage buildings, it's All of them. Right. We're fine. We're fine with that. We're fine with all of them restricted. Okay. I mean Cohen just mentioned that it's going to be a requirement of our insurance and any of it. That makes sense. [clears throat] So Okay. Imminently practical. Um but but just in in we may be getting into the weeds here, but I guess that's where we are. [laughter]

It's not necessarily automobiles, right? I mean can I park my motorcycle in there? Yeah. Yeah. Can I put Can I put my boat? Um As long as it's not too big. Can we just say no storage of Yeah, yeah, yeah, something like that. I lived in an apartment complex in Quincy and I rented out a unit and it was just for storage. Um I you know, I didn't park there. So

Yeah, that's a good point, too. Okay. Wait, so we're we're okay with people using these spaces for storage and not car parking? No. Well, I think originally we talked about discounting the number of garages in the the parking calculation because we thought some number of them, up to 50% of them, I think we talked about this at one point, could be used for something other than a car. Right. Um so so yeah, That's not our preference. We want people to be parking in these garages. Yes. Shouldn't [clears throat] it say the park the garage buildings on the site shall be used for tenant parking? Yeah. Something like that. With the restriction

automobiles. I think it'd be fine to put your motorcycle in there. Any mode of transportation is all right, Bill? I I I don't know. But I [laughter] You put You put mode of You put mode of transportation, my wife will have a horse IN THERE. [laughter] SO IF I USE IT FOR STORAGE, BUT AT LEAST INCLUDE a bike, I'm I'm good? Right. Well, yeah, that's If I can, um I think we're okay with the hazardous materials. I don't know w- w- if if we include just storage cuz somebody could be storing clothes in there, right? And if that's what someone wants to rent it for, that's that's their prerogative. Um we do have enough parking to support without the garages. We we did that like you said, we did that exercise. We're at 2.1 here,

[clears throat] um totally. So I don't know if we'd want to restrict all the garages. Let's face it, we want to rent them all out, but if there's one or two or three or four people who may want them for like you said, you had a garage and you put your clothes in it or something to that nature, I think we'd want to allow them to do that. These are individual walls between each?

Correct, and they're drywalled. I mean it must be fireproof. Correct, they have to be, yes. I I don't see I don't see how I don't know if We start putting conditions that somebody can't put two suitcases in there with their car. I mean that that isn't the car. Well, that's different. I I think what we're saying is they they can't be used exclusively for storage. And I I'm pretty sure we dealt with this in another project where we were where the parking was tighter. Didn't we have a project where we were we were actually concerned about the required number of parking and there were all these garages? And we I think we put condition I thought I think we put into the decision [clears throat] that they had to be used for parking and nothing else. I don't necessarily remember that. I I I know like at Craftsman, I think we were concerned. That's the one down in South Grafton. But those were all townhouses and and you know, I I think I think the concern was without any sort of basement that the you know, that the garages in the townhouses would become essentially their attics or their basements and storage.

Right. Um I think this is a little different situation. I you know, And I think we went through this exercise already where we added two more spaces to each townhome for that purpose cuz we talked about possible storage in the townhomes. And then we also as we reduced density, we did reduce parking to to get the number up so we could could hedge against that. Seems like it it should just you know, one of them language about storing hazardous [clears throat] materials, that sort of stuff. Like you said, your insurance going to require it anyways. Correct, and we wouldn't want it in there ourselves. I think if people are storing junk in there, if it smells, they're going to take care of the problem.

Yeah. We do have language in our rental agreements. There are certain things you can do in there. Um we actually had one of our properties recently, they were running a a call center out of one of the garages. [laughter] Wow. I was there myself and I walked by and they they had the garage door open and I looked and they had like six chairs set up in a U. They had everybody had headphones on and I was I couldn't believe it. [laughter] Really? Yeah. Who didn't close the door? Yeah. So yeah, that was that was the end of that. [laughter]

Um I think that's I think it's like salt, we leave it alone. Well, salt I think we're Just be aware there's a there's a possibility that none of these garages will be occupied by cars, that they'll all be storage units. And if that That's definitely not going to happen. I I hope not. What do you know? Well, people are paying you 200 bucks a month to rent these things. You're not going to If we If you don't say the fact of the matter is people who drive don't want to clean snow off their car and that's why they pay 200 bucks to rent the garage for the most part.

storage units. I've just seen them. Well, the storage unit behind Koopman is a lot less than $200 a month. And that said, [clears throat] we That said, we do have storage units in the garage under as well. The garage under has lots of storage units in it that will be for rent for for storage. And how would we enforce it anyways even if [clears throat] we knew it was full of junk? How do we enforce any of these conditions? Yeah, it's all No, but we can't If If we have to, we can. We rely on good faith and we have building inspectors and fire chiefs and police officers and if we need to, we enforce things. [snorts]

Yeah. Um But it's the people living in this development that if they don't like what their neighbor's doing in the garage, I would think they would call management and say something's going on there. Mhm. We don't like it, so I don't I don't know if you want them to control. It was unbelievable. [laughter] I walked back by and recorded it quickly and I sent it to our manager. I'm like, "Check this out." So I don't know. So how many parking spots are there total? Uh 404, [clears throat] I believe, for the multi-families plus the other 32 for the townhouses.

Yeah, don't count the townhouses. Yep, so 404 and that includes 58 garage spaces. We have 54 detached garages. 54 garage spaces is correct. Surface spaces 300 296. [clears throat and cough] And I forget the number on building one. 53. We have 297. So that's 300 and 50 spots between the subsurface and the surface. 350. We have 297.

I agree. Yes. Another 53. And then the detached garages is 54. Um we're not going to talk about townhouses, so That's only 32 spaces. Yeah, that's 32. So So for 192 units, we have 350 spaces without the detached garages. Uh 297 plus 53 plus 54 350, that's 404. Is that right? [snorts] 404 is the total number of of parking spaces available to the With the with the detached garages. With the detached garages. 350 [clears throat] It's 350 without the garages. Detached garages, it's 404. Well, I agree.

Right. 50 without the detached garages. So so that's that's 1.7 So so even if none of the garages are used to put cars, that's 1.75. Which [clears throat] that number is what we have at pretty much across the board at all of our properties, 1.75. And and I I don't remember now. I I That That Is Is that the number we ended up with at um Prentice? [clears throat] I think so. I think it is. 350 spaces for 192 units.

Oh, it's actually higher. I did two more. Yeah, 192. Yeah, so Yeah, so the number is even higher. It's 1.8 something, I think. Yeah, so we're we're up around 1.8. So even if 1.83. I I I think we're Which is why we did that with the actual conversation. I'm very comfortable with the parking ratio and in fact if [clears throat] Peter's concerned about snow removal, it gives him the opportunity to stack snow on the corner parking way away from the building entrances and And to that point, recently we had a really bad winter and some of our properties that didn't have those extra spaces, we had to do a lot of trucking offsite and the ones that did have the extra spaces, we had some room for storage and we did less trucking. So And you know, I think that's actually an argument to keep the garages next to the the water district property because if those were just open surface parking, that would be a prime place to dump snow and we don't want snow there.

[clears throat] So I So I think D12, is it D12? Whatever one we're talking about. D13 D13 becomes just maybe something about hazardous. Yeah, I just made a change.

Okay. All All right. And the with the trash compactor next door, um So during the staff meeting that we had back in November, um we had a discussion about this with Paul and um there was some concern about liquid waste basically running off and getting into the water district property. Um and the way to control that is just to making sure the design of the pad is is well designed so that it's capturing all runoff. Um so in [clears throat] case there's any liquid waste coming out of the compactor or out of the dumpsters, which happens, um that this is that would fall onto a concrete pad that would be drained to a tank so it wouldn't ever escape. Um I don't know enough about this. So I I just draft the condition that they have to design this and then give it to the DPW director and the health director for review and approval. Um Paul said something about grooving the concrete pad, I guess to to create channels. Sure. It would be like what you see around the concrete pad at fuel dispensers when you get gasoline. They're called positive limiting barriers or something like that. Those grooves are meant to capture a certain amount of gasoline to de-minimize spills, if you will, or a very small spill. It's not You can't stand there and keep the thing flowing. But the the kind of things that might be drippings and things like that to come out. Yeah. And don't forget these [clears throat] These are self-contained. What we talked about is a self-contained unit. You're not you know, pulling it off of the the whole unit is enclosed and that whole unit comes off so there's no there's no drippage and spillage associated

We have the compactor, but what about the recycling bins? Um The recycling bins are just traditional dumpsters. Recycling's just traditional. Yeah, so if somebody tosses a plastic jug with something in it in the recycling bin. Yeah. Yep. But those aren't even in this location, right? This is only Uh they're next to the trash compactor. Oh, I thought those were dumpsters. Uh well, recycling bins, [cough] I believe they are. They are. Jeff, how do you keep rain out of the detention tank? The detention tank uh So this thing's talking about a collection area going into a tank. How do you keep rain out of it? I just see this the the liquid holding tank on the compactor is something that's a tank under there that's going to get the spills, but it's it's not going to let the rain Well, it's a built right into the compactor or Colin knows more about it.

Oh, I've never heard of it. So Nor nor had I before this project.

point, it's it's a self-contained compactor so it's one whole unit and it does have a drain on it, but the drain is plugged and the what the drain is for when they take the whole unit, they bring it back to the facility and before they tip it, they drain it so we're not paying for liquids. And then they and it gets drained at the facility when they're tipping it and then comes back. So there's it's not open to the air when it's in its place. Obviously, we wouldn't want it to be because if it's dripping on the ground, it's going to smell, it's going to cause a problem for us. Um and then to your point, I don't think you could do a tank. You could do some sort of containment where if there was a spill, it would show it it could contain it to a degree, like you said, a small amount. But I agree that that can't be a tank cuz it would just fill up with water and overflow and it would make your problem worse.

tank out of out of the language.

I agree cuz it that just wouldn't work. So how do you control First of all, what's next to I'm still confused about what's next to the compactor. Do is the label on the plans is dumpsters, two dumpsters. The Those are the recy- recy- recycle. So those are for recycle cardboard and plastics and recycle, correct? So where does the trash go? Trash goes into the compactor. Those are recycle only. So the compactor is not I've seen compactors with bins get attached to them. Is that's not this? No. No. No, we have recycle as separate and then a compactor for trash. comes to the compactor and lifts a a lid. No, there's a a slide door. So on both sides, I think it three it can be three-sided so it's just a a door that slides open and and you throw the trash in. Okay. And that box So that whole box including the head the the whole thing the whole unit comes out motors and all. They disconnect the the hydraulic cables and take the whole thing away. All right. I I I misunderstood. I was concerned that there would be transfer of garbage from [clears throat] No. No. No. Not even during tipping. All right. But I think that's the case for the dumpsters. Even for recycling. Right. But that's not liquid B. Right. But that's not going to be That's not waste. It's just recycle cardboard, glass, aluminum. It Nothing Whatever people don't rinse out. Some people good about rinsing, some aren't. And I know the EL Harvey even with the municipality was complaining to them that they weren't going to stop they were going to stop accepting recyclables if the town continued to allow so much contaminated

[snorts]

recyclable waste into the waste stream. Um I'll remind everyone too, the grading is such around the dumpsters that the water flows not down toward Stormwater doesn't flow down toward um the Grafton Water District property, but instead goes into the drainage system and then goes all the way up to the north end and then eventually would would be infiltrated. The point being is that any [clears throat] any spills that come out of the trash compactor or the recycling bins are going to go across the pavement, be visual um before they even get to the catch basin. But if if there was so much liquid spilled that it got into the catch basin, it would be into a hooded catch basin for what that's worth and into the drainage system through through those stormwater BMPs we talked about the four basins and all that. Um but what I like about it is the any runoff from the compactor and recycling bins area goes across pavement.

[clears throat and cough] That's the big big visual to me about the management company seeing a problem and and cleaning it up before they've got um complaints from the residents or the town intervenes. And to your point, I think that's the most practical way to manage all of it. And just to be clear, that this is the only trash and recycling area for the for all 200 units. Correct. And you're not you're not concerned that that's not enough room for 200

Nope. I went round and round and round. I've been in contact with the with the provider. Um and we I I can't remember exact numbers, but I believe um recycle gets picked up twice a week and trash gets picked up bi-weekly. So that compactor will service that all 100 all 200 units on a bi-weekly pickup. Every 14 or I think every 13 days. And then they said during the holidays might add Yeah, there could be some increased intervals. We do that with dumpsters now. We we we know that during the holidays Thanksgiving, Christmas, we we up the interval. So it might be once a week at that point. I just know how much cardboard is generated by a house.

[laughter] On any given day. Amazon. Amazon. Exactly. Okay. So I'll just condition 14 15 [clears throat] So 15 is a condition that came out of a a comment letter from tech. Their last comment letter had just raised the concern that the visitor parking spaces that are Maybe I don't know. I'm I'm controlling this, right? Yes, you are. Um I mean, I can answer that. delivery parking spaces

parking spaces are no bigger than the regular parking spaces and the concern was that what if you get larger trucks like UPS or post office and so etc. They're it's it it'd be better if these spaces were were bigger, wider and deeper. Uh otherwise trucks that are bigger that don't fit in these spaces will either stick out or the driver might be motivated to park like to double [clears throat] park in the in the travel lane or park in front of the clubhouse. And this is really the worst place to be double parking cuz that's the only entrance and exit to the project. And there's just a lot of congestion in that area. So the recommendation was to make these delivery spaces bigger. Can we? Can we eliminate a couple of

a couple of them so that you'd at least have one or two spaces where trucks can park. I know one of the discussions was where in the back buildings because that we do have a um we do have a package room in the clubhouse that's going to service the the the quad area and then the back buildings have their own um deliver dedicated delivery area. And I thought there was some discussion, you know in the middle of the front door you have that driving aisle. That's kind of a straight across from the front door which that's well parking spaces are 18 ft wide so you get 36 ft. Where are you talking? In front of the back buildings. I'm talking about the clubhouse. I'm only talking about the clubhouse area. Okay. Okay. Because that that is a congested intersection. So the tech was saying we don't really want trucks double parking or not fitting in these areas when they're dropping off packages. It just looks awkward is my you know swerve it in and swerve those in and make them make them a little bit deeper than it makes the sidewalk awkward. It just starts making everything awkward.

Rather than applying it as a condition to the actual permit, can we just kind of keep it as an open issue and figure it out? I mean we definitely see what you're talking about. have to figure it out tonight. I'm just saying put the language in here. It was flagged by tech and Right. It is something we discussed. We did flag it as re restricting you know some weird 10-minute you know parking for pickups [clears throat] and deliveries etc. and we had those five spaces in there.

Yeah, you used to parking right in front of it and then the comment was get rid of that parking which you did. Yeah. But the remaining part the remaining issue is just the adequacy of that area. I don't know. I mean you already have the 10-minute limited parking. That doesn't seem to be the issue. It's the size of the space. I mean Amazon comes they pull in they do whatever they do and they pull out. They're there for a couple of minutes. I don't think it's going to cause I I think the reality is just watching the way you know UPS or Amazon, FedEx none of them are going to park.

Nope. They just pull up. They're going to pull up. They're going to rip up to the front door do what they do and they're going to rip out. If if I may offer a couple of things. First of all during the heavy snow in Worcester, they stop in the middle of the street. The line on either side. And a vocal one. It's true. [laughter]

Something about sharing the road with everybody it wasn't just his. Anyways, [laughter] food for thought as far with respect to if it's a condition it can be dealt with between now and when construction plans come forward. But John to your point you're saying it's awkward. Perhaps but perhaps not. This five delivery spaces in front of the clubhouse if the sidewalk shifted away from the parking spaces all along the front of the clubhouse whatever distance you needed to make the spaces longer and if you needed to make the delivery spaces a little wider you could do that and perhaps lose a space on either side if worst came to worst. And I think it it would be aesthetically pleasing in so far as it would be more or less symmetrical left to right of the building. Right. versus cannibalizing it. delivery spaces whatever that protrude into the sidewalk and then the sidewalk would run up against the face of And sidewalks that have a little curve to them sometimes look nice compared to the 45s and 90s. I mean there's definitely room to play with in front of the space. Okay. Right. What is the 150-ft wide area between the two crosswalks? Like A radius equals 150 ft. Yeah. R equals 150 ft.

is that so that blocked out area there? no that's that's that's just landscape area green space in front of the Could I know we talked about not wanting to do something right in front but if that's not open anyway you can't drive there now. What if Hold on. What if you had that as kind of like a pullout area and had that as a delivery space you could pull into from one lane of the of the Boulevard entrance? Like that?

Pull over there and then pull out in the other lane. Have it be like I don't think [clears throat] you want that. That does make sense. It does make sense. Now and that's that would make an awkward turn anyways if they're pulling in and then trying to peel in front of the clubhouse. They won't be able to make a smooth turn in or a smooth turn out so it'd be pull up back in a little bit. But it is a once they're parked it is a great space. We can fool around with the with the sidewalk in front and and then like you said meander it a little over a little bit and then allow for a little bit deeper area for for drop whatever delivery or that they're not going to use. But it'll look nice. But again do you want to have it as a condition or do you want to have it as an open item and we'll address it later?

in two weeks anyway [clears throat] so just All right. We'll we'll fool around. All all the conditions are open items. Some Right. Sure. All right. Good [clears throat] point. Keep going? Yeah. Please. So we can skip over E. Um actually E8 I put in a sentence I can't remember where this came from. We we said two parking spaces shall be made available per affordable unit at no charge to the tenant. I don't know if that was something from Upton. No I think

about that here? No I think that was you were bringing that up about in the underground garage if there's affordables in that building. Only in building one? I think that's what it was. I could look past the minutes but I I thought I think that's what you guys were discussing because the underground parking was an additional fee and if there were affordables in that building how can they pay for it and I think that's what that was for. Okay. That's how it says but maybe I can I'll look back at the minutes. But but there's not enough

So I can I speak to that? Um I that's probably not feasible because at the end of the day that amenity cost 1.5 million dollars and it's a break even. So the rents that we get for those parking spaces we're not making any money on it just covering that debt debt debt service to do that parking garage. I could be wrong but I thought that's But there's there's 53 spaces for 60 units so some units are not going to get spaces market rate or not. Correct. And units that do have parking spaces outside you know those aren't going to be charged. Correct.

[clears throat] [snorts] Yeah I I'm I don't I don't feel strongly about this but I I can't remember why I put it in here. [clears throat and cough]

The only way I look at it is if we had a parking ratio of like 1.7 to 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit and the want to make sure there was enough two spaces per because the zoning bylaw calls for two and a quarter. That might have been a purpose of the condition and now that there are 2.1 spaces per unit it's pretty moot. There's plenty of surface spacing. How do how do they how do they even make that happen? I mean I think they would You're not going to have assigned spaces. [clears throat and cough]

Right. Right. Short of assigning you're not going to make it happen. If someone comes with three cars that there's nothing prohibiting them from having three cars, right? No. No. I mean you can you can manipulate manipulate it in your rental agreement according to bedroom count.

I've done pretty extensive study on parking throughout the process we started building years ago and you you you have some that work and some that might be tight and and I studied a whole bunch of different developments ours others and what I came to was the bedroom count more so drives the parking and so we came up with a ratio I looked at this broad spectrum of properties and it's and they all with right down the line there was 20 properties and it was 1.2 1.18 1.17 and 1.22 so what 1.2 per bedroom seems to be the number. You you don't mean that. 1.2 per bedroom? Per bedroom. Right.

[clears throat]

Not units bedroom. Because if you look at a three bedroom they could have three cars. Two bedroom could have two cars. A one bedroom you you one one and a half. Seems like that's going to that's the That's the spot. That per bedroom number is much much more accurate than per unit if you had all three bedrooms you're going to need more parking. That's the sweet spot. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual just had a change in the last edition and it's tied more so to the number of bedrooms and I think studio and one bedroom is one category and two and three bedrooms and two or more is another. So it's similar to what Cohen's finding and I don't disagree at all that it's not just dwelling unit count but bedroom's play

Yeah. Well I I don't I not seeing a a reason for this. I'm not seeing it compensate anything. Maybe it even becomes problematic. Yeah. I'll take it out. Okay. Um Mr. Chair right before that E7F speaks to the same parking garage terms that we were talking about earlier. [clears throat]

Yeah right. So this came from the this must have come from Upton. Yeah. Yeah. Do you want to check it out? suggest I you know I take off the townhouses. Oh, it's only eight. Yeah. Without them, it's only eight. It's eight. It's eight. Yeah, those are in Upton. Oh, wait a minute. No. I I I don't know that we should have that. Somebody wants to I know. Somebody wants to park their Ferrari in there for the winter. I Who cares? This is underneath? No, I didn't say anything. The garage The garages. How about underneath building one? Yes. I mean this is talking about garage bays, so I assume it's the garages. But it But even under I'm assuming this condition was in the prior decisions because it was a parking crunch. Right. This comes from Yeah, comes from I I I

think that can come out. I I think that can come [clears throat]

And this is two and two. Two three, those are the townhouses. I agree. We were dealing with a parking shortage. Yeah, we were. Absolutely we were. Didn't those just barely get to two parking spots per Yeah, I I'd be surprised if it got to two. But May- maybe they did. [snorts]

But this is the question. What is this 318 impeding? Jiffy. Sorry. What is this impeding a person from doing? What's the downside of putting this in? What's it stopping and who's got the problem with it? I don't think they have a problem with it. The The condition. Well, that It's a temporary parking space to um Bill's point, they're parking for the winter. That's okay, that's temporary. But it's at least preventing someone from taking an unregistered vehicle parking at the Well, that's covered in C. No abandoned or unregistered vehicles permitted within the property. Okay. This is not taking the I think they didn't want people to be able to be using it for storage. Yeah, I I think it's more the the second part of that. It's It As far as paragraph F goes, I think it's [clears throat] the second sentence that's the the what's important for Upton Street. But E9 Is that even Is that even legal? You ask me the same every time.

[laughter] I'm curious then, what's your answer to that? I'll tell you the same answer I gave you last time. I don't know. Well, why not? Okay, [laughter] fine. At least we're consistent. [laughter] Um legal recording. You remember that? I can tell you if you did this at your own discretion, I would be there to fight it. [laughter] It's allowing the board to reopen the decision if they wanted to because they found an alleged violation. Moving right along. [laughter]

And if it weren't 10:00, I'd probably want to spend a little more time talking about this, but [clears throat]

Um So, F3, I think that I think um Mike Lane had requested that the hydro locations be run by by the fire department before they're settled on. Yes. They modified the language just a little bit from the last decision um to that effect. And And 100 ft is what I hear from many fire department heads. From the hydrant to the FDC, the fire department connection. Hm. Yeah, and we Which they may or may not have with the hydrant layout right now. Clubhouse is questionable. Clubhouse is the only one that's questionable in my opinion. The distance of the hydrant to the clubhouse? That's correct. Uh the hydrant down by building number five. Straight line as the crow flies seems to be somewhere up around just over 100 ft. No, even maybe a little over 120 ft. But I think final hydrant locations should be vetted out at when construction plans are being looked at. Um Um Mr. The um the reference in F3 to parking stalls, is that intended to cover spaces in garage? The last sentence. They're all looped in anyways, aren't they? That was meant to be spaces. The only issue there is the accessible spaces next to an accessible aisle are only 8 ft wide next to an 8 ft aisle.

[clears throat]

So, except for the accessible spaces. Yeah, is the fire department going to issue a closeout letter on this? Or are they working through you, Jeff? No, they worked directly with the ZBA. Oh, okay. We're expecting to get a memo from Mike. Yeah, I've requested it. All right. And all of them are And yeah, the handicaps are 8 8 by 8 by 18 and then you have the It's the handicap I'm or the van accessible that has that 8 ft wide strip. So, it's 8 and 8. So, if you got a 20 ft 20 ft pickup, it's sticking out. Or you're backing over the sidewalk. Which is blocking a sidewalk. Yeah, then F3 with respect to the hydrant locations, um you know, I don't want to I I just question whether the hydrant in front of building number three and the hydrant near building number five really makes sense um having to cross through po- potentially parked vehicles to gain access. I leave that entirely to the fire department, but um you know, versus being on on an island or somewhere where it's it fire hydrant you can pull right up to it. Okay. So, um as a point of order here cuz this came up recently, um I think our rules say we go till 10:00 or is it 10:30? Does anybody remember? 10:00. 10:00 is I remember. So, um if we're going to continue beyond now, I need a motion to extend our meeting um by whatever amount of time we want um maybe 30 minutes. I mean, how much more time do we need to Think 30 minutes is enough? Yeah, we're almost done. Yeah, so um

[clears throat] I entertain a motion to extend our meeting curfew to 10:30. So moved. Second. Um Just to clarify, so that might get us through Mr. Hill's letter, but that wouldn't get us into waivers tonight. No. [cough and clears throat] No. [laughter] Nope. Oh, 35 pages of them. That's another five five-hour meeting. Um Okay, so uh We actually we don't need to do a roll call vote. We're all here. There's nobody on the [snorts]

Correct. There's nobody on Zoom. I thought you had to do it. Anyways. No, we're everyone's present and accounted Um All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, so we'll go to 10:30, so let's uh stay focused. I didn't vote. [laughter] It's still passed. Still passed unanimously. You'll have to watch it on tape. [laughter] Is it hot in here or is it just me? It's hot in here. It's warm in here. No, it's warm in here. Do you want [clears throat] me to turn the heat down? I just say heat's on. Heat's on. It is on. [laughter] It's really warm in here. I agree. That's an option? [clears throat]

We have freezing all winter. Well, you've got your lawyer saying [laughter] I'm going to see them Thursday nights, but it's not Thursday night tonight. It's 75. That's getting ready to have start turning the lights off. set at 40 and still it's not going to do anything. Yeah, the lights aren't set to a timer, are they? No. [laughter] 10:00. Oh, that would be nice. 10:00, the lights go off. To have a hearing in the dark. Everybody's going to use their phone. Yeah. Needed goes to like midnight. All right, so F9, we're going to wait till we get the input from the fire department on the fire line. Okay.

[clears throat] F10 is is Upton Street, so probably needs to go away. Oh, yeah, right. [cough] F10 is going away? Yeah, that's cut and paste from Upton Street. [cough and clears throat] The affordability to So, G1 needs to get re- basically take out the 60 50 and 60% stuff. That's gone, right? Yeah. Yeah. I thought Yeah, I think that's just left over from Thank you. Alex. [laughter] I took a thermodynamics class.

[laughter]

Mr. Um just scroll past G3, there's a reference to a sheet number for the initial assignment of the the affordable units. And I don't think we have that, yeah. G3? Uh yeah. Yeah, this is from Upton Street, so [clears throat] I don't think we actually have any assignment of units. Does it Does the board care? It's a rental project, so is it?

Right, they need to provide the state with one, right? For initial Yes, and we need a uh which is addressed in G4, we need the affordability restriction and the lottery plan in place and yeah. I mean, there are there are a whole bunch of EOHLC prescribed guidelines that are going to dictate all of this stuff. I think unless the units are somewhat somehow different, which I don't think they will be, right? From the exterior, you won't be able to tell the affordable You can't, you know, you you wouldn't have to tell the affordable units from the market rate units. But won't they rotate? So, they're not the same units. Okay.

[clears throat] Unlike a for sale development Right. [snorts] there aren't affordable specific units. I think there's still a requirement for them to be identified for the initial lease up, but

Yeah, I mean, I I've But then they never done it as a regulation. What we typically do the process is we have to identify them, we give it to EOLHC, they usually come back, they make us adjust them, they want to see them evenly dispersed, not only in like better units, the type of units, and then they they approve the the final plan, and then that's the first units that go into the lottery, and then from there on out they rotate. Yeah. You rotate them. Yeah, that's well All right, anything else on G? So, but So, you caught the one in G3 where it references a sheet that Okay. All right. Uh H is surety, same language as as the last project. Um the um I I changed the the section dealing with the driveway pavement so that the um final course of pavement has to be completed before the fifth and final multi-family building is is completed. Which one are you in not right now, Dan? Um H1B. H1B. Oh. Page 23. And about So, they can do the base and binder throughout, but they have to [clears throat] put the final coat down before the occupancy permit for the final building. Which is our practice. Yep. About 2/3 of the way through that paragraph. Um there's a reference to the sixth building, which is carryover.

Yes. Thank you. Is there a separate certificate of occupancy for each building? Yes. So, the in H1C should that reference the first certificate of occupancy? following the issuance It'd be landscaping as each building is constructed, so I'm not sure. I thought we did I thought we dealt with this in a condition already in the decision. Didn't we? But they wouldn't have to post a bond per building or deal with that as each Um Wouldn't it be for the whole project? If planting it the scenario of planting couldn't be done in the first growing season. Yeah, this planting is to complete landscaping. So, Dan, I I think I I maybe the takeaway here is this language maybe can be tightened up in um H1C. Yeah, in D9 I we actually had a condition that required

the landscaping to be done before the issuance of the fifth apartment. So, we should make that consistent with the surety provision. You just said [snorts] D9? D9, yeah, I I have it on the screen. Okay. So, I'll Okay. make these two consistent. Yep. H1C. Just speaking of H2, Trina has Is Upton Street done now? Have we entered into Do we have a triparty or something with Upton Street and and [clears throat]

Okay, anything [clears throat] else on H? Okay, next section is I for stormwater, water, and wastewater. Um This is all basically the same language as the past decision. In Upton Street, we had some sewer main extension language in here, so that that came out. So, this is really just bare-bones. The project shall be completed subject to the supervision of the Grafton water and sewer departments for those utilities. Stormwater utilities have to be completed in accordance with the the approved plans and stormwater report that Jeff has reviewed and approved. You had a bunch of follow-up requests in your letter to them to provide the pipe sizing and calculations and things like that, so that's I'm sorry. We do have all the pipe sizing. On the plans, but there's no I haven't seen rational method calcs to support them. Okay, yep, yep.

That's There's It's multiple requests for rational method calcs because of the differences in regs. And I'd also expect a a final stormwater report or set of hydrology to reflect the plans that have been came forward. It's [snorts] already been demonstrated that stormwater management has been addressed. And the built The biggest change is a building's been removed. [snorts]

All right, so that's I. Then I guess this is going to be J. That's it. All right, um So, I think we [clears throat] all need to go through these again anyways. I obviously have to go through this going through. As far as waivers, we'll talk about those at our next meeting. I will point out, though, Um, waivers did include waivers to the water district regulations and I don't believe that that's within our purview that are It is. No, our water department is separate. It's not part of the town. I understand, but it's considered a local board under the regulations. [clears throat] So, we have not in the past touched it and I anticipate that we won't here either. And then the other thing that we have never done in the past is waived sewer connection fees as well. So, I just, you know, we can talk about it in more detail when the time comes. Um but

[clears throat] Yeah. At this point, um does anyone from the public wish to speak? All right. Anyone online? Katrina? Nobody's Uh, there was one online. Hold on. Yeah, do you want to stop sharing so I can get them? Yep. Mr. Chair, just quickly on the on the fee note, um, there's also the first section 1A of the of the LIP agreement specifically calls out that, um the applicant will not request waivers from the town standard fees for issuance of building permits, Mhm. water connections and it references septic approvals, but I assume we could probably extend that to the sewer connection fees.

Mhm. We'll take a look at it, but the rule of thumb is whatever you charge to market rate units you can charge to us. I mean, market rate, strictly market rate developments. Right. As long as we're not single though. Oh. I don't want to be special. Uh, Katrina, you were looking for you? For what? Was anybody online? Nobody's online. Okay. All right. They were, they left. All right. So, we need to schedule, um, we Anything else from anyone before we wrap up for this evening? So, then we need to schedule, um, our next gathering. Um Didn't we already pick a date? So, we have on the 23rd the two variances for Milford Road and 257 Worcester Street. And then Wednesday the 29th we have Bowman and the new case, but Peter is not available on the 29th. Where was that before the 29th? The 23rd. Is there any reason? And Dan is not available the 23rd. Is there any reason why we're not doing a Thursday for the 29th?

Because the applicant's attorney wasn't available. Yes, the applicant's attorney was not available. I think I wasn't available. Correct. Somebody wasn't available. There were a couple of people that weren't available. Okay. Um [clears throat]

So, with respect to Bowman, is it a problem that Peter Well, it doesn't matter. Peter's not available, so the 29th isn't an option for this case either. Correct. So, we can go into May 7th. But do we need to push off that far? How much time do you want to kind of go through? My only constraint is I'm on a plane tomorrow overseas, so I'm not back till the 21st. Okay. Um, [clears throat] that's 2 weeks from yesterday. Yes. And then we're looking at the 20 So, the only thing on the 29th is Bowman? Bowman and the new case. McDonald's at

And what Wait, what's on the 23rd? The 23rd is 7 Milford Road and 257 Worcester Street. Both are new cases. We haven't heard anything. We opened them and continued them cuz we didn't cuz they were variances and we didn't have enough board members. I thought we did that specifically planning for Snow Road to be one of those We did that Snow [clears throat] Road could be on one night, but we didn't realize Peter was not here on the 29th night. So, that's why we What about the 29th? Have you already missed a meeting? Yes. No, I haven't missed one. Oh, you haven't missed one yet? Oh, no. Do you guys have

could go the 29th. It was that one I was in North Carolina that I was No, Dan's not available on the 23rd. You zoomed in. Okay, you zoomed in. Someone else is there. Yeah. But you're not available on the 29th. No, he's not available on the 23rd. Yeah, yeah, [laughter] I didn't know. Is anybody not available on the 29th? my computer. Is anybody not available on the 29th? All right, then let's go for the You guys good with the 29th? Well, I was going to suggest giving us enough time and going out to the 7th. Uh If If If that's better for everybody. So, we can

If Dan's not available on the 7th, how about the 6th? Oh, you're not the 6th is fine. The 6th? I'm fine for the 6th. In May? 6th of May. I mean, the 29th is fine as well. I just, um I just want to give myself enough time to delve into this decision. And And is the idea to get a new draft What's up? after this discussion? Are you going to produce a new draft? Mhm. Okay. So, how long generally do you think? Um I would say by Monday. Okay. So, I mean, I'll be monitoring my email. Um So, anybody not available on the 6th of May? of May? I'm fine. All right. So, then I So, that means we're meeting on the 23rd of April, the 29th of April, and then the 6th of May. So, we're getting busy, but sometimes that happens. All right, then We're not doing the 28th. Thought we had two nights in a row. Oh my god. No, we're not doing the 28th. I think we thought about the 29th and 30th.

going back and forth and that's what probably I was texting you asking you when you're available, but it's the 23rd and the 29th. Okay. So, I'd entertain a motion to, um, continue case number 910 to, um, May 6th at 7:00 p.m. So moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. I. I. I. [laughter]

Opposed? Motion carries. Adjourn meeting, Brian. Yep. So, I entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I. I. Motion carries. We're adjourned. Thank you.