Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Evening. It's 7:05 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 rem remote remote meeting protocols through March 31st, 2027. This meeting's convening via Zoom video conference and in person as posted on the meeting agenda which can be found on the town of Grafton website. Please see the meeting agenda for details on how to participate remotely. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. All participation within this meeting will be visible to others. Please be aware that other people may be able to see you and you should take care not to screen share your computer. Anything you broadcast may be captured by the recording of the meeting and published or rebroadcast at a later date. This meeting may feature public comment. Anyone that's attending virtually, if you'd like to request acknowledgement to speak, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The meeting administrator will enable you to speak when it's your turn. For those on the phone exclusively, the meeting administrator will enable you to speak. Um, anyone in person, we ask you to step up to the podium. And all speakers, please state your name and address prior to your comments and questions. Uh, and each vote taken this evening will be done by a roll call vote. All right. So, the first item is case number 924, uh, 92 Worcester Street. So, thank you for the draft decision. any comments from the board or any proposed edits?

The only thing I added, well, you guys are going to see it now, but from what you guys received is the only thing I did was I added um as depicted in the plans as submitted exhibit A attached because we put that in all of our decisions. So, I did add that in. Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, that I I was actually going to say, can we put dates on it? But um if we have an exhibit A, that's fine, too. I I trust we have a set of plans that we can label exhibit A and they can acknowledge. Yes, I have the site plan with me. They can sign.

I I'm fine with that, too. as I kind of alluded to um last uh at the last meeting um you know if if this gets challenged if these variances get challenged in court it's really going to be the applicant who's got to defend it. So, um, you know, as long as we're as long as he hasn't written findings here that just aren't factual, um, you know, I I think we should basically be okay with with what's been written. And, um, in my eyes, it it seems like it's all appropriate.

Yeah. And, you know, um, I think it was pretty well written and pretty fair. you know, doesn't embellish any of the the findings, right? And I feel like um most of the findings are things that you discussed last week and you just put them in a very succinct format so they were easy to read. I read them earlier today and it makes sense to me as well. So, okay. Um, so we let me look at the minutes. You guys never voted on it. You never made a motion to accept to right because it waiting.

So you need to make a motion and everything that we normally do. That bill normally then writes the decision on the fly. And I believe the public hearing is still open as well. Right. Right. It is. Yep. So we need to close the public hearing and then So it actually before we do that, is there any public comment on this case? Nobody. And there's three people online, but nobody's raised their hand. Okay.

Anyone in the back here for the 92? Okay. Um, so I if there's no further comments from the board, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing on case number 924. So moved. Second. Okay. We'll take a roll call vote. Miss Reed, yes. Mr. McCusker, yes. Mr. Adams, yes. Mr. Mahia, yes. Chairman votes yes. Um, Bill, do you have this in front of you? Do you want to make a motion?

Um, yeah, sure. Uh, so, um, but just a quick little discussion. So I think what I'm going to do cuz in the past what we've done is I've created findings and we've just kind of had consensus that the findings are are as we all you know we all agree. Um what maybe what I'll do here is I was going to say something like um do the motion as victed in exhibit A per the findings per the submitted findings or something like that. Does that make sense? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So, I move the boarding the Wow, Brian, you should ask someone who knows how to talk. Let's try this again. I move that the Grafton zoning board of appeals grant a variance for McDonald's USA LLC for 92 Whistler Street, North Grafton, Mass to allow parking within 10 ft of the street line and a reduced landscape buffer as depicted in exhibit A per the findings attached. Second. All right, we'll take a roll call vote. Miss Reed, yes. Mr. McCusker, yes. Mr. Adams, yes. Mr. Mia, yes. Chairman was Yes.

Granted. So, I will have them sign this tonight. I will type in all this. I will put it in the clerk's box. I'm gone till next Wednesday. Okay. But if I get it in the clerk's, they'll stamp it in tomorrow and then the 21day appeal period will start. When I come back, I'll send you copies of everything. Perfect. I just need you to sign this though. Thank you very much.

Yeah, that was just that was the greatest overlay. No plan

you sign that and then pass it down. Have you sign that for me? Just under there. Anywhere is fine. Nope, that's fine. Print or anything? It's all good. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good night, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Good evening. Good luck with everything. Thank you. Matt Eckle. Seen him. He's an attorney. He's what? He's an attorney. Has he been in front of us? Yes. Not recently, but quite a few years ago he was. Yeah. I thought he was. We're ready for snow. All right. We are. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you. You guys are up. Okay. Remind me before I leave. Give me the other one. I don't I don't want to print it. Okay, I'll print it. Um, Bill, do you want me to hold this and have you come in and sign it or just get it filed? What are we talking about? The decision for uh 92 Worcester. Yeah, don't wait for me. Okay, then I'll just get it filed tomorrow morning. I'll stick I'll stick it in the box because you've got enough signatures there tonight. So, we just do it. Yep. So, what are these? Those are the hard copies of the draft decision and everything for your team. For us,

for you guys? Yep. Fine. Thank you.

So, what's the second set? Which one is which? I think he has. Yes, he does. He does.

Okay. So, this is the front part and this is the back part. Yeah. Got it. Yeah. All right. So, I'll print that and get it. Just sign it before you leave. Yeah, please. Thank you. Y maybe moving Julian PA school. Yeah.

I got another one. I got another one. I'm kidding. She's going back down to High Point. No, I'm totally kidding. But now it's movers in difficult. Go by furniture. Go buy furniture. IKEA. It's not an IKEA cuz we're in the furniture capital. True. That's okay. It's the same alliance. Let's see. That's okay. All right. So, okay.

Where are we starting? Are we continuing with the waiverss? Pick up where we left off. I think that makes sense. Um, but there's also some changes to the conditions that Jason and I have worked through which we want to share with the board. Um I don't what do you think the the most efficient way to I would pick up where we left off in the waiverss. Yeah. And try to bang through those and then go back to the conditions which are mostly just cleanup issues.

What's the red and what's the yellow? Are you talking about the decision? Yeah. Uh, so the yellow were like open discussion points, although you added a couple of open discussion points from our discussion. Um, and the red I don't want to put words in Dan's mouth, but the red were areas Dan thought were non-starters, but um, you know, we should go through them anyway. No, I think you mean you mean the red the red um the redlight markup? Yeah. Yeah,

the red markup is is and it's that I've made I think the purple one I I'm not sure when it shows up on your draft. Just red, yellow, and black. Well, the yellow is right. That's just highlighting. I highlighted a few things as sort of like an internal trigger to say we got to, you know, highlight these things. The red lines are changes that either I made or Jason made. Okay, these are different. These are basically highlighting the changes from the last version you saw on May 5th. But the red unless it's got a line through it, it's staying. Correct. It's proposed new language. Okay. So, if you tell me you like it, then I then I accept it and the red lines go away. It's regular text. But but Peter's right. If it has a line through it, then it's being deleted. Correct. Correct.

Yeah. Because there's some red that doesn't have a line and there's some red that has a line through it. Yeah. That that would be additional language. Yeah. Yeah. The red is new proposed new language. Strike through would be taken off. Pardon me. I I'm just thinking back when Dan and I we literally spent almost three hours over two and a half certainly going through this together on the phone or over Zoom. So the colors that we saw on Zoom were different than what you see. So anyway, so I think in the waiver is we left 27. 27. That's what I thought. Number 27. Yeah. Now we're at 28.

Uh the old 27, not the red line. Oh Jesus. Exactly. So should we be going back to the one we started last week or now we should be picking up? Um I if I can suggest I think it might be a good idea if we do a five minute recap of what we did. Yeah. Uh a week ago and then jump right into 27 because there were some things that got reformatted and moved around and you know the board should be familiar with that. I think Dan, do you agree? Sure.

All right. But uh for the record, my name is Jason Panos, practicing law at 246 Andover Street, Peodyy, Massachusetts. I'm joined by John Grineer um from uh Grineer and Associates. I'm also joined by Steve Venincasa, Jim Benasa, and Cohen Babcock who are uh the applicant principles. And um happy to give you an overview uh just to kind of recap what we what we discussed a week ago. Seems like yesterday. Um, so let me just get to the beginning.

Which bottom page? Uh, I believe on your on on your set it's page 16. No, on this the copy I just gave you, it's actually going to be um page 32 because it's the old number 27, which is now number 21. So it's page 32 is where we're going to start. I I understand, but we're going to where we're going to start. You said it's it was number 20. It was our number 20. It was number 27 on the original waiver list. Correct. Which is now page 32. It's 21, but the seven is crossed out. So, that's where we're starting. Right. But we're we're doing a recap. Right. A brief recap. I mean, you're starting at the beginning again, just on page

very briefly to page 16 on the bottom. Exactly. Just to remind the board where we were and what we did, what we agreed to. Uh, and really what what got moved around. So, um, Dan, that footnote I added, where did you put it? Before the table. So, you might recall the board asked to take out a lot of duplicative language that appeared through various waiver requests, and we did that and consolidated it into one footnote. Um, so, oh, I see where you put it.

It's on page 13. under the uh applicants requested waiver heading page 13. Ah, there you go. I see. So, it's not a footnote. It's in a preamble of sorts. It It also appears on the bottom of page 18 as a as a footnote. Need both Yeah, that'll come out.

Yeah, part of it does. So, and then the rest of it through uh condition 27 uh pretty much tracks what we discussed, taking out that extraneous language, taking out the general waiverss. Um, and I think that's all reflected in your red line. And we did it in red line so you could see exactly uh what um what was done. And with that, unless there are any questions about what you did last week, we can maybe go right into the

pick up. All the red lines that are crossed out, both of you agreeing on. Mhm. Um, I think so. Up through 27. No, overall. Uh, no. Okay. So, not overall, Peter. So, I think we're going to go through each section and then we'll talk about if they have a disagreement with the language. Jason's going to make that argument and I can weigh in on my my advice. And it's it's not that I'm not agreeing with it. It's just some of these changes came in just when I had my foot out the door. So I I was just easil trying to easily clarify something but

got it. No. Um so all the red lines up through waiver 27 just reflect what we talked about at the last hearing. Right. So I don't feel a need to go back through those unless you guys want to. No. Okay. because we have a lot to talk about tonight. Yeah. No, if we start at the old 27 which is now 21 and that was page 32. 32 32 page. Right. So it what we're looking at was that in your mail that you sent out at 348. Dan,

what you have in front of you is what I emailed to you. Right. Well, not I have nothing in front of me. Everyone here. Everyone here has what I emailed at 3:40 today. So did you know? Right. Okay. So I' All right. I have that. Is that what we're looking at? Yes. So there was two documents. One is sections A through C and the other was sections D to end. Right. So which one are we looking at and talking about right now? D through end because that has the waiver table. Okay. Why do I not see the waiver table?

Uh, it begins on page 15. Yeah, now I I see it now. I don't know. Had been using probably user error. That's fine. Okay. 13. Pardon me. No, I I got it. And we're picking up with 21 on page 32. Yep. Got it. I'm I'm with you now. I I don't know what happened last time. I couldn't find the waiver table. This is a numbers game. You must like number 5.2. Okay. Um

yeah. So this first section deals with the landscape uh buffers. Um the section requires a 15 foot wide area of landscaping uh adjacent to and for the length of each side and rear lot line. Um there are some areas that the project does not comply. Um so that's that's the waiver they're requesting. It's it's consistent with the last site plan. Mhm. And Jeff, if you have any comments, jump in. Obviously

Yeah, you'll hear from me only if I have something to say. I did go through the um um the the the the information that you sent out late yesterday, Dan, and I myself familiar with that came out late today. So, um ready to chime in when necessary. Does anyone have any comments on that section?

Well, yeah. What is It says less than 15 foot. What's the less than 5T 10T? I mean, how how do we know? We have the limit of work which is the erosion control shown on the plan. So, we kept it as wide as we could. And then there's one in like the in the middle of that northern section there was an area where we I think we discussed this like we we go up to the property line and in that area that's where we did the giant green arbor vites and other on the north side of that the north side kind of in the middle along the north and then in other areas

um we said to save whatever trees mark whatever trees can be saved and then we would be infilling with shrubs shrubs and other greenery and that we discussed having that be reviewed um by somebody at the end. Yeah. Like we'll get a an updated landscape plan before we do comprehensive. That's in the decision. That's one of the conditions the board. That's right. Okay. So that's that's where we stand. And again, we kept it to the the minimum we needed for grading to accommodate the uh that water quality swale for storm water management.

Yeah. Okay. Isn't that swale planted though with grass? It is. It is. So, isn't that considered landscaping? Well, we're not going to be planting, you know, evergreens and shrubs in the middle of the swale or I realize that, but No, it's going to be green. Isn't just grass considered a green area? I don't I mean, do we need this waiver?

Is it just a swale or is there are there any other areas that don't comply with the 15 foot? No. I mean, I don't expect to have in every landscaped area. I think Dan, you had pointed out on the the garage the garages are 10 ft back, right? On the south side. Yeah. So, on the south side, they need on the south side we need it because the garages are 10 ft back. Correct. And then I understand that. But and then on that northwesterly corner we, you know, along the propert we have that the sidewalk and we have that unit, the townhouse unit number one. That that's not an issue.

Okay. But even the rear rear lot line, there's no there's nothing built 15t in, is there? Oh, no. No, the rear. No, the rear is 200. I mean, that's the second thing listed. The rear. Oh, there is for the for the grading around the back side of the of the detention basin,

but it'll be planted with something. Well, yeah, there's going to be grass and it'll be it's not it's not going to be anything structure, no pavement, no nothing. It'll be it'll be grass and you know the burm around the basin. That's it. So, it's all going to be it's not going to have a structure. It's not going to have pavement. It's just going to be, you know, stabilized and, you know, lawn grass. What's a what's an engineer's take on that, Jeff? I I know we have a a lot a thing for houses that you got to have 10 ft around the lot. That's with respect to the not built on.

With respect to the multif family, it's my understanding that the 15t around the perimeter is expected to have more than grass, some kind of um shrubbery and trees for the purpose of uh um screening, you know, screening as as well as just aesthetically pleasing more so than grass. And as I'm reading through 5.223 uh down near the bottom, I haven't read it in its full context, but it appropriate landscaping of shrub of grass, shrubbery, trees, flowers or suitable ground cover indigenous to the area. Um but again, I didn't I heard grass.

Yeah, grass is one of them. But I I understand that it's more than grass, expected to be more than grass, but it's it's not any any more specific as to how many trees per linear foot or anything like that. So, um I I my interpretation and what I know from some of the multifamilies I looked at on behalf of the planning board is it's more of a um um more than just ground rubber for the planted area. Okay.

I guess this is all right. But but to K's question, don't we usually state the I guess the actual distance that's needed.

I I I sort of view that as more important with respect to the setbacks for buildings, you know, and the height, right? When they when they're asking for variances from height. I I sort of feel like with the landscaping, we have a pretty good landscaping plan that shows exactly what they're proposing in these areas. Um I mean you could if you want to be a stickler, we could ask for the actual dimensions, but um I mean we know the garages are 10 feet back. So on the southern part they need they're not proposing actually any landscaping behind the garages. So that is something that if you wanted to see something like shrubs or trees behind those garages, we could ask for it. Although there's no houses on the other side, so it's may not be necessary.

Yeah, that's that's the that's wooded area. There's a swath of wooded area that has a lot of evergreens, a lot of pines along that and then the slope goes down behind stop and shop. So, right, I guess you wouldn't you wouldn't see those garages. Practically speaking, you wouldn't see those garages anyway.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, with respect to K's point is that I think it would be very hard to to narratively site uh landscape offsets from the property lines because they vary along the given property line unlike a building. Um but I to the point it could could refer to the limits of work as shown on sheet C9 and sheet C5 of the plans. Um that gives you the picture that that is going to probably do a lot better job describing it or showing the limits than anything else. What about L1 though? That that's what I was going to say.

That's the landscape sheet. It's not so much C. I would say L L1 more than anything. Yeah, because you you're actually showing the landscaped area on the northern side. All right. And we have I mean we have erosion control going kind of within that area. And then it says in the area of the property line, trees to remain shall be flagged once flagged and filled with evergreen trees and or shrubs as needed. And then that's going to be inspected at the very end with that. I I think you've covered I think that goes a long way to cover you to to address it. Okay. Yep. I agree.

Should we add to the very bottom particularly site plan, L-1 to bring that in specifically? I mean, I think it's already there because we refer globally to the plans which is a defined term. Yeah. Defining all the plan. I'll just add parenthesis sheet L-1. Okay. Okay. Uh the next one is the requirement of a thousand square feet of open space um or no sorry um usable yeah usable common owner space per dwelling unit.

Um so let's see. So that would have required 200,000 uh I'm sorry uh 200,000 square feet of open space. uh we provide for 56,000 square feet of open space and that that said for it's a little bit open-ended in the in the zoning because at one point it says at the discretion or as per the as per the building department or the planning department and

uh no it's a shell no it's a shell there shall be 1,000 square ft of usable open space usable common notes for sure per dwelling unit. It's not discretionary. There was another section that did talk about that, wasn't it? No, it's okay. Okay, we're talking about this.

Um, and then it even goes on to say left in a substantially natural state. I'm reading from 5224 uh or improved by such landscaping as required in 5223 above and primarily designed and intended for the active and passive recreation of the occupants of the dwellings. Usable common open space shall not include streets rights boy open parking service areas, driveways, easements for above ground utilities required minimum front yards or any other land deemed unsuitable by the planning board for reasons of excess slope or poor drainage. So it is kind of a planning board variance requirement and you guys of course are acting in their state. So just you like globally in the back within the back 200 feet it's it's there's an area that's flat behind uh buildings one and two but then it it drops off with a pretty significant slope. So we did not include that whole sloped area although it is untouched. It is left wooded. You know unless you're going to bob sled down down the hill it's really not usable. So, we were conservative in that number in that we used areas within the quad, um you know, the open areas, the playground areas, um some of the other usable areas. Um but we did not where it really drops off in the back um on that slope. We didn't count that. So, we tried to be conservative.

Yeah, we took that deemed unsuitable language pretty much to heart. if he can't use it, it's not passive, it's not active recreation, it's right. So, this is a waiver that we always see. Um, and really it's driven by the density and the intensity use of the site. Um, so I the way I view this is that, you know, we've been going back and forth a lot on this the density of this project, the the number of buildings, number of units, and we settled on this design. So, you know, if if you're going to if you're going to deny this waiver, then we're we're talking about revisiting the layout of the project.

So, if we're comfortable with with the layout of this project as is with the parking and buildings, you pretty much have to grant this waiver. Okay, Mr. Chair, because we or the waiver currently sites a number of square feet that exists on the site. Um, Mr. Mr. Walsh, have you or has anybody been able to to verify if 56,000 is even the right number or should we cite a number? Just say um just reference to plans. Uh if I may, please.

I started to go down that path and I was satis that 56,000 square feet a little over an acre and a quarter. I was satisfied that grass areas around the pool, around the clubhouse, around building five next to the dog park, the dog park itself, um, and and so on would more than likely add up to at least 56,000 square feet or not or more. So, I I didn't go any further. Okay.

Yeah, we tried to be, but to your point, no, it was a hard and fast. I we did calculate areas and again we were conservative on it but to your point yeah it's how do you document that unless we can say approximately 56,000 square feet um what kind of would isn't it sufficient enough though just to point to the plans and I we kind of do that at the end but I don't that may be for the that paragraph can Can we get rid of that paragraph? Notwithstanding, we're going Yeah, I I missed that. That that I meant to delete that.

Um, but I would keep the last section in reference to attachment A. All right. And then I was going to ask, what is attachment A? Sorry if I should know that. Attachment A is a reference. Uh, Dan and I were talking about this earlier tonight. It's it's actually off of the I have different It's the zoning table off of the uh site plans. Oh, okay. Got it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. It's incorporated by reference into this because it's a reference material. Yeah, you're in the right.

Um, so to your point, actually, I would I would cut everything out up to um plans. I'd say C plans, C also attachment date. And then I think uh everything else can above it can come out. Yeah. To be honest, I don't even think you need that because all attachment aid says is is the same thing which we just said here that it's 56,000 ft. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So I don't think you need it. Again, it's a reference material.

You don't want to go through the plans. So, if we're good with that one, we'll move on to the next. Um 5227. Uh this requires board of health approval for the location of all, uh dumpsters and the like. Um so they're asking for a waiver from that that the board of health doesn't make that decision. The zoning board does.

So I'm I'm fine with this. I think I would just trim down the request a little bit. Um, I think we could end the request where it says board of health. I think the rest of it is just kind of superfluous. Sure. Yeah. Did we get any comments from the board of health on the dumpster locations? No. Like they've gotten everything. Do they need a permit still under the state? Is there a state permit for dumpsters trash? I don't think so.

We okay with that or should we require any sign off before granting this? Sign off from the board of health? Yeah. Well, if you're if you're doing that, then you're really denying the waiver, which you can if if you if you want to have the board of health review the location of the dumpsters. Um, have we ever done that before? I think actually, don't we have a I thought I have a condition about it. I have a condition that requires you to get the sign off of the board of health or Yes. Ah, for the for the trash compactor right there. I'm pretty certain. Was it sayw I

think a lot of it comes down to how many times do we have to ask them to look at the plans I can't remember if it's in C I mean D through end or if it's up front that had to do with uh the detention striking the detention uh tank. Oh, it's condition D14. Okay. Um yeah, was it one of the

Oh, that's right. Yeah. So, I had actually suggested that the that the that the drawings for this compactor area be reviewed by the DPW director and the health director for review. And uh the applicant didn't like that language. So, that if if you want them to review those, I think you keep that language in. Um, and for that matter, you could deny that waiver because all that waiver is doing is basically saying you need to get this, this dumpster area approved by the board of health, which doesn't seem to be all that burdensome to you guys. I mean, just why don't we just send the plan now? Okay.

Well, they have it. So, what's the problem? Nobody Nobody responded. Yeah. I mean, no one responded, but they do have the plans, right? Yeah. I can get them over to him again. Well, I guess it depends if we're closing the hearing tonight because if we're going to get comments from the board of health, then we need to keep the hearing open. Alternatively, we could close the hearing tonight and this could be a condition subsequent that requires you to get their sign off on the dumpster.

I mean, the trash compactor is self-contained. The whole thing comes out. It's not, you know, there's no dripping of anything. And then the only thing in the dumpster is the recycling where somebody might not empty a Pepsi bottle or empty the milk out of their carton, you know? I don't know. Right. That's that's why we weren't putting a detention tank underneath it. It's a it's an entirely self-contained removable um unit unit. It's not going to leak is the point. It's not going to go into the storm water detect. I mean, if it's not burdensome for the to get board of health approval, you

can make it a condition, I guess. Yeah. I'd say we just request. Yeah. I drafted this as a condition. So, if you like the condition, I would deny this request. Yeah. Or you can withdraw it. They got to give board a chance to look at condition. So is there either either you're going to take away we're going to strike that whole request for a waiver and not be in there or they're denied. It doesn't matter. I just strike it. Yes. This is the same place. I don't care. Okay.

We're going to agree to it. So, yeah. So, we'll just strike it, I guess. Yeah. Anything else? Okay. All right. Next. 5228. This is on the candles. Yeah. The lighting plan. Do you want to explain your waiver?

So there are instances in which there's light creep uh onto the street line. Um, this of course this is 5228 and it talks about lighting facilities. Here I'll read it directly out of the bylaw so you have context. So section 5228 requires that all existing proposed utilities shall be installed underground at the time of initial construction. Lighting facilities, whether placed along service drives, in parking areas, or on exteriors of buildings, shall be so arranged that they do not cause illumination in excess of 1/2 foot of a candle at any point vertically above the property line or upon any window surface of buildings used for dwelling purpose. Of course, that's, you know, reflection off a building into into adjacent properties. Uh, I think that's what that's trying to address. And so we request a waiver uh with regard to uh and we spell it out fairly specifically illumination of 1 foot candle at Southern Property Bound um which would be by the stop and shop.

What's a candle? A candle is a measurement. It's a measurement of light. So, okay. Uh, if you look at the lighting plan, and it's really hard to to see if you have a shrunken down version, but if you have a bigger version, it's it's pretty easy. Um, Jeeoff, can you put that in terms we can understand? Oh,

I'm not sure about that, but I want but I want to clarify the unit of measure. It's a foot candle. Um, I guess the way you could look at it is that um, if you've got a a light that's so bright and it's 5t away from you and and provides a certain amount of foot candles, if it's 10t away from you, it provides half as much. That's a very basic way to look at it. Um, but the unit of measure is in fact foot candles and the requirement at the property line is a half a foot candle. Um and and there there are ways to measure it, but um let me stop there.

So is this basically light that extends beyond the property line horizontally or vertically? It's projecting and correct me if it's projecting to the surface of the ground at the property line. So for instance, we had one foot candle along the southerntherly property line and that's because there was a a light over in the dumpster area that and ex So basically that extends one foot beyond the property. No, it's it's intensity at the property line is the equivalent of one foot candle. It doesn't extend one foot over, but

it's not a length. It's a it's it's the brightness of it at the property line. And a measure of brightness is a foot candle. And if you are interested in the actual lengths where this projects out to, you see all these zeros, that means it doesn't go there. Uh you see behind the dumpster what John was talking about. You see 2.1 3 I think there was a one one foot off the dumpster. You see a one. So that's the one. Yeah, there's a 1.0 zero kind of like right where the light is at the at the bend between where the where the compactor is and the dumpsters are.

I think there's a one right there at the property line. It's it's it's within the property line though. Yes. Front. It's by the street sign. Mr. Chairman, with respect to this um lighting plan, in my opinion, the two lighting fixtures near the dump at with the one at the dumpster and the one to the right of that at the parking area u are not consistent with the latest plan. They're probably a carryover from the an earlier plan because

with respect to the light pole at the dumpster, I'd expect it to be a little farther into the site away from the property line um illuminating the walking path on the north side of the dumpster. um more it would be light if if the light were moved farther to the north, it would illuminate the area um where the people walk to either get to the recyclable containers or to the sidewalk at the north side of the trash compactor there. And likewise to the right of it, the light um is almost between where two garages were formally proposed, but now that surface parking,

so that light pull is not going to be there in the middle of the surface parking. So, my point is with the lights being moved farther away from the property line, I don't expect there to be um less more than a half a foot candle of light at the property line. They're just squeaking by now with the lights as close as these two lights as close as they are to the property line. And there's going to be less illumination along the property line once the lights get moved just a little farther into the into the property. So, you have to fix that on the approved plan. We have to fix that plan.

Um, with respect to the illumination at the project entrance exceeding uh, one foot candle, what was it? 1.6. I don't have a problem with that at all because that's a driving surface that you want to illuminate just like you would with street lights, which these are. And lastly, and and what we're looking at on the light plan and all the numbers, that's got to do with light projection down onto a flat surface, the ground surface. Um, usually these don't take topography into account, but nevertheless, I don't expect any big change in foot candle values uh because of topography. Um, the only place you might see a change is where the topography changes a lot like the driveway to the building up in the north right northeast corner. And lastly, with respect to the 8.7 foot candles upon a window surface, I don't know how they come up with it. I respect the number. I makes sense to me. There's probably uh somewhere a light that's shining in such a way that is hitting one of the one of the vertical

one of the vertical panes of glass which is not represented in sheet L2. There was one location and along where we have the internal walkways in the quad. There was one spot um what building? The one that's in the back in the middle in the quad in the middle in the back. This one. Yeah. There was an 8.7 there that was right next to one of the buildings and that was and that was being cast from we have those um the pathway lights that was projected from one of the pathway lights that that are going to be um spotted all around the quad around the the walking path. So, you know, is it a Oh, it's right here.

Is it a Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Is it a problem? No. But again, by the letter of the regulation, we wanted to flag it. So it sounds to me like you don't need So A, B, and C. It sounds like you don't need A anymore. And then for B and C, I think for C, I think that our our response should should say that this is internal to the site. Yeah. Just so it's clear that we're not waving this. We're we're waving it for an internal uh variance from the regulation. Right.

So I I guess I don't understand why why we can't comply with the bylaw. What I mean what what is it about this situation or this site or you know we could to your point Bill um where we had that 8.7 which again I think it's conservative but um we could take that one walking that little pathway light and maybe flip it to the other side of the walkway you know a few feet and maybe it wouldn't according to the numbers done by the phototric um software it wouldn't project that high but it still would be you know it would be something but there was just one spot through the software that it projected that the only place I think that is really I would say makes them that the board needs to weigh in is at the entrance way where we have the light at the rounding at the entrance Okay. Um, and again, that's just projecting onto the if people pulling in, it lights up the the entrance drive. Um, and it's just in one spot where it's a little bit, if you look going on, you know, within Snow Road, the traveled surface for the most part, it's it's all zeros. It's all zeros. I think there was just one spot where it it lit up a little bit. Um, Bill, I at work we've got a light meter and I actually took it home and when we had new LEDs and this the street light across the street from my house when it's fully dark and I was almost standing under it was about one or two foot candles of light. That's the kind of light that that the new down light LEDs are throwing. um consistent with

what I'm seeing here on the plans and again the street light at the intersection just like we see in throughout town is lighting up the the paved surface you tend to run about one or two foot candles um is is something I would expect and it's because because the um zoning bylaw says a half a foot candle at the property line um the driveway is technically extending into the uh right of way and I believe That's why the waiver request came to the ZBA the way it is. Mhm. Yeah. So, so that one I mean if if this was a public street where if this was a subdivision and this was going to be a public street I think there would be a

Did I lose you guys? Yes. Oh, you're back. We're back now. You were for a minute. Yeah. That was really bizarre. But anyways, if this was a if this was a subdivision and a street, there would be a street light at that intersection in almost all cases, wouldn't there? Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, it almost seems like the the bylaw is a little faulty that, you know, if you've got a a major driveway like that, there there ought to be a light there. But, okay. So, I get that one. Um, I'm not so sure I completely understand the 8.7, but that's internal, so I I guess we're not going to worry about it. And then a we've decided is not needed at all. Right.

Yes. True. Yeah. When we moved the um we jockeyed things around, those two lights didn't get moved because we got rid of we just have a um between it's it's on the south side between the dumpster and the compactor. Um, we that be moved to the other to the driveway or the street side of the compactor to light up where people are walking and dropping off. So, correct. So, yeah. So, A is not going to be needed. A is not needed. Yeah. Okay. I I I guess I'm I guess I'm okay with these.

Okay. Mr. Sure. Just quick point on on a since um the lighting plan that's going to be included, I assume, in in the um in the plan set that's that's followed the decision includes that 1.0 on the southern property line. Would we leave their waiver request in and have our comment simply be that, you know, we're either denying it or or saying the waiver is not needed because we anticipate that light to be um moved more interior to the property. Um, I would take a out because when they submit their final plans, it's not going to show up

even though it's on. Yeah, because this is all these are waiverss that are required when the project's being built and they are actually Dan I might keep the word approved to be shown on um why we just take it out.

We can but that's where it's going to be. Now we just take it out. Okay. All right. Moving right along. All right. Next is uh 5229. This requires a separation distance of 30 30 feet between each structure for multif family dwellings. And you've got a waiver request because you've got a distance of 25 ft between townhouse buildings one and two and three and four and 20 feet between build townhouse buildings five and six and seven and eight. Um you've also got

the garage five feet separation between the garages. Um,

we did ask the fire captain about this, but I don't think he had a problem with this, right? He didn't have a problem with it. No, he was okay with it. Yeah, they generally want at least 20 feet, I think, between residential buildings to have access between buildings to erect ladders. Because I know on Fischerville, we had a couple that were 15 feet and they They said that was the least they would let it go. So I think 20 ft. Do they even need the one for the garages because they're not dwellings? Yeah. I'd have to look up the bylaw. Jeff, do you have that in front of you? The 5229. Depends with how they define structure. I don't know what they mean.

I think the if there is more than one structure on a lot of record, there should be at least 30 feet between each structure. Yep. Does it define it as residential structure or accessory structure? Well, the title of that is multif family dwelling and I think um Mr. Walsh left up what might be an important word. So if there is more than one such structure, so I interpret that as referencing the multif family dwellings.

So per the email from Mike, he says there is no requirement in the fire code of a distance between detached garages. I believe the building code discusses fire separation distance by construction type, but we'd have to ask Tracy on this and she hasn't responded. So, and and I agree 5229 is on the 5.2 multif family dwellings. So, I mean I don't think it hurts to add the the request for the garages just in case there's a a difference of interpretation. Yeah, I can see why the optimum wanted.

Yeah, we read 5229. I remember this discussion. We read it pretty broadly because it is a little confusing and not specific in the actual language. Didn't we have another one of these that we talked about last week where there was a difference of interpretation? We had some we did language that actually that was the separation of two multif family dwellings based upon separation based upon the height of the taller of the two versus the taller of any of the buildings on the lot.

Another one. Again, just a minor formatting point. The U the center bullet I think should be B. I think we've got two A's right now.

A B C. Yep. So, I guess my my recommendation would be if you're okay with these se separation distances that you would just grant the waiver. Whether we need to grant the waiver on the garages or not, I think in my view the bylaw is kind of ambiguous on that. So, I would just grant it. Yeah, the fire department's okay with it. I'm okay with it. All right, moving on is 5T210. Um, the construction of drainage, utilities, and roadways shall be performed in accordance with the sub subdivision rules and regulations. Um, are these these are the same waiverss you're requesting from the sub subdivision rules and regulations, right?

Uh, but these appear in the bylaw in the zoning bylaw. I understand, but it's the same ones. Yeah, there is parallel.

There is a lot of parallels. The I think the only thing was in front of the I'm looking at what we waved. No curbing in front of the town houses. um for a couple of reasons. One, typically the curb line, you have a crown in the road and then the it'll sheet flow hit the curb line and then go down to a catch basin. Everything in front of where the driveways are for the town houses, everything sheet flows to the other side of the driveway of of the access drive. There's nothing sheet flowing towards the curb line of the town houses. And then also if we had curbs along there then you have you know curb stop curb stop curb stop curb it looks awkward and it doesn't serve a purpose. So that was that was the rationale behind that. Um typically like in a subdivision you have a curb line the curb lines because the the water is sheeting to the shoulder of the road or the curb line and then going down into a catch basin. That's not the case here. Um, and it's not needed to for any, you know, uh, nobody's going to be pulling in there obviously except to go into a garage. So, it's not like a curb is going to stop anybody. There serves no purpose for a curb line to stop any um, you know, tire or anything. So, it was more practicality and aesthetics and it again, it's just the letter of the law. So,

right. But, you're so but you're asking for waiverss for this specific waiver request. You're basically saying, "Hey, I'm not going to comply with the subdivision regulations in this respect." Yes. So, I I almost subdivision. So, I feel like we should maybe table this and and because we have a another section that deals with subdivision regulation waiverss. And then I think the response to this one could just simply say, you know, the board is granted uh waiverss from the subdivision rules and regulations C section or C waiver number blank rather than doing this twice. Makes sense to me.

Just running the risk of having some kind of inconsistency that we that was unintentional. It just seems awkward. At least the curbing stops anybody from packing on the lawn, which you're going to laugh at, but you have a party, there's not much parking there. So, yeah, for the for the town, the curbs don't stop them either. Well, a 6-in curb. Yeah, kind of, right? Yeah. And uh just for just for plowing, you tear up the lawn every year. or do they got to stake it, right?

Yeah. The guy who's plowing is probably going to be part of the landscape and they're going to be fixing it in the spring. All right. So, we'll skip that one for now. We'll go back to it.

Sure. Um, highlight it. The next one is 523 5 on on the one before. Did we get a from sewer? Any comments on depth of pipes? Do we have comments from sewer? Is that what you're asking? I know Paul gave us comments. I mean, did he see the waiver list? They were sent everything. The last set I sent them the plans, the waiver lists. Um, give me a second.

I mean, I'm not overly I'm not overly concerned about it because it's their development. They have to if if Well, I don't think we normally grant waiverss from the sewer requirements. Yeah. Um, unless I mean Jeeoff, I don't know if you've I've can't recall. I can I can look at the other last two projects, but I don't we have on there was something for up road up street. I mean, just in South Grafton, it was drainage, but they needed they asked us when they were crossing Main Street with the main drain pipe. They uh so there were comments from Paul. They they wanted to not put as much cover as they did. That's right. That's right. Yep. But that that wasn't sewer, but

No, there is a section in the subdivision rules and regs for drainage that calls for I forget if it's three or three and a half ft of cover and they had to go less than that um because of um forget exactly why. Yeah, I think they're weren't they crisscrossing over stuff or I think you're right, Bill. I think you're right. But I mean, I'm not concerned with this this one because it's the last thing they want is a crushed sewer pipe. With respect to sewer, I think the only thing that needs the shallow cover is the um floor drain from the garage of building number one that's coming out to a grass uh oil grid separator and then it's going to get pumped up to the rest of the sanitary system. Um John, am I right about that? That's the only shallow sewer.

I I believe so. I was just double checking my

So, there were comments from Paul Canoyer. Um, and I could have swore I posted them. If not, I'm very sorry and I will forward these to you. It said in any place where it says grafted DPW director, please add or their designate. There are several sections which reference sewers installed in drives and a minimum depth of 2 and 1/2 ft and drains at 2 feet and the use of HDPE pipe. The minimum depth for sewers and drains should be a four should be four feet to eliminate freezing, crushing, and conflicts with other utilities including gas and electric. For sewer piping, SDR35 should be used. HDP is fine for drainage. The sewer department does not support the waving of the connection fees. In several areas, they request having the ZBA act as the local board. The sewer department does not support the request. Local boards and committees are in place to provide professional guidance and enforce department policies in standards and provide daily site visits and inspections. So those were Paul's comments. I thought I posted them. I may have missed these.

I may have missed it. I didn't see it. So I I'm hearing from him that he doesn't want to see waiverss. Is that your interpretation? Um could you forward that to me? Yeah. You forward it to all of us. Yeah. Thank you.

Why do you need the waiverss from the sewer? I I'm I'm checking all our rims and inverts now. And yeah, I mean, is this is this just in a in a certain place or is this the whole development? No, no, no. I mean, the way it's written, it's for the whole development. No, no, it's it's as depicted on the plans, right? So, like, but with the waiver, you

Well, we would I mean, it's got to it's got to get there. Um, so yeah, I was looking at the as you head further back in to the site. The site's flat. As you head further back into the site for gravity, it goes up up up up. So, the last manhole really the furthest one back is Sewer manhole three, which are you? I'm looking at sheet C6, which is utility plan. So, sewer manhole three. Um, the rim of that is 3527. The invert out is 347. Pretty much flat. 47. So, um, if it's an 8 inch pipe, just go 348. It's like four point about five feet

about five feet of cover and that's the one that's the furthest back into the site. So it's got I believe it's just for that for that gas trap because there is technically that's a sewer line coming out of the building. Everything else if you as you go through the site like sewer manhole two the rim's at 352 the invert in is at 339. So that's 13 you know 12 feet. So they're pretty as you go closer to snow road they're deeper. The shallowest one is I believe that sewer manhole three but then you might have a service connection that's um some of the so there's the main line that goes through the site and then you have service connections tapping into that but they're not under pavement primarily except for building number three I'm building four. Um see what connection that's townhouse is apartment 4 350. So that connects 47. No the in the connection into from building four into sewer manhole three. It inverts in or into the main is 347. Again, the rim at sewer manhole 3 is 352. So, we're good. We're good. I think it's just that one spot. Again, letter of the law coming out of the the gas trap which is just inside. And again, within 10 ft of the building, that's going to be that should be that's going to be cast iron. Oh,

these are all. So, there's one section, John. Oh, it's not payment. Sewer to be installed with an access drive in sewer to be installed at minimum 2 foot six.

It's not cast coming out of the uh just just the glove. No, coming out of the floor drain, the building. No, no, no, no. Coming out of the the garage. There's no drains in the garage. Yeah, you need No, no, no. I'm talking about the the under the garage under the building. Building one. I think within 10 ft of building, but it would be that's plumbing code. It's plumbing code. It's commercial. Yeah. Yeah. You need oil. Um, so these are all of your sewer waiverss right here. E FG H.

Yeah. So the only two foot the only two foot six is outside the garage. The the garage building. Building one. Building one building one subservice garage. So should we should we itemize that instead of a blanket waiver for the whole site or does or does does all the uh all the numbers that they have suffice? But Paul can saying not to wave that right.

Yeah. I'm just trying to find the sewer section of the waiver list. I think I found it. It's page 58. Um, and these other ones, just so you know, Jason, the HMP, that's for the drain lines, not for a sewer. And here's a couple of drain pipes that have to cover it. And he was fine with that.

Yeah. So if you want to specify the uh for the sewer that that's just for the um building coming out of the garage for building number one. So is this which is this 532 or what what section of the rules and rugby are you? 52 uh I'm sorry five 52210. Are you talking about out of the zoning bylaw or the sewer? No, the the subdivision rags. I have to flip over that because that's what this is referencing, right? It's we're talking about the subdivision rags that have sewer specs,

right? Well, and it says 52210 is multif family dwellings requirements, right? But that again, so it's in two different spots. But that just references that. Doesn't that just say that you you have to comply with the subdivision Rex? It said the construction drainage shall be performed in accordance with the rules and regulations governing subdivision. So that references going to the subdivision rags. What section of those rags are you asking for a waiver from that deals with sewage? Well, that uh 58 is a waiver from the subdivision, right? Right. Yes.

I mean, I think there's several sewage regula sewage regulations. The the first one I'm seeing is actually 472. Um, which requires connections to comply with the regulations of the board of sewer commissioners. Yes. You're talking about the subdivision, right? Yeah. Waivers, right? because I that's I think it's better for us to start with those and then go back to 5222. Um but I'm I So my question is which section are we talking about right now? We're talking about the the the depth of the sewer pipe, right?

Yes. And that is looks like there's a couple different sections. It's five. So 12 in the subdivision rigs uh is partly captured in that zoning bylaw waiver request. So 532 says that sewers shall be installed in the center of the street as nearly as practical at a minimum depth of 7 feet 6 in of cover in the traveled way. So do you need that?

And D is 11. So I mean these relate this this waiver request in um from the zoning bylaw 52210 split among several in the subdivision right rules and rights. So the the so for the sewage it says it should be and again this is subdivision regulations within a within a a street it should be 7 foot depth should be 7 foot six.

It's not a subdivision obviously it's a site plan. We have um foundations that don't have these have 4 foot frost walls. So you're not going to be if where some of those sewer lines are coming into the street, it's not practically 7 foot six. We're over 4 ft of cover, which is, you know, isn't an issue, but um we have 4T of cover throughout except where we're coming out of the um of the garage. So do we we need a waiver from the 7 foot six? My contention always was why are we going off of subdivision regulations when it's not a subdivision? But

well, but we we always do that. So, okay. So, we do need a waiver from the 7 foot6 covered because we where you have connections coming from an an apartment building, you're you know, four, five feet down. And where where is the variance from this requirement? You said there's one location. Well, we're we have more than four feet of cover throughout everything. The shallowest is the 2 foot6 where the floor drains come out of um the subsurface garage under building one into the gas trap.

And is is that shown on sheet C6? That is if you look on right Yeah. Right there. Come. Oh, I it looked like you had your pen on it. Yeah. It What's it label? Is it that's is that the force man? It goes into the gas trap and then that goes into a force man and gets pumped up to the next sewer line which is cast iron. The cast iron is going to be coming out of the building, you know, from the floor drain. That's within 10 ft. If you're if you're running a sewer line, 10 ft within the building has to be cast iron. Then it's going to go into that gas trap. Um, and then from there it's going to get pumped up um into sewer manhole three, which is in front of building number one.

So that's the two the the solid pipe coming out of the subsurface garage. That's going to be 2 foot6 down approximately. It's going to be just like, you know, you're going like you would you go into a um a commercial garage, they might have some strip drains, some floor drains, and then that just goes out of the building into a gas trap. So, there's a pump in there. There will be a pump in there. Correct. There may there may be two structures side by side. The the gas trap and then the pump chain. How big a pipe is it? Well, the force man probably an inch and a quarter, inch and a half. Just a small one. inch. Yeah, maybe. No, no, probably not even that. It shouldn't need to be that big.

The volume pumped would be very small and the frequency of pumping would probably be very not very often. What is this? Just stuff that comes off the cars. That's correct. Yeah, that's correct. In all honesty, that thing's going to have that structure is going to have cobwebs in it. Probably. It's not going to get used much. It's not going to fill up with water. It's probably going to evaporate be before it gets pumped out. So, what part of the force mane is 2' 6 in? Well, that's a force man. I'm just saying the the pipe coming out of that building, that little stub pipe is going to be 2 foot6. So, from the building to the gas trap. Yes. That's it. That's it. Okay. So, is that okay? Yeah. But, and there's a way to encase the pipe if you even needed to do that, right?

Yeah. It's not It's not for the sanitary sewage other It's for the floor drippings, if you will. Right. And in but in other areas we'll have we'll have a minimum of four feet of cover for like connections coming out of the buildings into I I'll say the common sewer line minimum of 4T of cover. But if it was again in a subdivision road it's it says cover 7 foot6. But on a any site plan, you know, if you're doing say if you go to Stop and Shop Plaza, I'll I'll guarantee their sewer lines aren't 7 foot6 down coming out of the building.

Mr. Chairman, if I could put this in context with respect to subdivisions, um single family homes, um basements may eventually get a a bathroom added in the basement or something like that. I can't speak for the reason be that the sewer department has um the depth of 7 foot6, but I speculate that for future bathrooms going in basements, they want to drain by gravity rather than um the the bathrooms have to have a a little force man within ejector pump within the basement. So that could speak to the reason why you got 7 foot 6 in. So you have bathrooms in the basements being drained by gravity. um you don't have any basements in the uh bathrooms in the basement. All the bathrooms in the first floor are higher. So um you know the important thing is that the sanitary sewage system throughout this site is gravity gravity all the way into Snow Road with the exception of the um uh the garage and building number one. The floor drains in building number one. That's the only thing that can't drain by gravity to the sewer system. So that's that I I don't have a problem with the waiver request to lack of uh less than 7 foot six inches of cover um because they do have the 4t of cover or more closer to six feet or more um about 10 and 1/2 ft 11 ft out near the connection to um Snow Road. Um so it's adequately deep for frost protection and um vehicle protection. Um, that's it.

So, would we specify that it's just this little sub? I think that would be prudent. The 26. Yeah. Yeah. The floor drain system on building one. I think that's all you need to do is the floor drain system in building one. Um, the force bane part of it will have to have frost cover. So, that'll have to be a little deeper than 2'6 in. And then once that force man comes to the front side of the building, it will be have plenty of depth uh because the grade goes up quite a bit there.

And so my my proposed language for the for the decision will be granted to approve the cover depth shown in the plans and provided that there shall be a minimum of 4T of cover over all subsurface sewer pipes except for the short section of pipe exiting the parking garage in building number one to the gas trap under paved surfaces. I say all subsurface pipes under does it have to be underpaid?

I I would and the only reason I say that is if you have um those are just frost walls in the building. Um they in the grass area they may you know they may be 3 feet down on top of the footing which is like 3 foot six down and then but then it's hitching when it hits the underneath any pavement it will be more than four feet. What did Paul say about is that fine? Oh um it's fine with me. I don't I can't speak for Paul. I thought Paul I didn't think Paul distinguished between paved surfaces and non-paved surfaces. Did he? M

there's two different waiverss two down we get into the 4ft cover everywhere in the in um in the subdivision regulations it says sewer shall be installed center line with 7 foot6 of cover in the traveled way right in that section it does in that way yeah so in both yeah okay so in that section we'll say in the in the in the traveled way I guess in the traveled way

I I don't think that regulation is is taken in account taken into account that these are slab on grades. That's typically for a foundation and and the 7 foot6 is never a problem. But when it's a slab on grade, we tally start at the surface and we just run the pitch for the building and then at the end where we exit, it's it's whatever we need for that quarterinch pitch running through length of the building. So sometimes it's two and a half, sometimes it's three and a half, sometimes four and a half. It varies by the length of the building and the amount we have of the pitch. Again, his comment does not take in consideration slab on grades and every building is slab on grade except for that one building. Building one, just for reference. Yes. Name and address.

Sorry, Steven Vancast you are correct.

Just trying to help Katrina. Thank you. Okay, so I think we can move on. Yeah. Yeah. Um that one up. I I think we better start um I I think we better skip that 52210 one and just we we'll get to the other subdivision regulations when we get to it. So let's go back up to 52210

um 34. Okay. So 523 I think is the next one. Right. Waiver is request. This is a um this is your inclusionary zoning bylaw, right? And where 40B you have a different affordability level, right? uh 20% I believe for projects over eight units and it just doesn't apply here. That's all.

It's a kind of a catchup. Yeah, I I think this makes sense

even this broad in general. Well, we don't need it at all. Well, actually that's not entirely true. 52 5232 we meet

and then 5233 is basically the but you theoretically it's the AOHC guideline. Yeah. I I think my interpretation is that 523 is superseded by 40B. I mean 40B controls this. So I I think granting a waiver from 523 is fine. So all right the next one is 7.4 water supply protection overlay district. Um, this is in that.

Yeah, that high. Wow. What's that? I said that that high in elevation and that's in the water. It just seems high to me. I mean, the the topography of the land compared to like Worcester Street. It is. It is high, but it's it's um it's certainly within the zone two of the nearby well. Um just over behind that stop and shut. No, I know. I know that. I mean, that's right on the plan, the 400 foot zone, but Sure.

But yeah, in the water supply protection overlay district, I realize it's an over zoning overlay district. It more or less follows the zone two of the mapped um areas of influence for the public wells, but not necessarily. They can be more restrictive and it it does vary a few places in town. I forget exactly where. Yeah, that whole area is water supply protection over Lake District. You want to look

all the little blue dots. Oh yeah. This is which ones? All those little blue dots. That's all water supply protection overlay district. So in the yellow with the blue dots. H. So just so you know

and obviously in the pink with the blue dot anything with a blue dot so everything is Mhm. So I take it your position is that because the site is within the overlay district and the overlay district doesn't expressly allow this project that you want to waiver from that's correct district's provisions. I mean there's pretty specific enumerated under 74 A1 allowed uses and B for that matter.

Um yes that's exactly right. It's consistent with the other waiver you already granted which wouldn't allow this development in the R20 or the community business. Right. Um, by the way, there was some language that was that kind of general catchall language that should come out uh at the bottom starting with the applicant seeks uh to allow 200 units below.

Yeah. So, so what about the um the recharge and the impervious material provisions? Did you did you call those out? Yeah, you did. That's next. Yeah. Okay. Yes.

So, what's the part in that that says we can only grant relief not over 50% of existing in the water protection overlay district or am I confusing things? Yeah, that's in that's in uh the special what is it 3435 or you know our our version of the section six uh finding um I think it's 3435. So that's just where we can extend alter or modify pre-existing non-conforming. So it's that section and that goes on to say you know about the 50%. So, but that

that that's not that's not the water supply protection overlay district regulation in its entirety. It's just one small piece of it that applies to the that special permit section. It says you can go up to 75 as long as you recharge. So, we can go over that. In other words, if you go to the flip to the next page on that, it says um it says the town engineer uh and the conservation commission can allow up to 75% of lot air to be rented impervious provided that technique to satisfy the requirements set forth to maximize groundwater recharge

um etc etc etc. So you can go above it as long as you recharge, which that's we're recharging all the buildings. Remember, we broke it up into different locations to recharge the buildings and then everything else is being treated and recharged in the like the pave surfaces are being treated and recharged in the basin. Yeah. And this does apply to limitation on imperous material. That's the heading for this waiver.

So I think the first two paragraphs of your request I think are reasonable. I don't I think the last the third paragraph is just superfluous. Um yeah well petrol language and then the next paragraph I think you've already granted it. Well, the next paragraph is to the extent a special permit is required, right? We're on 29, right? No, 28. 28. Oh, sorry, I jumped ahead.

I was I was with you. Um yes, all of that comes out. Everything uh after starting with the the second p uh paragraph. Okay. I think comes out. Great. That's all that kind of catchall language that Yep. The less said the better. The board doesn't like um Yes. So where does it start? The applicant seeks waiver. Yeah. all after that can come out everything down to the and flip over to the next page within that same section that all yes the last one two yeah three paragraphs would come out

yes so I think this first request is fine and then we get to the more substantive portions right after that where this is the 25 75% thing and I think this came up in Pleasant Street if I'm not mistaken I think we yes it did we evaluated this there to make sure there was a lot of recharge we actually asked for more recharge And um so Jeff, I would just defer to you on whether you think the standard's been met.

The standard has been met. We've actually spoke of that last week at this public hearing. But nevertheless, I um just to be clear with respect to quantity, the volume of surface water being discharged went down in the post-development conditions compared to the pre-development conditions. Hence recharge went up. And then with respect to treatment um all the pavement surfaces are being treated um to what graft and conservation commission storm water regulations require of at least 90% TSS removal total suspended solids removal which exceeds the state requirement of 80% and they even went beyond that 90%. So the treatment aspect I'm satisfied as well as being satisfied with the volume aspect. um as it pertains to the amount of impervious area on in the groundwater supply protection overlay district

and just for clarification where it says you can go up to 75%. We're at um and I'm looking at the table on this the all this whole zoning part we're at 44.8 just for reference. Well, you can only go up to 75% if the conservation commission and town engineer allow it and again that's why we're doing this. Both are a local board and you would act in theirstead. Right. But certainly based on their but we're going to approve this up to 45%. Because that's what that's what you need. Sure. Right. That's what we've requested.

Okay. So I think in in the request I think the first paragraph is fine. On the second paragraph, I would just strike out the words notwithstanding the foregoing. Uh so so that Senate starts with the proposed development is compliant with the standards etc. I would end that with handbook and the rest of it I think is just superfluous and the next paragraph I think is superfluous. And then I'm not sure why you need the other stuff. You have the 15 foot landscape area um language that we had before.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about earlier. So, I think we did we take out a on why is that even in here? Is that something that's It says all requ because if you look at the last section of that uh provision, all required unoccupied area shall be landscaped or stabilized with plant material except as otherwise set forth in section 5223. So it refers back it's really a tie-in waiver request required unoccupied areas shall be landscaped as as pertaining to multif family dwellings.

So it's a it's a tieback to a waiver I think you already granted except I think you took out a on that one. Right. Right. I'm just trying to understand why we need to restate this. I missed them. I'm struggling because it's it's restated in the bylaw that it's really that simple. That's why we asked for it again.

If I may, Mr. Chair, with respect to 7.5E, which is the subject of this waiver request, it says all required unoccupied areas shall be landscaped or stabilized with plant material. And to your point, Peter, grass is a plant material. Um, and and then except as may otherwise be set forth in section 5.2.2.3, 5.2.2.3 may or may not have its own waiver request. And it's any waiver request would be addressed there. So I agree with Dan. It's seems like going after waivers for landscaping 7 makes sense. I don't think it makes sense. Okay. Okay. With all I don't think that

it it it's fine. I don't think you need it. It's fine. We already take out that request or we already got it. Deny it and say no. I'm just deleting it. So where it says waiver is further requested to allow. I'm going to delete the rest of that. Yep, that's fine. Okay. Do we still need to keep the as shown on approved plans? No. Oh, at the very bottom. Yeah. Yeah. No, the bottom line is here you're asking for 45% which is higher than 25. Yeah.

And we're granting that because our engineer has reviewed your recharge calculations and is comfortable that you're basically meeting the standard in the bylaw anyway. Right. Does that make sense for everybody? Yep. Okay. Moving right along. Traffic control. Traffic control. I don't think I've seen this section eight. So this was

Can you explain what why you think you need this? You're okay. What section is eight? Traffic control. What is section 8? Traffic control. Traffic control. I don't think we we've ever seen this request. No, I've never heard of it. Um but it's not explaining anything. It's just it's another the generally they're waving the whole section. This requires a traffic study, but you you did one. We did one. Um um but what are we waving?

We're going to give up the waiver. Just strike it out. You must comply with all right to the extent there was traffic peer review which there was with the TEC and I know there are outstanding TEC matters that are the subject of a condition um that we would be subject to compliance for. So um but within a qualified yes so with within the site though there's no you comply with

right yeah circulation all right I think we're done with the zoning bylaw yes storm water management that's the only one I printed out so I have my computer with So the first one is applicability. Um this requires the submission of a storm water management plan to the conservation commission. The conservation commission generally has jurisdiction over the bylaw. So they're basically asking for a waiver that the zoning board will have jurisdiction over the bylaw. Okay, which goes without saying. And so this I think we've granted this in the past. I have no problem with this.

It's just a process waiver. Um and actually section five of the bylaws again process. This is basically a waiver asking that the board, the zoning board has the authority to enforce and implement the bylaw, not the conservation commission. No, no problems there, right? Do we want to do that? Yeah, because we have to anyway. It's 40B. We don't have a choice. We we step into the shoes of the conservation commission for all local bylaws. How's this different though than all the other places where there's that

the zoning board acting as other local boards? So, we did a catchall. You'll recall when we reviewed where we were at, you know, uh when we started this conversation, that catchall is upfront. How is it different? It's in a different bylaw. Um, and because it's specifically cited, it's a jurisdictional issue. Let me see how that is. I'm not sure your question, Brian.

So, the example sis where we have the that footnote on what page is, but it's the footnote on waiver request number one says the zoning board of appeals shall act on behalf of all local boards. I I struck that from his request. That was the catchall. Yeah,

that was the catch all. But you know that catchall does speak to zoning relief. Um it's on page 13. That's where Dan put the catch all. And so so I guess doesn't that also include the what are we talking about here? Conservation Commission and the storm water where we're acting as these other boards. Right. Doesn't that go without saying, I guess, is what I'm

um I wouldn't say it goes without saying, but I would feel more comfortable striking it as a jurisdictional matter if up top we put um we broadened it from zoning relief to zoning relief and all other uh relief required underlaws. What I put up top is your statement, right? It's not our decision. So I I I think it's best best practice just to say yes, we agree. We're waving this requirement that that they have to go to the conservation commission. Is it overkill? Is it belt and suspenders? Probably. But it doesn't hurt to have it in here. Yeah.

It's not us that's waving it. It's 40 feet that has waved it for us. Right. Right. So, I don't think it's worth debating it. It's just just do it. Y um so then we now we move to the uh regulations under the stormwater bylaw. Um I actually took out the first one because I think it's just superolous of what we just did. Um it's the same thing. It's the conservation commission is administrating the bylaw. We we've already said that. So I I took that out. You okay with that, Jason? Sure. Okay.

Um, now we get into some more of the substitive provisions. Section 6C uh of the regulations uh addresses discharges to sensitive resources such as vernal pools. Um which we did. So the the state stormwater handbook are already has handbook I think has a provision that requires them to have discharges set back from vertical pools. So they can't have an outlet from a from a basin basically discharging water right out of vertical pool. they have to set it back and that generally means like 50 feet or 100 feet and they're complying with that because they've moved their outlet away from where where we think the vernal pool is which is in that isolated wetland. Um I don't know what else this section would have done. Um I don't know Jeff if you have any thoughts but I have no other thoughts. I I think the vernal pool is the one thing that jumped out at me potential vernal pool

and We we don't have any pipe discharges out of the basin. The only thing that could potentially discharge would be the emergency spillway which we're holding water through a 100year storm event. So, um and even that the emergency spillway, we pulled that out of the 100 foot buffer as well. Yeah. Well, that's what I was referring to is was that spillway. So, when I was because you you I think you originally had it I did going towards the wetland and then you moved it away from the wetland,

right? So I actually reframed your request. So it says um waiver requested the project storm storm water utilities and facilities will be constructed in compliance with the mass storm water management regulations and handbook in effective in effect as of the date of this application including provisions relative to storm water discharges in proximity to vernal pools. That's fine. Is that okay? Mhm.

And so I I would recommend you wave this because again I think the state regs actually have pretty good requirements and there's also going to be conditions in the decision requiring them to get that vernal pool certified or at least investigate it to see if it is certifiable and then to have it certified. And this is an isolated wetland. It's not connected by a stream.

Um in my view the bigger concern is the water quality because of the well. So, and that's being addressed through their recharge and the the water quality swale and so forth. Um, the next section is 7B1F. Um, this section I think requires them to show contours on their plans at a one- foot interval and they're asking that they showed their contours on the plans at a twoft interval. Is that right, John? Yes. Okay. So, which is standard.

So, I just reframed their request to be more clear on that point that that they're just asking for two foot intervals. You're fine with that?

I'm fine with that. I was able to follow the plans very clearly. I would capitalize plants. I mean actually that so the front cell is just a quote directly out of the um out of the rules and rights I believe. All right. So the next section is the wetland bylaw. Um and the first one is again jurisdiction. Um and there is um there is greater protection under the bylaw than there is under the state act as there is in most towns with bylaws. Um, as a matter of law under 40B, the board has to essentially administer the wetland bylaw and they're they're basically making that request just like we had with the storm water bylaw. They're they're asking the waiver to be that the zoning board will be um the authority to administer the wetland bylaw. And as you can see from my red lines, I just took out a lot of the superflow language. Um, within this waiver request, they're asking for a waiver from the local buffer zone provisions, But

Jeeoff, if I'm not mistaken, I this is a isolated wetland which is local jurisdiction only. Yep. And there is a buffer to a to the isolated wetland under the bylaw. To the best of my knowledge, there is a 25 foot no disturb zone, 100 foot buffer zone. We have it depicted on the plan. Yep. I see it on sheet C5. Yeah. So, so the only work that they're doing in that buffer zone is the basin. Um, yeah, that's correct. Waiting for the basin, right? So, it's not even the basin itself. So, it's the basin which is going to be stabilized and

the outlet the the outlet which is only for big storms is directed away from the wetland. So, so we're we're adhering to the we're adhering to the local bylaw because we're staying out of that 25 foot buffer with and again it's just as Dan stated, it's just offgrading um for the basin and that will be lawn or it'll be grass. It'll be stabilized and natural, but there will be disturbance. There'll be there'll be disturbance within the 100 foot, but over and above that, we're still um acknowledging and and staying out of the local 25T.

Right. So, um Jeff, there is a local 100 foot wetland buffer to the to the best of my knowledge. Yes. Yeah. To the isolated. So, I brought the regs. Oh, you have them? Yeah. But I I didn't look them up tonight, but yes, I'm just reading right off the plan. And there's also a 25 ft no disturb zone on That's correct. Y that's correct. We're out of that. Yep. But we're not out of the 100 foot buffer. That's correct. Yes. Where where are we looking on the plan? Right. Uh C5. It's up by the northwest northeast top right hand corner. Is it where it where the says 2:1 slope with permanent stabilization?

It's right. It's right here. May I approach? Yeah. to point it out. Is it right there? These are the buffers right there. Oh. Oh. Oh, okay. Yeah. And that's a that's 3 to one grading off of the basin.

I All right. I'd like to clarify one thing though. Dan, you had mentioned um um jurisdictional. This isolated wetland is jurisdictional under only the um um is under the local regulations. um not necessarily true. It may be isolated land subject to flooding under the state regulations if it because of the uh volume and depth of empoundment. I thought we possibly Okay. But that's at the state level that the conservation commission would have jurisdiction with. So we so we don't know that for sure. I thought we I thought we did those I thought they did the calculations.

No, no, no. They did the northwest corner. There's a depression in the northwest corner. Okay. cut it. Yep. But this has clearly impounded water. Yep. And if it's got no outlet, um it may qualify for isolated land subject to flooding at the state level. Okay. Yes. So they're going to have to file with um right as an RDA at least at least an RDA to to determine whether or not it's a resource area at the state level.

Right. Correct. RDA is a request for determination of applicability. So the they can file that request and concom will decide if they have jurisdiction or not. Um so this is kind of a long this still is a long request. Um they're also asking for uh a waiver from the strict application of the local buffer zone requirements. Um so again that's the 100 foot buffer and the 25 foot buffer to the isolated wetland. That's unique to the bylaw. Um and they and they say in the request that their project meets the stormwater standards and it also meets the endangered species act.

And the reason the reason they put that in there is that um the local regulations have provisions requiring wildlife habitat evaluations um for um when certain things are triggered. Um the there is a um a wood turtle which is a species of special concern which it falls under the endangered species act and they have applied for approval from the state agency that administers this and they've gotten a letter um giving them permission to move forward with the project under that under that statute. I provided you with that letter

in my past correspondence. Yep. Maybe back in March. So that's why they included that language in here, too.

Um, so I think I I I would recommend that this this specific waiver be granted and we we deal with some of the more substantive provisions later on. As a matter of jurisdiction, I think that's fine. Again, any concerns about how broad the the waiver is um with um further requested from strict application of local buffer zone provisions. That seems so general to me that they could not apply any of them. And I don't think we're saying anything nearly that drastic. I don't think they're asking for anything nearly that drastic. I just don't know if there's a more tailored way to get to specifically what they need. I see I see it I see the both I see I see see it both ways. I I think they they from their perspective they don't want to have to have review of what they're doing in the buffer zone. I mean they they it has been reviewed. We've reviewed it. So I think they're saying that that that's whatever the board is reviewing is is sufficient. Um but I agree you we don't want to be more broad than we have to be. Um conservation has a stipulation on the 25- ft no disturb zone that there's signs every 50 ft. Are we waving that with this? They I mean they make you put up signs that say do not dist uh wetland or whatever it says do not disturb.

Is that in the regulations or is that something they just do as a matter of practice? That's something that conservation commission puts on you. Yeah. And don't you have a I don't think they've asked for a waiver from that but I I don't think it's No, I didn't know if it was in if if it's included in this waiver and we don't know it. I would say no, but I mean we can we can probably take out that sentence if it's if we're concerned that that might be read too broadly. Um or refer I don't really think you need it.

Yeah, I was wondering if referring to the plan would would be a part of a solution. I mean, it's specifically set out in the plans,

right? And I think Dan, to your prior point, I think it's, you know, they're going into the buffer zone to the extent that we've seen in the planes, they're going into the buffer zone. to Peter's point, um the reason for the um signs every 50 ft is after construction of say someone's dwelling. Um a lot of times um encroachment into the buffer zone occurs or dumping of yard waste occurs. So I believe it's a condition, but I'm not sure about that. I'm going to start looking through the regulations. Um it may be a condition. I don't know if it's a regulation, but either way, the imposition is that uh there'll be signs posted every so often so that there's a visual to the homeowners that hey, you're not supposed to do this. Now, whether or not they heed the sign is one thing.

Probably not. Probably not. But the fact of the matter is with the sides there, that's the best last effort the commission can make during construction to keep yard waste and disturbance within the 25 foot no disturb zone there. And I'll try to find as we go along whether or not it's it's cited as a regulation or if not then then I believe it would have been imposed by the commission as as a condition in there as a guidance more.

Yeah. because the just by point of reference um section two jurisdiction this is an exact quote so it doesn't reference and I just skim through the other quoted provisions and there's nothing about signs it's a local so it's probably a local condition like a stock condition you state law is edge of wetland isn't it uh Jeff yes uh you then the town can overdo that which they have it used to be 5 10 15 ft. Now it's 25 ft. Pretty soon it'll be 100. But well at this at the state level there is not a no disturbance zone.

So lo municipalities if they have local wetland regulations may impose its own no disturb zone. And sometimes towns have no disturb and a no building which is a little farther back.

Yeah. Um so so Grafton the the point I'm trying to make is that those emblems that we see in many of the sites in town probably come about as a condition in the local wetland reg in the local wetland permit that's given just like there'll be conditions in this decision. Um and and and to that point, the applicant can't ask for a waiver from conditions they're not called out in in in the um wetland regulations. Exactly. Um

but I'm sorry, but the ZBA could impose them if if you wanted the emblems there. Hey, along the 25 foot no disturb zone, there should be wetland, no encroachment or whatever the signs are that that are customarily used by the commission. I personally call it a land taking, but they don't like it when I say that. It um I like that observation.

Stephen, when somebody tells you you can't use your land, that's a land taking. Uh Stephen and Kasa, um as as a matter of practice, almost every single homeowner that abuts us puts their yard waste on the back woods property. Um but as a matter of practice, we have professional landscapers because I'm not the guy that cuts the grass and nobody here is. They have the big mowers, they have commercial, and they dump zero outside. So it's all done commercially and everything's removed from the site. So never an issue with the commercial mowers, always with homeowners. So, it's not an not something that we need to worry about honest. That's what I'm in a practical mile. But,

and again, the only the only grading that's um it's further than 25 ft. It's offgrading off the back of the basin. There's no homes anywhere near that in all honesty, they're not even going to run, you know, a a mower back there. They're probably going to weed whack it because they don't want to be on with the big commercial mowers, they're not going to be on three to one slope going like this, right? um they're going to weed whack that. And again, no homeowners, everybody there's obviously is not going to walk around and start dumping yard waste down in the woods in our infiltration base.

All right. Unless they're really aggressive, but I don't see it happening. So just to keep this moving I I'm suggesting that in their request striking this the sentence that says waiver is further requested from the strict application of the local buffer zone require provisions and then and then in the in the in the in the um grant I say granted the work proposed within the 100 foot buffer zone to the isolated wetland in the northeast corner as shown on the plans has been reviewed by the ZBA and and is approved. Okay, I'd be fine with that. Good. Y

All right. Um, so, uh, I'm sorry. Let I just want to be clear. So, we're taking out that whole second paragraph that refers to the no take letter from uh No, I left that in,

but that's part of the waiverss for the request. The third paragraph I I left in the rest of it. Do you do you have my edits? Yeah, I'm looking up. Okay. So, some of the stuff I took out, some I left. But the waiver is further requested is still there. That you just took out the first sentence, right? The first sentence. Oh, just the first sentence. The buffer. Fine. Yep. I thought you were referring to the whole paragraph. Pardon me.

All right. So, the next section is application and fees. Um the applicant is asking for a waiver from the commission's filing fees for um notice of intents or RDAs. Um they require a deposit into the 53G account for peer review funds I believe. So I in the past applicants have asked for waiverss from these and we've denied them because it really kind of hamstrings the the commission. The the fees that they can require under the state act are inadequate. And so every commission that I'm aware of has regulations that allow them to collect a reasonable fees to review applications. So I I would recommend denying this. um just consistent with what we're doing with all the other boards of commissions like sewer and water and so forth. I the commission has specifically asked us not to allow this waiver too

and for place we denied it. It's just for work within the B potentially within the buffer. No, it's for your RDA. Um what what fees other than those prescribed by the DP would we be charged? It would just be I mean is it is it an additional peer review? Jeff, do you recall is it is it per it's not like a per per building not more per I I'm not familiar with the fee structure. I know it exists but I don't but but that pertains only to the application for the local wetland permit which is being administered right here right now.

Okay. Right. And it's got nothing to do with the EP filing with the IDA. There's I think there's no fee or a notice of intent. No, I think it I think I think the purpose of it is to um deal with the commission's review of of an application that's filed under the state act. Okay. As well as the bylaw because most of the time they get both at the same time. Right.

Yeah. It says it very I'm sorry. It says it very specifically. The fee is in addition to that required by the wetlands protection act and regulations. Such filing fees shall be deposited in a municipal revolving account fund. So we're looking to have just ways um fees associated with the state wetlands protection act. You mean the local wetland protection the local regulations? The waiver would apply to the local. The waiver would reply to the local, not what's required under state.

Right. As I see it, if the applicant has to file with the graph and conservation commission for any permitting under the state regulations, that commission has the ability well it there would be a split of the application fees to the state and the town like customarily done. And the commission would also have the ability to get um peer review fees if it needs peer review by its wetland consultant for peer review of the application under the state act. And these regulations have nothing to do with the state act. So the waiver even though the what might be confusing is is the local regulations I think use the term IDA just like the state does but it's a local IDA not a state level IDA.

Right. So we're looking to only be subject to the state fees. Exactly. And like you said they can if they have a third party consultant that's we're fine with that. But no we're just we're looking for what's associated with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts weapons protection act piece. I to be subject to. Yeah, I too though. Thank you. Not away from No, subject. Yeah, I saw you. I saw you. That's right. Thought you ate something bad. I'm still confused.

Yeah, I thought Jeeoff under the under the state rags. I thought I I've been told just hearsay that um the state regulations are inadequate in terms of providing for commissions to be able to assess fees for reviews of applications and that that's why they adopt these supplemental regulations to deal with fee collection. But I I can't even find the wetland regulations on on the conservation commission's website. Um didn't even look them up. I don't I mean it it clearly does state though that it applies to fees in addition to the WPA. Where is it? Yeah.

Well, I I show me the regulations. Yes, it would be section four. Let me see. Do you have them? I do. I have them on my computer. So is there a section four applications and fees? Tell you in a second. What are we talking about? Rules and regulations. The local RDA. So these are just views. Yeah.

Protection bylaw. a lo at the local level, not nothing to do with the state. Yeah. But you're saying under the state act, under the state regs is also a fee schedule. For notice of intent, not for an IDA. RDAs, to the best of my knowledge, there's no fee at the state level. Are you asking for a waiver from section D, the rules from hiring consultants? Section would you say section D? He hasn't done. He is in Dan. Hold on. I'm trying to find we we were looking for a waiver from section 4.

I apologize. I can't put my finger on the uh I got it in front of me. The bylaws. Okay. Looks like you're you're not okay. So, one section uh new Roman numeral ID deals with consultants. That's that was my main concern is that we were going to be able to collect this commission can collect fees to have a consultant if they if they need this would be for the local permit not they correct under 310 CMR10 the state level regulations the commission to the best of my knowledge has the ability to uh hire a consultant for example to review the isol whether or not it's isolated land subject to flooding

but they're not they're not even asking for a waiver from this so That's fine. Can I just How much are we talking about? Well, it could be tens of thousands of dollars if if they hire if the commission needs to hire a wetland scientist to review something that they file. Who knows? I I've seen these blow up into but that's covered elsewhere. It's interesting. It's in section D and they're not asking for a waiver from it. So, I'm fine. But what what's the fees that we're talking about in section four for RDA? It's $25. Um, well, we've spent we're debating it. I know. That's what I'm

There's 25 bucks on the floor. I'd buy for it. Or is that per unit? I'm sorry. Is that per unit or per acre or uh three acres or less? Is uh RDA? Yeah. $25 project applicability determination delineation determination three acres or less $50. Those are for the local request for determination of applicability,

but you're implementing the local. That's that's the point I'm trying to drive home is that even the as I see it, the commission still has the ability under 310 CMR10, the state regulations to impose the filing fees and the and the uh peer review fees um for any state level applications such as whether or not to determine that the isolated wetland is uh land subject to flooding or So, I mean, I'm inclined. Wouldn't we just deny this and move on?

Notice intent. It says multif family dwelling $100 per unit. Yeah. I My recommendation is to deny it. I I just I'd rather not put the commission in a position of having not being able to to collect the money they need to review a project. Um but again those are under the those are the under the local. So if you're imp implementing the local we'd be filing whatever whatever fees are associated under the the state but but that but that's the distinction here. We're not talking about the local bylaw because it's not going to go before the commission. The only application you file to the commission is under the state act. Okay.

So we're talking about fees collect. We're talking about the fees that the commission can collect to review your application under the state act. Okay, that's that's fine. Again, where where you said, Peter, that it was like $100 a unit under the local Well, that could Well, here it is. That number could get you. Yeah. So, that'd be 20,000. That is correct. $100 per unit for multif family dwelling of a notice of intent, a local notice of intent under the Grafton wetland regulations. not a notice of intent under the 310 CMR 10. This is under the state regulations and we're not subject to local, right?

I I'm the only thing I'm trying to do is make sure everybody's clear on what's what. But would they have to do that? Would they have to do what? File for a local notice of intent. No, that would be covered under the Dan, correct me if I'm wrong, but local notice of intent is being covered now. Okay. As long as we're clear on that, right? So that that's the basis of the waiver request. We're we're already hearing it. You're what?

We're are you're hearing this uh application under the local bylaw. But I I guess my if we just deny it and I don't know it turns into a bigger issue then we come back and revisit it. But why would you deny it? I guess I'm confused because why would we? We're not in under the local. You're deciding. We're talking about the state act, right? But that's not what this is talking about. This is under the local bylaw.

Under section four, it's fees under the local, which we're not correct. It's in addition to that which would be section four is talking about fees that the commission assesses for applications that are filed under both the local bylaw and the state act. It's not just the bylaw. Written application shall be filed to the conservation commission to perform activities affecting resource areas protected by this bylaw. This bylaw section four.

So where is the jurisdiction implied under the WPA that this section 4 would specifically apply to? I mean, I'm still I I think we should deny it. And if Yeah. And it even confusion later with the conservation commission come back. It even talks about concurrent jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCusker.

Yeah, I I I agree. We should deny it. To the best of my knowledge, and Dan or someone can correct me, I don't think we have ever waved any fees associated with um these 40bs. And I I don't know why we'd start now. So, um I I would be absolutely a deny on this and uh on this and I think any other request that we wave fees. We just we we've never done it. We don't and I don't think we should start now. Yeah,

I mean it actually just as a footnote, it actually does say at the end of section 4, the commission, which in this case is you under the local bylaw, not the WPA. Well, we're still denying it, right? But it does say the commission may wave the filing fee and costs and expenses for a permit or other application or RDA filed by a government agency. Okay, we're not that. Pardon me.

Well, I I'm just for clarification then where we're not this section is within the local wetland bylaw. Correct. Which we are not subject to the local wetland bylaws. So are we even therefore we're not subject to section 4? That is part of the local wetland bylaw. Well, but in order to not be subject to this provision of the local wetland bylaw, we'd have to be granted a waiver from it, right? But they already did.

No, they denied they're inclined to deny it. Mr. Chairman, as as I see it, the application before the CBA here with respect to the local wetland regulations has been reviewed and the applicant sees little risk in seeing additional peerre fees for the application that's already been reviewed. So, if you deny it, they still should expect the bill for zero for review under the local regulations. Um, unless the ZBA asked me to revisit this for any reason. and and then it's Yeah, but I Yeah, I just I don't see any

It's just not something we're we've ever waved for and there may be nothing here. So, I don't understand why we would wave it. Belt and suspenders. It's all the same. Just I'm not even sure why we're still debating it. I mean, I think we understand what it is. If we're going to vote on it, then we can vote on it now. I but I think we do that later. Let's move on. I I don't I think we all understand what this is. I think we all have our uh know what we're how we feel about it. Let's go. Okay. All right.

All right. So, the next one is uh section 5B5C supplemental documentation. Um and this is the requirement that requires um a uh habitat evaluation when there's alteration of a habitat of a rare species. Uh so that is triggered here because they are in a priority habitat for the bar the wood turtle. Um, so they're asking for a waiver from having to do the habitat study that would ordinarily be required under the regulation

and because we've already and and part of the ask is that we've already been before um natural endangered species and we got the no take letter. We have the no take letter. So basically it's already been done. So, you don't need a waiver. It's been done at the state level. We would need a waiver from the local the so-called supplemental documentation.

Dan, you asked for further comments. So, I I did ask uh Leah today. Um I haven't heard back. I mean, that was early afternoon, so maybe she didn't see the email yet, but um yeah, I I you know, in my in my view, this is really kind of a state law issue. The the habitat study is being triggered because we're in the wood turtle habitat, which natural heritage has has looked at and has issued a permit on. So, I'm not really sure what value having the conservation commission do another evaluation is in this case um given the limited habitat issue.

So, if I think with their input if they're fine with this waiver. So, I just don't have confirmation from Leah. Do I? Oh, the only email was the one you got that this morning. Did you see this one? Yeah, that was before. That was before. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't think she gave us input on this before because I looked at her prior emails and memos and I don't think she addressed this issue. I don't believe she did either. Okay. So, I mean, we could we could defer it. I could wait until she responds. Um,

are we have haven't we got a couple citizens concerns about habitats and all that stuff? Yes. Um, I think the neighbor in the audience raised the point that this was probably a vernal pool. Yeah. And so we've recognized that and we have a condition in here that requires them to investigate it. Um, the commission has asked us to to do that. We've actually in the draft conditions I've actually added some proposed language that came from Leah on this issue. Um so we when we get to that we can go and look at that that language which basically addresses this issue. So what other areas are there?

There's nothing else. This is only triggered because we're in that uh priority habitat and the only animal in here is that turtle. So well I take that back. The vernal pool has is its own habitat. So the the vernal pool is um that has habitat of non- rare species such as salamanders and things like that. So that but that's not what's that's that's not the issue in this waiver. This waiver only pertains to the the fact that we're the priority habitat for the the turtle. I wouldn't want to wave this without her input.

Okay. I agree. All right, let's table that. Um the next one is 5B5H11. Supplemental documentation. Um infiltration type drainage systems shall be located outside the boundary of wetland resource areas and wild h wild wildlife habitat areas. Um, so they they need a waiver from this because their uh basin is within the priority habitat, right?

Is that why you're asking for this? Yeah. Um, but again, it's been reviewed by Yeah. Natural Heritage. So, Natural Heritage does have the plan that they they've reviewed the plan that shows the basin in the location that it is today and they've signed off on it. And that that's this version with the discharge in the current location. Yes. The March 2, 2026. No, it's the July 2025 plan, which Well, we're talking about the Well, the location of the basin, right? Yeah, the basin. He's talking about the the the emergency spillway. Actually, they

It's right there. Yes. But when we initially went into them, I I think they saw the that spill that emergency spillway even the emergency spillway was shifted over. So this is even right more so they have less impact less impact. More conservative than what they approved. Correct. Correct. Correct. Exactly. On the spillway issue on the spillway. Is the wildlife habitat area shown on the plans like it's referenced in the

the habitat area? Yeah, if you look at the um existing conditions plan basically that it goes out to the street. Yeah. If you look at sheet C3 Y um there's a heavy dashed gray line. It says limit of fire recap. Yeah. Okay. This is all habitat. Okay. Yeah. Other way. I'm sorry. Katrina. Yeah. Oh, she has it up.

Yeah. Go to down left. Oh, towards the street. Yeah, there you go. There you go. See that? I shift it up.

Yeah, maybe you go shift up a little just so you can see. There's the there's the existing house at the street and then behind that um that heavy line right there where arrows that goes north south that's the the limit of the priority habitat. So, was this the letter or the same issue where they had issues with the curb height or curb angle? Yeah, they they wanted us to make sure that um which it makes no sense to me, but they want the turtles to be able to crawl through through the site.

So, you got to have sloped slope uh Yeah. on one side and vertical on the other. Slope. No. What? Also, they want also what the parking lot basically. We have turtle races in the parking lot. It's going to take a while. Yeah. Well, I had I had to do that, too. So, I mean, it was either that I had to make little ladders. No, I had it shoots on mine. We had to put sloped uh curving on one side of the road. I did a project one years ago and they we had to create turtle tunnels to go under the boat. It was that's what we have to do on other projects. Yeah.

So at any rate Yeah. Yeah. So my idea was let's keep the we'll let them go but kind of go around us which kind of made sense. So you Oh, the turtles. Yeah. You make them walk longer. Well, it's better than getting squashed. But at at any rate, I'm I we already Yes. We we did what they told us to do, but it And the letter you're referring to is from Fisheries and Wildlife Division of U. Yeah. Dated August 13, 2025. And I would have provided that to you. Yeah.

In a transmitter. So again, a lot of this is is just um it's already achieved. So it's it's duplic it's we're duplicatingly we're we're complying and it's duplic it's we duplicating it's already done. So in the conditions of the state approval prior to the start of work, they have to submit a turtle protection plan to the division for review and written approval. Um

that's legitimately not uh limits of work um installation of Cape Cod BMS are equivalent. Um, so there there's there's a list of five conditions that they have to comply with to comply with this issue. Is their waiver too specific? So the waiver only calls out the location of the storm water management basin within the wildlife habitat area, but according to the plan that we pulled up, I mean, most of the site is in the habitat area. Yeah, but the section only pertains to uh basins and outlets.

That's the specific section. So, it's addressing that one section. Section BB5H, Roman numerals. Did you see that? Yeah. What? Oh, this. Yeah. All that. Yeah. Yeah. So, this this section only deals with the basin. Yeah. Yes. Um, so are you guys fine with us or um well, they're complying with all the requirements in that letter from Mass Wild. They have to, right? Yeah.

And we incorporated that letter as a condition in this budget. Mhm. Um, is this just for a certain type of turtle or is this for snapping turtles too? No, it's No, just the wood turtle. Wood turtle. Cuz I know where there's wetlands, the snappers in a spring like to come up on sandy areas like this and lay their eggs. Y I think that's why it's priority habitat. But instead of for snapping turtles, it's for the wood turtle. There's plenty of snapping turtles. I guess I'm I'm reading directly from the no take letter that was

Peter I'm pretty sure they got to put signs up that says no stopping turtles allowed only turtles we don't want to discriminate but so I guess is this duplicative though what if or is it needed I think it's re if there's already a condition that they comp. Oh, I guess they need this. We have otherwise Yeah. for the structure. Yeah. Otherwise, the drainage that we showed is Yeah. Okay. Never mind. We have basin structure in the wildlife habitat. And the next one,

it's the same thing. It's the same exact thing. Infiltration type drainage systems shall be located outside of the boundary of all protected wetland resource areas and wildlife habitat areas. So it's the same thing. Yeah. Right. Okay. He moved.

All right. So I think we're up to the Grafton Water District. Um so the first the first one is um fees for um I guess I I would it looks to me like they're connection fees. Um, it's and and the the request is a waiver from the study provisions and sections and seeks zoning relief to allow the proposed development. I I don't think you need that language because we've already done that.

Wait a minute. Where where are we on page 49? Correct. Article one. Yes. Correct. Or article article three. Well, number one, but article article three. Yes. That that has to do with how many services, isn't it? Entrance per unit. It says entrance fees. Hold on. That's the second one. Entrance fees. Hold up. There's D and E.

The first one says entrance fees, but it says this the first one. Isn't it saying you have to basically have a curb stop per unit? That's ground. Okay, there you go. Um, we're getting right now. Article 3, section 21D. Article 3, section 21D. They have page numbers. Payment of entrance fees. No, I was I was in uh 21D. Hold on.

No, I think we went too far. We did. Yeah, Peter, this is just fees. Entrance fees for any service pipe connected into the water system shall be in accordance with the with the following schedule. Oh, wow. Um and then for multif family residents. Then it says as per the fee table. And so that takes you to the fee table 21D. Where's the fee table? Doesn't it basically come out to 10,000 a unit?

Where's the table? I don't see a feat table in this document. That's what I'm looking forward to. Is that the end? That's what I'm Too many rules. Steve, what's a house now? No. Off the top of my head. I don't know. Isn't that 10,000 or is it 7500? Yeah, right. I'm not sure.

Article three section. Well, you know, a couple waiverss down they, you know, they say it's 5,000 for each residential dwelling unit. Yeah, but it's not a website, but that's sewer. So, on the grafting district, article 3, section two, multi multiple family residents, all structures containing more than one dwelling unit where each unit is required to be on an individual service and curb stop, $7,500 per dwelling unit. 75

for each each individual unit. Yeah. Multiple family residences. All structures containing more than one dwelling unit where the building is allowed to be on a single service and curb stop. $5,000 per building and $5,800 for each one and twobedroom unit and $6,800 for each threebedroom unit. $7,800 for each fourbedroom unit. Is that what you were looking for? You water district. I went into the graft and water district feeds table. It's not in the document. It's not in the document. It references the website. The website.

Katrina, where did you find that in the district um website under fees and their fee table? No, I know. Go into resources. Services. Oh, services. Going to services. Fees rates and payments table fee information. Got a fee information. Here we go. Thanks, Bill. I see your Do you have your hand? Yeah. Um, to the applicant, are we ultimately trying to wave the connection fees here? Is that what we're after?

Hello. Um, yes. I mean, we're we're Okay. So, the answer's the answer is no. Let's move on. All right.

Right. I mean I mean what we're we're we're getting into the weeds of of what the fee is, that sort of thing. What you're after here is waving the fees. My answer is no. I think we can communicate that's what we're after is waving the fees. People can make up their mind. We'll vote on it when the time comes. Let's move on. I I I don't see the point of trying to determine what the actual number is and you know what points to what where and all that. It what difference does it make? you're at what you want is to wave the fees. We've never done that before. It's very easy to communicate that's what you're after. People can make their mind up when it comes time to vote.

Mr. Chairman, I might add the the lip specifically calls out that um the applicant will not seek waiverss of water connection fees. Yep. Thank you. It it does it say water doesn't mention sewer. Uh it it references water connections and septic approvals and installations, but Okay. Yeah. I mean I mean no one in town is going to be happy if we start waving sewer fees and water fees and that sort of thing. Yeah. In light of that development agreement, I would just take this out if I were you. I think it's I don't think you should have asked for it. Do you want to do that?

Yes. Okay. Okay. So then, okay, we go to Grafton Sewer Department. I guess that first one's a no-go. In in in this member's opinion, it is a no-go. the the only thing that I've seen and again I don't know Grafton but in other towns they have been amendable to waving fees for the affordable units. I don't know if the the board would consider that. I don't I don't think we've even done that.

I don't ever remember doing that. It's a first for everything. I mean the trouble is that the the town just borrowed a few years ago $40 million to upgrade the sewer plant. So Okay. And and the water district is just has the authority to borrow 53 million to uh handle the uh forever chemicals build three plants. So Oh, the paths. Yes. All right. So then

so number one is denied. Can you explain what number two is? It says all buildings must be sewered below the footings per the sewer use ordinance unless otherwise approved. So typically they want you to put uh install the the sewer service underneath the footing. Mhm.

Whereas um in this case we have just a you know these are slab buildings whatever they need for pitch for plumbing code. It could come out it could come out if you have a 4ft frost wall it could come out three feet down. It could come out three and a half feet down. Um, and again, we're just making sure that we we're making sure that we have the 4T of cover underneath the pave surfaces, but um, to have it come into the building, um, you know, under the footing doesn't necessarily may not work in in all instances. Um, I remember I did a spec house long time ago and um I didn't read that and I had to go see the uh the DPW and he busted my chops. He was like, "No, no, you can't do that." And I was like, and he said, "I'm only kidding." He goes, "Don't worry about it. You're fine." So, that was my experience. Um I I can see the I guess the intent like um I don't know who said would be if someone puts a bathroom in their basement or they build something down there they it can go gravity under the footing. Um whereas these are slab buildings. That's not the that's not the case.

But when is that determined though what these will actually be? Your hardest. We do have We have Your hardest building must be number one. You must be going out through the wall on building one. There's no in the basement. There's no There's no basements. Building one. That's a garage, huh? Yeah, that's an underground garage. Oh, well, they they you have it. Yeah. The sanitary lines coming out through the wall. That's what I mean. Higher up and then the um floor drains coming up. So, it's not it can't go under the footing in other words. That's correct. So I mean I have no problem with it myself, right? I mean Grafton has that regulation. So basically houses can have a toilet in their cellar,

right? Whether and most how many do I don't know but we've spent millions making sure sewers deep enough. Mhm. And it's crazy in my opinion but I and and I think we've waved this in the past. Yes, we have. Thank you. And I was just going to say Coen Babcock. Um, basically what happens it's it's more of a logistical thing sometimes when you're doing this footing then you're doing the foundation. It's slab on grade to go dig under the footing later is going to be more detrimental than cing a hole inside the foundation when you don't need that depth for pitch.

Okay. Everything's gravity. Okay. So, are you okay with that one? Any concerns from your No, no concerns whatsoever. The same with the next one. It That's the That's the same question, isn't it? The next one. Yep. Do we even need that one? It's a different regulation. So,

or a different Right. Yep. waste pipe exiting the building through the basement connected below the basement or whenever possible. So that gets us through the sewer. I think that gets us So we're okay with that last one. Can we just second being Yeah. Yeah. I'm fine. I'm fine with that. I'm sorry. No, no. it. So, we're we just finished the sewer use ordinance. Mhm. Right. All right. So, it's 9:47. Um, was it 10:00 is our Yeah.

Yeah. What do we want to do? How much I We're not going to be able to finish these and the additions tonight. And if I can suggest, I mean, you're waiting to hear from the conservation agent on at least one of the conditions. Um, I can't remember if you're waiting to hear from anyone else. So, we're not going to I I would suggest we're not going to close the hearing. just based on that

what so do we want to continue do do we have an idea of how much more maybe maybe I'm directing this to Dan but I mean how much more did we want to get through tonight you know I No, I have no desire to go to midnight or something like that. No. No, thank you. I think we could probably get through the subdivision regs and that's that's really it that's left on waiverss. Um yeah,

I think there's some cleanup to talk about on the conditions. Um but that might be a longer conversation. So, I I if if you guys are up for it, I would stick it up for another half hour to to get through the rest of the waiverss. All right. All right. Let's just do we need a motion to continue beyond 10 p.m. Yeah, we do. Is there a motion? Who's going to state that? I don't think I can make motion.

I move that we move uh we go to what? 10:15. Say 10:30. 10:30. Yeah. I feel I feel you. Did you mean it? Need someone to second it. Get it done. Who's going to second it? Second it. Oh, come on, you guys. Come on. Second. Either that or we're going to pack up and go home. So, let's All right, M. Miss Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Uh, Mr. McCusker, no. Mer, no. Mr. Mia. What are we doing?

This is on you. Yes or no? Say yes or no. Yes. It's yes. I mean, is that first time I've had an actual Like, well, why am I why is it up to me? So, now it's down to you, Brian. Yeah, I say yes. Let's plow through this. Wasn't this a four required D? Super majority. All right, we're wasting time. We should We We should change our rules, though. Got to have four out of five. But, can we keep it going? Not have any extraneous conversations about this anymore. Let's move. Let's just move fast. Yeah, you know, cover it. But

all right. So, that one's all right. So, the first one I I sort of viewed as a blanket waiver. And yeah, that any and all just I would I would either deny it or you guys can withdraw it. I would make things quick. We'll withdraw it. All right.

Nice. Uh curb cuts and BMS. Um yeah, as approved as shown on the approved plans, um they the I forget what's at the entrance radius. It's granite. I just don't remember the slope granite edging or vertical granite curve. But either way, what's on the plans, I did not have a problem with it. I believe uh DPW might have looked at this as well numerous times. So I had no issue. Well, wait a minute. Which one are we talking about? Two or three? Two.

Two. Number two. Two. Isn't that a general? Oh, okay. I was looking three. Well, curbs and BMS will be installed as depicted in the plan. Let me find that. Let's see. I know. Hold on.

So, we got to have a set of plans in front of us to I we I don't even know what they're putting in, but it must be Is it asphalt? Um, it's granite at the entrance. I don't remember them. Slope graned edging or vertical granite curb. There's vertical I forget what along the sidewalks and I thought there was Cape Cod Burm elsewhere. Um to I'm looking am I right about that? What's No, we have um that's just angled by tombs angled. We have asphalt. We have sloped everywhere. Sloped everywhere. That's sloped. Yeah. Sloped everywhere. Slope granite. Granite. Granite. Oh, slope granite

everywhere. Wow. Everywhere. Yeah. Well, we that's what natural heritage because we're going to let the turtles through four. So, 4.2 is is not asking for anything specific, is it? No. Granite curbing unless otherwise granite curbings in the dimension. I think that vertical granite curves or SA or SB slope granite curves. Yeah, that's a good point, Bill. I think that's I think this is an inappropriate waiver. It's not stating anything. So, it's slope slope granite.

Now, I'm not picking on turtles when I say this, but won't slope granite be too slippery for the turtles to go. I'm only making a joke. You know what? So, I'm not picking on turtles. We'll withdraw 4.2. I like to put a little humor in some of the meetings. So, we've had it We'll withdraw 4.2 4212, right? Okay. Uh but 4212 is a more specific waiver request type that speaks type S that is very specific to the type of curb and the location.

Correct. uh cited um in the subdivision rules and rags. And again, as I'm seeing on sheet C4, slope granite edging throughout um included along the walkways and very durable material. I have no issue with the waiver request. Well, the request is specifically for in front of the town houses, right? Drainage structure locations that Yeah, in front of the town houses. We said no curbing whatsoever because nothing is p no curbs are no nothing is pitched towards us. Everything else is going to have granite. So when you say in front, you're talking about I'm talking by the garages to the interior

in front by the back door. They open all the time. Well, yeah, because nobody's going to use it. So, why why isn't there a curb? I I don't understand why there wouldn't be curb on that side. Um, like where her arrow is, is that not going to have a curb? No. Right. Yeah. See, it's just a single line because nothing is pitched. Any of the the drainage is over on the other side by where the um the the strip parking is over there. All that is pitched. Everything is pitched away because you're going to pitch your driveway away and everything's going to pitch away from the garages and pitch over in within that.

But do we but is there another reason for curb such as safety or keeping people off the lawns or Well, keeping people off the lawns, but there is other parking in the in the parking spaces across the street if they're available and and um we've been through the parking calculations. Um quite frankly, there's so many driveway openings there, Dan. They're going to have except for where the Green Arrow is now. Um and a couple other spaces, they might have had a run of about 40 ft of granite and then they'd be stopping again, right? So, and and right here. Yeah. Yeah.

Importantly though, no water's going to run parallel to the curb on that side of the street because that all pitches away. So, there won't be an erosion issue. That that's common when you or puddling. So again, from an engineering perspective, I don't have an issue with the waiver request. Yeah. What about aesthetics? I I think the slope granite edging looks very nice. Um it is mountable, so it's good for if they're going to push snow over the sidewalk and onto the grass areas in the winter. The the slope granite edging is much more mountable than vertical granite curve or vertical batuminous. Um aesthetically, I I think it looks pleasing. um consistent granite,

but would it be aesthetically better to have curbing than no curbing where that where those arrows are? I don't think you'd really notice much of a difference there. No. The last time we put granite curb in in a resident subdivision in the last 50 years was never. Peter, you ever put granite curb on the side in your driveway? No. We're We're talking no talking about you. Okay. What how does the board feel about that? Is that what's Are you okay with not having curb in those areas that are a little I question it before it's If we're down to aesthetics, I'd defer to the developer.

If this is if this was the town, I'd insist on it, but he they're the ones that got to plow it. I just don't know what's stopping anybody from packing on it. They're going to own it. They're going to own it. So, and if they have to use slope granite curbs anyway, that's not going to stop somebody from drive parking on the lawn. Well, it tells them not to, but it might discourage them from doing it. But they have to deal with that, you know, cuz they it's a deterrent. Yeah. It would prevent the parking half on half off here. They're going to have which I think is their own rules because they own this and there's they're managing this property. But it's also a public safety issue that if people are parking in the driveway then

Right. But that's up to them to enforce that though. Well, it is up to them. But if the fire engine can't get through, it's Yeah. I I I defer to our peer peerreview professionals. If you know, if Jeff's okay with it, I'm okay with it. Yeah. Me, too. I think with respect to um blockage, um if there's emergency access issue, that's that's a management issue. And as long as there's something that says they got to keep the emergency ways clear, then it's on management to make sure that happens. Is that what we're talking? Yeah. Going over the curve. Yeah. Okay. So I

say Joe. Okay. Thank you. We only have the 1030. So 4.3 and then 4.3.1 seem to be duplicates of 4.2. Um certainly the same issues, right? Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Exactly the same. So get rid of those. Get rid of 43. So I don't think that actually asks for anything, right? And then 431 is okay. Is okay. Is okay. So we're getting rid of 4.3 because it's general

duplicate. Okay. and duplicate I guess but 4.31 is is okay more specific because it's basically the same as 4.2.1 45

All right. 451 4.51 gets very specific to saving natural features and trees. I believe that's um the desire with the subdivision rules and regs is to keep large trees in the front yard setback of house lots when grading allows for the developer to do so. And we've seen the grading plan, the clearing plan, the landscape plan, and so forth on this one. So I' I've got no issue with it. um permanent.

So should we say granted uh provided that clearing shall be up to the limit of work shown in the site plan? Sure. Y that's fine. Okay. All right. 4713. This is more tailored towards a subdivision roadway layout with a pertinent Yeah.

utility in in ground utilities. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, this requires that the underground utilities be uh installed at a point a minimum of 2 ft back from the back edge of the sidewalk or where there is none the line which would otherwise be required to be the back edge of the property line.

What it's really calling for is is um install the utilities linearly along the road and provide the service laterals to service the lots. That's taken care of in the utilities plan here. So, I have no issue with the waiver request. Good. All right. 472 sewage. We basically I think already covered. That is correct. Under different regulations. Under different regulation. Yep. Okay.

Well, what are we doing with this though? Waiver requested from sewer use ordinance. Is that what is that what we did before we talked about the sewer use ordinance? Talk about the fees. It was it was exiting the building under the footing. But it was under a different bylaw. Yeah. Sewer use ordinance. It's the same thing. It's just three in a different Oh, yeah. We did that a bunch of pages before. Well, you had one waiver request and we granted it. Yeah. So, wait a minute. Um, sewer use.

Yeah. Number 84.7.2. Yep. What I'm worried about is it says um the waiver request or the regulation, I'm sorry, uh conditioned upon approval by the board of sewer commissioners. My thinking is that if if the waiver request has got to do with location depth of the sewer, that's one thing. If it's got to do with compliance with the sewer use regulations or the board of sewer commissioners of fees, that's a different thing. And Dan, I I'm at a loss as to whether what they're requesting, what the second column, they're saying waiver requested from the sewer use ordinance section 3.7, but they're so we granted that. So that

the elevation below the basement floor that was I think that's all they're asking for here. Okay. And so I would actually strike out the rest of this because it's just duplicative of what we already granted. Uh what would you strike out?

So after where it says waiver requested from graft and sew use ordinance, I added the word section 3.7 and I would just end it there because you're just repeating what that says. We don't need that. And then I would say granted ZBA has granted a waiver from that section. Um is the we have to just go back to it uh for a second. Do you remember where it is? Because this is specific to buildings one and four and I'm not sure that the granted waiver request the previous one was that specific. I don't think it said a building.

It was more general. I don't Yeah, it was more general. Yeah. So, it covers you, right? So, should we take out the building one floor? I I took it all out. He Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Good. Yeah. Unless Unless Dan made any edits as it was written. It was waivers requested to allow sewer to be constructed as shown on the approved PL or on the plan. That's fine. If that's fine for the board, that's fine for me. in that second paragraph as well. I took everything out. Okay. Um, lighting

476 lighting. Street lighting should be located where required by the planning board. Um, waiverss requested to provide the lighting as shown on sheet L2 of the plans. I have no issue with that. That's follows the discussion we had earlier this tonight about lighting. Uh, right. Okay. Now, similar as previous on number 10 and I took out a lot of that language that in the request. Well, on 52 we should take it out entirely. It's a Oh, yeah. I was talking. Right. Right. Yep. 52 comes out.

5222B. Um I'll share with the board that um subdivision rules and regs call for two and 3/4 inch thickness of binder 1 and 1/2 inch thickness top for total pavement thickness of 4 and a/4 in.

Um they're requesting a waiver of 4 in at 2 and 1/2 and 1 and 1/2. Um, I went through the four most previous projects. MCO Hills, Pleasant Commons, Apprentice Place, and Fisherville Terrace. And all of those had pavement sections of 4 and a/4 in total, 2 and 3/4 in of bind, one and a half inch top. I know we're talking about a quarter of an inch of asphalt, but they're asking for a waiver. I just want to share with the board um where we stand with the four previous projects. I guess why would we do anything other than what's required in the

because it's a quarter of an inch but it's I mean 10% 20%. But it's their roads right? Yeah. Yeah, I think that the intent is to the intent of the regulation is for p future public ways to be constructed so they're durable and not going to require replacement maintenance as soon as otherwise they might when they use inferior depths they might they might have to repair and replace their their pavement sooner. Y and that's probably more of an issue for them than it is for the town. Sure.

But this should be specific to the site and not still road. Oh, absolutely. Oh, yeah. This is all within this is all for for the interior site.

The only other thing too a little thicker gets you is that customarily uh the roads get up the binder and subdivisions and then lot house lot development occurs and you've got anything from heavy equipment to track equipment running up and down the road. And I I think that might have been the intent. I can tell you that in 25 years I've been working on graft and projects, that hasn't changed. And again, it's in the subdivision rules and regs. But I don't have a position one way the other, but I want to share with you the history on the 40bs that I've worked on.

But as Dan Dan indicated, if I can just interject, it's it's our responsibility. It's it's not a public way. If it breaks down, something happens to it. We have to fix it. I can tell you what the problem is. The problem is that we Jim, whoever's gonna talk, Steve, Steve, sorry.

The the problem is that we always have to go over like that's the minimum. So, it won't be four and a quarter. It'll be four and a half, four and 3/4. It, you know, we can't do it. If it's minimum four and a quarter, we can't do it four and a quarter because it won't measure up in certain places. You can't, this is not an exact science, right? It's not exact. So, it's going to be four and a half, four and 3/4. No, we generally use four inches. That's generally roads, everything. That's the reason. I guess I I'm fine. I'm okay.

12 uh sew shall be installed. So 12 we already did, right? I think we did in another contract. Yeah, it says the sewer shall be installed in the center of the street as nearly as practical. Actually, this we well we didn't though. We we talked put a placeholder in the zoning bylaw. I I did it on my computer. Approved. So, how are we handling the zoning bylaw? We're just going to reference these. Uh, yeah, we'll go back to it and Okay. figure out what we granted, what we didn't grant, and Okay. Right.

It's pretty much it's the same thing as the other one except um the locations are as shown on the plans on 13 12 on 12, I'm sorry. So, 12's done. 13 culberts, storm drains, and sewer pipes. All things come through, of course. Concrete pipe 12 inch inside diameter. Yeah. So we're looking to use the highdensity polyethylene instead of the instead of concrete. Yeah. They are using at least 12 inch diameter and it is high density polyethylene pipe. Customarily use drainage pipe. Wa has been this waiver has been granted for other 40 piece. I think I'll add 12 in diameter. That's fine in your request.

I mean required is concrete pipe isn't it? That is but we always give this waver. So yep. Do we show 12 in? Yeah, we don't go below that. Okay. Um 14 is 4 ft of cover drain pipes for special culverts. This 4t of cover over drain pipes. Yeah, we talked about this too. You want two feet of cover, correct?

And it's not for all of them. just certain ones and the the HDP pipe manufacturers re are are okay with 2 ft of cover when the pipes properly bedded and I have no problem with it from an engineer perspective. Is it shown in the plans where it's uh we'd have to start reading the elevations? Yeah, it's it is on. Yeah. Yep. Yep. By reading rim elevations and invert out elevations of structures, you can determine the amount of cover. So, you're okay with the board's okay? Yep. Okay. I'm okay with it.

Um, next one is um 5 5423. Sewer pipes and pertinances shall be design installed. Which is number three or four? Number 15. 542. No, no. I mean, is this the third or four? The third or fourth time we've covered this one, right? And you're just asking for the same Yeah. waiver. It's sewer use ordinance. Uh section 3 uh.7, right? Mhm.

Okay. So, I'm going to end that with section 3.7. I'm going to delete everything else and we're going to grant it. Sound good? Yes. Yeah. We're making great time. Okay. 513-1 street lights. This sounds like we already did this already. Yes. So, that's granted. Uh, next one. Street and pedestrian light stansions shall be of a type selected by the planning board in the select board. That That's cuz that's if the street is being taken over. That's for streets. Right. Right. Right. Should we should we is this really applicable or

it this really this isn't because the town of Grafton has contract with National Grid for certain types of street lighting equipment. So the purpose of this is to make sure the street lighting equipment in a new subdivision aligns with the contract the town has for operating maintaining it later on. Here it's a whole different story. they can use what they want because they're paying for it and replacing it on their own without um a contract with national grid through the town. Okay. So, I think granting it is it's a little ambiguous whether it's applicable, but I think granting is is safe to do. Agreed. Right.

Yeah. And you know, we we had I think we had these on uh Pleasant and or Upton or both and and we spent a lot of time trying to figure them out. Good. Um, and so now we're on to the general bylaws. And I, this struck me as another kind of blanket request. Is it anything? Is there anything specifically you're asking for or No, we'll strike it. Look at that.

We're ahead of schedule time. All right. I'll circulate the revised draft tomorrow. We done. Great. Yeah. Did we deny that last? They withdrew it. Oh, we're going to withdraw. Withdraw it. Yeah. Good. All right. So, you want to schedule another one and then we'll go back to the conditions? Yeah. Hopefully wrap this up. And Dan, you're going to add the attachment date. Yep. Can you reach out to the health director about the dumpsters?

Yeah, I just So just everyone's availability. Peter's gone as of next Wednesday elections. So before we get too far, we have two hands up on Zoom. Sorry. Right. Okay, Mr. K, can you give me your name and address? Hi. Uh, Tim Carra, 25 Suzanne Terrace.

Go ahead. We hear you. Okay.

Okay. Um I just uh wanted to um seeing that you know we're we're starting to make some more decisions here. Um you know I I bought the property um I don't know what technically side it would be but um you know it's it it's right where the the three garages are. There used to be town homes. And you know, I just now that we're kind of getting towards the end here, um I just want to make sure that you know, and I said this a while ago, um you know, the builders are going to build and find a find a way to get get things done. It seems that that's how things are going. So, I have to have a you know, duty to kind of protect, you know, my property and my family. So, I just want to see is it possible some way somehow. I spoke with um one of the builders about uh a fence and bushes and things to you know block some of the garages and um to get is there can we get those things in writing so that they're you know kind of locked down and and that it kind of protects the the abutters.

I mean don't we have a landscape plan that shows Yeah. Um Yeah. So, what did they agree to do some of that? Go ahead again. Yes.

Yeah. Cohen Babcock through the chair. Um, yeah. I met with Mr. Quer went to his house. We sat down. Uh, we looked at the configuration of his backyard. His pools there and there's like a slope that goes up to the garages and one of his concerns were that when cars were coming down the driveway that the lights may shine in his house. And I did assure him that we would we would sufficiently and adequately um mitigate anything like that from happening. And we were willing to do do something like bushes or we talked about a fence and I I I think in our conversations if I remember correctly we we had come to the conclusion that shrubbery or bushes might be a better option. It would it would look nicer for him. Um but yeah, we did agree to do something.

Yeah, I just and again thank you Cohen. I just I just wanted to make sure that that was um you know and I appreciate you chiming in cuz you know clearly some people aren't didn't know that. So just and that's why I just want to say is that is that something that needs to be written somewhere in some document so that it's kind of locked down as opposed to just like a you know kind of a handshake type thing. Yeah. Will it be on the landscape plan like stated? Well not not if it's undetermined. Could we do a right? So, we didn't necessarily know what the angle was going to be and and where we would have to put that screening. And so, that was part of our conversation, but that I did assure him that we would do something. I guess we're not opposed to Which house is this again? 25 Suzanne.

That's right. So, so Dan, can't we just add a condition that basically says they'll they'll provide buffering and screening for 25 Suzanne terrace or something like that? So, the buffer is there. We did put in the landscape plan. It's a 30-in buffer on the landscape plan L1. No, those are the um those giant green arbor vides along along the back. And that's at the top that's at the crest of the hill behind his house. So, basically behind his house and some of and a little bit of the next house really the only opening along that whole property line. Mhm. And I I guess we did capture it after the conversations I had with him.

And that was additionally along there. We said um we're going to flag flag any trees that we can save and then we'll infill as well along that whole line that's kind of on the westerly side of his property and then where we can't where that's where we're going with the um we have a total of 30 giant green arborities. No, we're going to put that in. So that existing that line of arborites though ends at a point. Yeah, it is. Then there's nothing outside. Yeah. for the rest of the stretch that goes towards Snow Road except for where we're gonna that's where we can save we can save trees and then we'll infill.

Right. But that's not that's not specific. So I I if if he's asking for something specific the the arbor varieties is specific because you you have the location, you have the quantity, you have the species. Um, it sounds like that the neighbors are asking for that kind of specificity for the entire property line if I'm not Well, no, just it's for I met with Tim himself because that's the only property that has any exposure. The rest there's it's a wooded tree line the rest of the way down until you get to the the house out on the street on your site or their site on on their side. Some on ours, but it's it's deeper. It's deeper on theirs, right, as well. Katrina, could you pull up the landscaping plan just so Mr. Kuriga could see that L1.

Yeah, that'd be great. And just, you know, I I've looked at the plans and I've tried to just see, you know, what the from the again there is a little hill right, you know, past my pool fence. Um, and that's where the property line is. So, I've been trying to figure out the distance of, you know, where the garages would be and reading the plans and I'm just unsure of that and where the arborites would be. So, I just kind of like a rough idea of, you know, some numbers there, too. You know, pretty close. So, and yeah to see the map while you guys talk about it would be would be helpful. Thank you.

Yeah. So, uh what you'll see when it gets pulled up on L1 is a combination of proposed installed um appetite and and existing tree line that spans the entire property line. So, if you look Well, it's not that's not accurate. I mean, what do you mean? you're you're taking out the trees that go up to the property line because you're building a water quality soil. So you're you're relying on the trees that are actually near Butter's property to say that there's a tree line. But where Right. But there's 20 ft of trees from the from a property line to their home to their yards.

I understandist. But just just to clarify when you're saying there's a tree line, it's on their property. Correct. Your property except for at Quer's house. There is no tree line. He's cleared right up the lot line and his pool is right below. Right. So that's why we're on that plan like the dashed line. Is that the property line? Correct. Yes. Okay. That's the property line. Okay. And then so that's the top of the hill. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And then what's the distance from the property line to to that garage number six car garage number three? Was it 30 ft? 30 in. No, no, no, no. The distance from the garage that

Oh, I'm sorry. Don't say that. Yes. No. A little bit more than 30 in would be great. Yes, it is. I think it's 30 ft. Yeah. Okay. Do you have a scale? Not for this. Yeah. No, I was looking. Um, Pardon. I want to say it's 30 ft. It's about 30 ft ice scale. Exactly. You don't know exactly, John. Uh, just to let everyone know, it is 1025. So, we're getting towards All right. So, why don't we ask Mr. Are you okay with what's shown in this plant? The giant those are that's a line of giant green arborite at the which those grow they will grow tall and fast big and thick.

Yeah. Um so, um not not to interrupt the but it I'm not comfortable with what's shown there. And the reason I'm not comfortable is because it's two-dimensional on paper things that I don't necessarily know what they are. I would rather see some sort of a condition in the permit that basically says the applicant will, you know, somehow address uh site concerns or whatever for that specific property. Okay.

And then it's then it's there. Um, you know, it's great that this is the attempt, but if you know, if it turns out that what he's actually drawn on this print is, you know, just completely inadequate, at least we've got something to go back on when when Mr. K comes to us and says, "Hey, you know, these guys didn't do anything like they said they to." I think we're fine with that because the the original conversation I had with him is that I assured him that once we were there building and we understood the height differences, where the parking lot was, where the lights would shine, that we would do whatever it took to mitigate it. So, so I I think let's Dan, Dan, are you able to put something in as a condition?

Yeah, I I'm a little bit I'm not sure I understand totally what we want to say. Um, not true. But I I would want a condition that addresses that whole property line for the other houses as well if needed. After that's basically if if that tree line isn't sufficient. And Mr. Chairman, if I may, there is going to be an elevation difference of about 10 ft between

the parking lot in front of number uh building one and um the house at number 25, the ground surface number 25. So, and and the trees are going to be planted on ground that's uh about mid height between the parking lot and the house. So my point is what's the maturity the trees when first planted may be tall enough or may not be um and and they might be able to

may I address the be during construction or shortly thereafter but the point is uh we consideration should be given to three dimensions so to the point of not relying on a two-dimensional player and going back to the condition makes sense to me to get the intent but then also for number 18, which is, you know, there I'm not sure how there could be a sufficient tree line there. There may not be, but there's three garages and and the the the way the vehicles drive, there's going to be less chance of light shining on to number 18 and a half. Number 18.

But I think it's more than just the headlights. I think it's looking out the rear of 18. Mhm. You know, ah 18. Okay. I was looking at 18 and a half, but I Oh, sorry. Sorry. No, no, yeah. I I get your point. I don't disagree. Um, so in regards to a condition, I I um I don't know if a general condition is is quite what we should do in terms of it's just open-ended. I know. What does that I don't I don't like that. Um, I'd be more willing to meet with the abutters and agree upon something that they would that they would like. Yeah. Rather than leaving this open-ended and it could create

chaos. Hon to chime in real quick. I I I would agree to that. I think, you know, we can only kind of figure out specifics through Zoom to a point. You know, I I'd like to walk up on the property. Where would the trees go? What What would a fence look like? Where would things be? um just so then it's we're there, we can see it, and we're not just looking at a you know a two-dimensional map because I don't I don't I I think meeting and getting it done that way is is is definitely what I would prefer. Agreed. So I think either for So this would include number 18 and 18 and a half. Um right.

Right. So Tim, I think you still have my contact if um we can meet as soon as possible before the next meeting and and um I forget. Did you contact me through email or phone? I forget. And then it cut out. Was it Was it email? It was email. Yes. You're going to reach out to the other two of Butters? Yes. Okay. Uh yes, I do have it right here. Okay, perfect. All right. So, yeah. Um, yeah, that'd be great. I can I can find the time to to meet and we can we can chat. Okay, let's do it. Is there anybody design? I think there's a second hand up in there.

See what they if they mark something. Yeah, there was another hand up. There's a few of them up now. Allison, can you please give me your name and address before you speak?

Yep. Allison Cassella, 36 Snow Road. Um, I've attended as many meetings as I possibly have been able to do. Um, many have been suspended after two seconds of adjourning, but um I'm really still concerned about the roadway down from snow into the main road. And I just have not heard through any of the recordings and any of the conversations about what is actually going to be done at the corner of Snow. Um the other thing is I know that you said that you know good friends with Tim but I know there's several other members of Snow Road and Abudding that have not heard from you at all. Heard from who? Heard from who?

From the builders.

And it And if you're talking about putting up some sort of budding on them, whether it's fence or trees or anything, they haven't gotten mailbox drops. They haven't gotten knocks on the doors. I mean, we all have ring and bling. Come on. No one has gone to their doorsteps. I know the guy that lives directly next to this development. He bought this house unknowing that this development was happening cuz he loved the garage and has no freaking idea that this is happening until I told him. No one has knocked on his door. No one has told him about it. So, this fact that these developers are trying to get into the community and trying to help us figure out how we can make this massive development work in our development and our community is false.

Well, that they just agreed to speak with 18 and 18 and a half. They have to agree to to speak to all of us. I am at 36. I'm on the corner.

I am on a main road. I'm on the corner sect of uh end of cult. They have agreed from meeting to meeting to meeting to hold a meeting with all of us that would affect this neighborhood, this area, all of us. and they have not done it. And I am tired of coming and staying up till 10:30 at night listening to all of this excuse me, and them never reaching out to any of us to ask us what we want or what we would like. So, for us to all sit here and have these conversations about, yes, the sewer, the this, the like, I love all of that. I love the turtles. I want to save them all. I really do. All of it. But if this development is going to happen, the community around them needs to be in support of it. And we have never felt it ever once.

Off clean. All right. Is there any further any comment in the room before we close? There's more people on. We still have two people with hands up. We have two more people online, too. Alex 18's online. I I'm getting to them. Ladies, you've got to give me a minute. So, we do have two more people who have their hands raised. And one person did put a question in, but it's the same person who has his hand raised. All right. Mark Potter, can you please give me your address? Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. Uh Mark Potter 14 Suzan Terrace. Um what we re recently spoke about at the end of the meeting about the asphalt depth. I mean just something of a concern. I know it's their responsibility to deal with it, but if because they choose a, you know, lower depth on the asphalt and have to repair their roads more frequently, you know, that's just going to increase uh traffic on snow road, particularly heavy equipment, which I talked about at the last meeting regarding what we're going to do with the grade and the entrance to the road. I don't know what the frequency of that will be. I don't know what the wear and tear will be, but just something to keep in mind. Um, also regarding the turtles, I'm glad everyone had a great laugh at that, but um, you know, in my lifetime, I've spent a lot of it outdoors. I've seen more turtles dead on the side of the road than I've actually seen out in the woods. Um, wood turtles live up to 70 years and have a home range of almost 50 acres. And we're talking about 14 acres, 14 1/2 acres, give or take. Um, recently I had a opportunity to do a nice like turkey hunting trip in uh, Indiana and in 3 days I saw four turtles. I have not seen four turtles in three years in Massachusetts. Just something to keep in mind. Um, the other thing I I think you know, definition of the bylaws is to protect the local community. Forgive me if I'm mistaken. We're all the local community. You've heard from the folks on Snow Road and us on Suzanne. It's for us, not the project, not the projection. And our projection. When I bought my

home 6 years ago, I bought it because it's a residential neighborhood that I expected to stay residential and not see a fourtory, threetory building from my kitchen window. Um, and just one other thing regarding the comment that Steve made about the neighbors dumping, you know, yard waste on his property or in their backyard or on someone else's property or whatever. I just felt it was inappropriate. I mean, again, he hasn't met with me. I've No one's talked with me. No one's talked with the people on Snow Road. How would you know that?

That's all. Thank you, Alex.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes.

Hi. Yeah. I uh I own 18 Snow Road. Um I put in that comment. I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to voice in. Um but uh I nearly bought the house just approximately 2 years ago. So I was originally pretty unaware of the project that was forming at the time. Um but you know, like I heard um some of my fellow neighbors talk about, you know, a possible fence or tree line. Like I'm just pretty concerned of how far and how close it's going to get to my specific property. Um, and I just kind of wanted to know the distance that I was going to have there and if there's anything I could do with, you know, uh, either trees planted or a fence of some sort because I'm just concerned for like lighting, cars driving. Um, it's just going to be like a, you know, seeing it from like my house, my kitchen, like I'm going to be able to see these lights and buildings, you know, right there. So, I just want like as good or best of a buffer I possibly can have. Yeah, I just kind of wanted to relay that

and not not to interrupt you, but um Cohen Babcock from the applicants team has said he'll meet with you um to discuss that topic and so that we can put a condition in the uh in the permit to ensure that something is done there. Yeah. No, I if um if somebody can come by, that'd be great. I'd really appreciate to be able to speak to somebody in person if um if that can happen. I'll let him follow up with you on that. Um but follow through. He's going to come back to us after meeting with you to discuss,

you know, whatever you has reached out to us. What? Inappropriate. Sorry, I'm Let's mute her. I just did. I'm muting and I don't know if if any of anyone who wants me to meet with them might want to go through the board and get the contact information. Maybe uh Katrina could facilitate that. I do have Tims, but no, I don't have anybody else's.

Yeah. Maybe address this concern that the people that say they haven't spoken to you. Just try to try to have a meeting with everybody so everybody feels like they've I don't know. But um you can't just ignore that all these people feel like they haven't been spoken to. Okay. I I I I agree. It's something that we've asked for multiple times and it's one of the more disappointing Yeah.

aspects of of this project quite frankly. Uh, you know, we've had other developers come through um that just seem quite a bit more professional about how they're they're dealing with these situations, having outreach meetings, working with the neighbors, that sort of thing. It's very disappointing as developer has not done that. Um, but you know, we we I don't know how much more we can do to make it happen. Um, but you know, this is this is what you get. You get neighbors who are really pissed off and uh quite frankly I I don't blame them. Anyone else on the line? Nope. That was everybody. All right. Anyone in the room? No.

Can I just make a point though, Brian, before just on this landscaping issue? I think there's two ways of of handling this. We could either ask the applicant to come back with a revised landscape plan now. um that shows more details in terms of the screening that's being requested on the Northerway property line. That doesn't seem to be that hard to do. I mean, it's I I know that they want to have some flexibility because they may want to, you know, change it after they start doing site work and they get a better feel for what might be useful. Um but that's one option. The other option is to leave it to post permit where we would ask them to come back with a landscape plan, which we've already done that. that's already a condition that they come back to us with a landscaping plan and I and I added language that would include robust screening on the northerway property line for our review and approval. Okay.

So, and if I may, it's going to be part of the approved plan set. So, you'll have that second bite at the apple. And on top of that, Cohen, as you pointed out, is already going to be speaking with some Suzanne Terrace folks, uh, so that you can perhaps fashion a condition or get some input on what that revised landscaping plan might look like. So, I mean, steps are going to be taken. So, you're going to give us input on these issues before the next meeting. Is that your plan? if Cohen can get the contact certainly with at least one of the people with whom he's been speaking with.

So that's a good idea. I think getting asking them to provide a report or update um before the next meeting so then we can potentially add another condition in here on those issues. Okay, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCusker.

Yeah. So, so Dan, um, so I had said a few minutes ago that I really would like to see some sort of condition that calls out some sort of, you know, uh, requirement or intent to to to, you know, provide screening, etc. for, you know, that address on Suzanne. Maybe we're talking about more than just that one address. Are are you am I sensing reluctance on your part to put a condition in like that and just rely on a landscape plan or are you saying landscape and some sort of condition as I was talking about? Well, I think aren't we talking about landscaping? Are we talking about

prov we are but but so so as I said you know it's one thing to see a plan. It's another thing to actually see whether that actually accomplishes what we wanted. So that's why I was hoping to have something in words in in the in the permit that makes it real clear that not only was it our intent to to plant these things that are on this plant, but we also intended to provide some screening or blockage etc for you know what whatever the addresses are or you know whatever it is. So that's why I was looking for some sort of words as well. So more specificity in terms of what what we want to see on the property line. Well, so I what we want to accomplish on the property line.

I I would agree with that. So So they there is some flexibility there on how they accomplish that, but that Yeah. So I was going to add a sentence to condition D9 that because D9 already says they have to give us a landscaping plan before the issuance of the first building permit for our review and approval. And I would add a sentence or we can add more more than one sentence. that says that the plan shall include robust screening parentheses vegetation and/or fencing on the project site side of the northerly property line. Yeah.

Yeah. I I want more than that, Dan. I I it's I I I I I I like to think that we can somehow put a condition in there that says that they're going to try to provide screening, not just a plan that says stuff because what's on a plan doesn't necessarily translate into actually accomplishing something. So that was the Did you hear the second part of his It's specifically said to include robust screening along the northerly property line. Um you know so that it's not okay

what's going to be necessarily on the plan but it it's going to have to accomplish that and we have the opportunity to approve that that plan. Um, do you want to send me Bill maybe something that like in writing that you you had in mind? Yeah, let me let me take a stab at something. Okay. And and do we need to have something that states that they will commit to meeting with the neighbors? Well, ones that they haven't met with or

I assume that's going to happen. We can yeah we can say that the applicant is directed to consult with the neighbors as to the appropriate um types of screening that that will be provided in the plan. I just feel like there's so much frustration out there that we that has to be addressed somehow. I mean you can't they're feeling ignored and we can't at the end of the day the project's going to happen. Let's let's see if we can get people to understand and feel comfortable with what's going to be in their backyard. All right. Sorry, you didn't.

That's okay. Um I'm Judy Valentine at 19 Suzanne Terrace. Um so I actually abut the filtration basin and I'm having a hard time to figure out how it look. It's I'm like horrified that it's pretty much the length of my yard. It looks like on the very very border of our backyard and I really can't get a good sense on how deep it is, how wide it is. There's already a natural slope. Are they going to use that natural slope or is it 10 ft? Is it like a pit? Like I I don't like it's literally on the very edge of our property and like just right over this line. So I would like some clarification.

I can provide that. Um the the elevation from uh Miss Valentine's property where it slopes down. There's there's a null there. Mhm. Cuz your your yard is a little down low, then it slopes up to the property line. Yeah. Yeah. And then from the property line, it'll it'll gently slope towards us. So there'll be a ridge at the property line. There's a natural way of

correcting it. And so the the highest point of that ridge is around elevation 336. 330 330. It goes from 338 slopes down towards us to 336. And then um we have a top of Yep. Right there. There you go. Then um we have a flat area. So we have access around the basin. It says where it says 15 foot wide basin access. That's around elevation 336. And then it slopes down into our into our base and into our ponding area. So it uses the natural slope at the top part. Then it flattens out and then it slopes

and then how deep is that from that like I don't know that little walkway or whatever you want to call it that that base. So that's that's 15 foot wide. So you could if you need to access the basin for maintenance or whatever it's that's a 15 foot wide accessible um to bring you know whether it's a small machine around there. so that um you have proper access around it and then it slopes at a 3 to one slope. So three foot horizontal, one foot vertical um for the slope. So it's a it's so how deep? Like but it goes from elevation 336 down to about elevation 326. So total it's it's about 10 ft deep,

but it's from the property line. Um, that's probably, you know, where that slope starts, probably about 30 30 feet off of the property line where the where the basin bowl starts. And there's no doesn't seem like there's a plan for any um landscaping there because of it. Um, let me look at the landscapes right here. Land. Yeah. So, we have in that area um along the property line, we have the ability to try to maintain trees within there. I think there's I discussed this at one of the previous meetings in the area. There's a big oak that has like cluster

a cluster and has like three big veins. So, that's obviously something that we that's around the property line. We want to obviously maintain that. And then we have notes similar to other areas around that we're going to uh maintain, you know, existing trees and vegetation and then do infill for to make sure that there's What does infill mean? Infill like if if there's existing trees, we're not going to cut every tree down and then do a row of of, you know, of shrubs or anything. We're gonna maintain trees and then um between trees fill in with plants. And so it doesn't mean clear cutting that property.

Correct. We're going to make we're going to save everything that we can save and then whatever is any gaps, we're going to fill them in. And again, that's something where um again, we can Cohen can meet with you and kind of walk. We did have stakes at one point. I think about every 50 to 100 feet we had the surveyor go out and stake along the property line. Yeah, I saw some of those. Yeah. And so we we have an idea obviously where the property and pretty much it's that ridge. Now is that grass just going to naturally fill in or is this has to be mowed or what?

For the access around the that 15 foot wide access that's that's mowed uh like a couple times a year. Okay. Um, it it's not, you know, it's not manicured, but it's not going to I don't want it manicured. Just what what you don't want is for, you know, trees to start growing up and then the basin doesn't get maintained. It has to be properly maintained and you have to maintain the access around it. But that gets mowed a couple times a year, but the so the but the length of it is going to go like the whole length of the property basically on the back. Yes. Um,

still having a hard time visualizing that. Yeah. The the upside is there's no parking lots near there. There's no driveways near there. I would hope not. It's habitat for wildlife. Yeah. You're not going to have um headlights shining down in that area. It's just going to be um you know, occasionally mowed and it's going to be um you know, grass. Okay. Thank you. But again, if you want to have contact information with Cohen and then we can I'm throwing Cohen on the spot. He's available. He'll take you to lunch.

I'm going to have to walk the property to get a good sense of that. Okay. Won't there be There's going to be vehicles. Can you go back to that for a second? Yeah. I'm getting out of the There's going to be vehicles going down that driveway, right? So, there's going going to be lights greening trees there. Yeah. Yeah. Let me pull up my Which property is hers? She's in the She's all the way behind the behind the B infiltration basin. Well, the only driveway is right here and then emergency. Yeah, there's a driveway going

there's that down under to go under building number one, but that wouldn't be shining anything towards towards Valentine's goes here. Yeah. And they're going down. And they're going down. So, the headlights are facing down, right? Not coming up. Yeah. But then you when they're coming up, they're heading they're heading the opposite direction. Well, not when they're pulling out of the garage. Yeah. When they're part of the garage, the lights will be shining northerly. Right. Right. Not and she's she's way Well, right. But there's another house right there that Yeah. And that's where we have that whole

um that big row of the the giant green arborites in that in that whole stretch on the next door neighbor. Um two down from you or two down car. That's not where the arborites are. Yeah. Yes. They're not the arborite is behind house number 25. Behind and katigan. Yeah. If you go to the L1, that's um it sees the names of the abutters. So it goes Corgan 23 of Catagan Mini and then Miss Valentine

and you don't and you didn't extend that row all the way up Katigan because there's trees there that are going to be saved. Exactly. And then we'll do infill because know what happens if you and and you've seen it. You see a row of arborites and then an arborite is next to an existing tree and you see the line of arberies guy goes right down. It doesn't it doesn't get the light. It doesn't grow like it should. So in an area where they'll be more fully exposed, they'll grow consistent and well. Where there's other trees, that's where we want to do the infill. And is Miss Valentine's property at a higher elevation than the basin? Um there's

higher than the 10 foot drop. Yeah. There's a null kind of along the property line and then we drop back down. So from her backyard it goes up to the property line and then we're going back down. And and if I may, there's a null on most of the property, but there is an area where the the Valentine property drainage enters onto the the 14 Snow Road property and we're swailing that. And you put a swale in there to accommodate that

just to make sure that that water coming off of her property and one section is is going around us and not um into the basin. It's going around Okay. I'll have to look at it. Thank you. So, that could be an opportunity for a fence like in that location. Yeah. Unless there's trees that you know,

right? That's the only thing that's why it's that's why I think it's good to have the goal the goal of having robust screening but that you know if there's trees if there's gaps that need to be filled in. It's kind of on a case-byase basis. That's why I think having the goal of having robust screening Well, you're going to be doing grading right up to her property line. Correct. So there's not going to be trees saved and It might be hard to put trees in. Just thinking for a portion of it. Yeah. The fence a fence might be an appropriate um remedy.

All right. So, we can again we can talk to her and whatever that's a direction she wants to go. We're not opposed. But I it I think until the site work is done, it's going to be hard to determine totally agree with what's going to work best. Totally agree with you. Again, and you'll have that bite at the apple when you we do the approved plan or at the Well, he's saying no once when the the approved at the at the when the work is being done. Oh, it'll be the building permit set basically. Yeah. Okay. Next,

right. Okay, Wendy Wendy Allen, a Frankie Lane. Um, one of my neighbors is asking if the tree vegetation buffer deteriorates, who do they contact? So, I think they mean like enforcement. How do we enforce that? Do they contact like the property owner, I would assume. And then maybe it's more of like an enforcement issue. I mean, down the road when the project's completed. Yeah, I think so. Like a tree falls down or something. Yeah. Or or like if if the arborites don't grow like they said like if it gets shaded out and they don't grow to the right height.

What is your question? How do we enforce it? Um they said ask if the tree/veation buffer deteriorates who should we contact so I think they mean yeah like condition in the permit that says that the landscaping that's shown on on their final plan that that the board would have to approve has to be maintained in perpetuity. Okay. So, if it's not maintained, then a neighbor could make a zoning enforcement request to the building inspector to say, "Hey, you're not complying with they're not complying with this condition."

Okay, perfect. I think that that's the question they were asking. Okay. And then, um, just to echo some of our neighbors. So, Alex, like Ally said, just found out about this and Matt, who owned the house, literally he came here in the beginning. He sold this house because of this property. We now have a second neighbor in like the 20ishes that also just did the same thing. So there's new people, Alex didn't know, there's new people, I don't know if the other new people know. And um so I just I just think like that just speaks if people are selling their homes because of this like that just speaks to how much the neighbors need to be involved in this and need the actual reach out. Um and then um on the turtles. So Mass Wildlife is going to have a biologist on scene. Um so I just want to make sure if you guys do wave any of that stuff, they can supersede, right? according to how they want.

I don't s if if we wave what? So if you do any of the waiverss on like the environmental stuff, mass wildlife can still come in and say this is why we're we're enforcing because they're going to have a bio biologist like on scene like actually inspecting the curb. Yeah. The only waivers that they're asking for for which we can grant are local bylaws. So you're talking about a mass wildlife biologist coming out to enforce the state law. Yes, that's what they none of that is subject to our waiverss. Okay. Yeah. I just wasn't sure if we if you guys said like let you know um wavered one of them and then that's it. But but they can come in and still enforce. Absolutely.

Okay. They told me that they will. So, we'll be good. Okay. I'm good. All right. Thank you. All right. Pick another date. Yes. Peter, how long are you gone? So, Peter's gone from the 20th to the 2nd. He'll be back June 3rd. June 3rd. Mhm. Could you meet on June 3rd or is that pushing it? What day is it? That's a Wednesday. June 4th. How did we get or June 4th? Can we get the fourth? Dan can't do the fourth. I'm I'm gone that entire week.

Oh. Oh, that's right. I'm going to s So, we're looking at the 10th or the 11th of June. June gets really hard. I know. Um, I can't do the 10th. I can do the 11th. Dan's available on the 11th. Is everybody else available on the 11th? You won't need me, will you? I can't make the 11th. We always need I'm available. June 11th's fine for me. Actually, I think for the conditions I I don't

I think we've gotten through the things that I I know things that I plan to speak to. I I did as of tonight, Brian. So, the 11th is that 11th is fine with me. 7 o'clock. And is this what are we wrapping up on this? I just have family from Australia that whole week that are visiting. Conventions. What is the condition? They can learn about American politics. They can learn about American zoning. Yeah. Bring them to the meeting. It'll be a cultural experience. How we do things in America.

We'll have a bunch of irritated Aussies. Mr. Chair, just given that we're going almost a month out and I guess speaking to um Miss Allen's point um I can't imagine it's ever been done. I can't imagine the board's had many projects that have gone, you know, a year and three/4ers in duration. Um was two and a half.

All right. Well, well, so I stay I stand corrected. Um, is there any possibility that we could do a second legal notice issuance? Um, you know, not necessarily we could advertise in the newspaper, but I'm thinking more mailings to homeowners. I personally find it a little hard to believe that somebody buying a property with, you know, the the yard signs up and down the street don't know this is happening. But I don't want to go on my assumption either. I I think the neighbors, especially speaking to the some of the frustrations raised tonight and to Mr. Must's point, we've asked the developer to do better. Um, if it's possible, I I think another mailing to whatever the radius is, while it might be unprecedented, might not be out of the question. I

mean, from us, from the town, from the just the same as we would do if it was a new application. So, the same same notices that went out for this. It's certified return receipt. It's not just a regular one. So, it's $12 per letter. I read all that. And it's I have to pull the file and see how many it was. And it's a lot. It's probably over 30. 300 ft away. Yeah. That's a legal requirement, right? Yeah. You got Yeah, quite a lot. Well, it gentlemen, if you're going to talk, please go out in the hall.

Sorry. I I I don't know if Dan Hill was paying attention to what was being proposed, but um I I I I worry there's some legal precedent here. I mean, you know, the initial notice as part of the requirements of 40B and and you know, we have to do it, etc. A notice now kind of in the middle. Um you know, what is that? Are we setting any sort of precedent? And you know what happens the next time when oh I never got noticed uh you know in this other project. And I mean I like the sentiment but I just worry about any negative implications of doing something like that at at this time.

Yes, sir. And Dan, did you I know you I know you're probably looking at your schedule. Did you hear what Brian was proposing? Yeah. No. Um I don't I don't see any negative um consequences from it. It's it's it's not some kind of admission that we hadn't done something right. Um it doesn't set any precedent. Um so I I don't I don't see any downside to it except for the cost and but it but it wouldn't have to be sent certified. It's not required. No. Yeah. That's it could just be sent regular mail. It could be. Yeah.

Okay. Just to let everyone know, I am gone as of 5:00 tomorrow morning and will not be back till next Wednesday. So, if you want them done, that's fine. They will not go out until next week. I I'm sorry. I I have and there's no legal requirement on this. I mean, there's no 14-day requirement. There's no, right? I'm just saying if the neighbors are expecting it this week, it's just not going to happen. I I'm I'm reluctant to to to go in that direction. You're reluctant to. Yeah.

Well, because it does set a precedence. If we have another hearing that goes in excess of a year, everyone's going to be like, "Well, on Snow Road, you sent out a new letter to the new people that were there that now you should do it to everybody and every time it goes over a certain length of time." I mean, we had a 48 case that went 15 months. So, okay, now do we have to do it there, too? I I get it. There's new people, but Adam's Road went how many years? Right. I mean, if the realtors the realtors had to have known. If the people didn't do their due diligence, I'm sorry they didn't about it. That's Yeah. Yeah. That's my thinking. I mean, I mean, we have I work in the building department. I have people call daily.

Perfect example, the the trees that were just cut down on Institute Road. I had people call before they bought it. at py asking what can be built on that piece of property. I'm like oi office light industrial and they clearcut it and people are all up in arms. Well by right they can build it. So I I I I sympathize with the the abutters and the neighbors but if we do it here we're setting a precedence for even when I'm not here if someone else takes over that they're going to have to do it. And I I I do understand, Brian, but it's I just I think it's a slippery slope. No, I I appreciate the consideration. I think Yeah, I I agree agree with everything that's been said.

All right, Steve, on the concept, we when we had the question about the sidewalk, we put notices in every mailbox of the street. We got zero responses. So, to say we didn't reach out is not accurate. All right. So, Is there a motion to continue to June 11th? So moved at 7 p.m. So moved. Second. Uh, Miss Reed, yes. Mr. McCusker. Adam, yes. Mr. Adams, yes. Mia, yes. Chairman votes, yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

I need a motion to adjurnn. Oh, so moved. Second. Second. Okay. Miss Reed. Yes. Mr. McCusker. Yes. Mr. Adams. Yes. Mr. Mia. Yes. Chairman. Yes. We're here.