Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, everybody, we're going to get started. Can folks in the room hear me? Does this work? Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Can you hear me?

Okay.

All right, we're going to get started. Good evening and welcome to the May 13th, 2026 meeting of the City of Worcester Planning Board. My name is Albert LaValle. I'll chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, a couple of brief announcements concerning how our meeting is going to run tonight. First, all our meetings are in a hybrid format. You can participate either in person here at City Hall or by going online to worcestermath.zoomgov.com slash j slash 1617314979 or by calling in at 669-254-5252 and entering access code 1617314979 followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent further disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video, or sending group messages. For remote participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. If you're joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. Staff will then call on members of the public one at a time and give them permission to unmute themselves when it comes time for public comment. If you're joined by phone, that will be handled by pressing star six. Next, I note this is a public meeting, which is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak. And the first time you speak, please also state your city or town of residence for the record. help maintain an orderly meeting please address all comments and questions through the chair that's me rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants there are a few items on our agenda tonight that are going to be continued or postponed i'm going to read through those shortly if you're here on one of those items please note that no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting the best thing to do is to call the planning department either the day before or the day of the next meeting to confirm if that item will be heard or postponed that night It is not unusual for items to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Once an item is called, there'll be a brief presentation of the item followed by any additional comments and clarifications from members of the city staff, then an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. Lastly, all applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and, where appropriate, filed with the city clerk the following day, which is what begins any appeals periods. Decisions are typically not signed by the applicant until all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It is the applicant's responsibility to address conditions of approval, and a lack of doing so may result in delays or enforcements. Applicants with questions on that can call the planning division. OK. Getting into the continuances and postponements. Item number one, Zero Chester Street, a definitive site plan. The request is to continue the public meeting to June 3rd, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to June 25, 26. Item number three, 28 Harrington Way, a special permit for an ADU. The request is to continue the public meeting to June 3rd, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to June 25, 26. Item four, 26 and 28 Milton Street. definitive site plan and 81g private street improvement the request is to continue the public meeting to june 3rd 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to june 25 26 and lastly item 10 portions of mill street a discontinuing remove request is to continue the public meeting to june 3 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to june 25 26. is there a motion on the continuances

Section 2, continue item 1 and postpone items 3, 4, and 10. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes 4-0. We're going to take our items a little bit out of order tonight, starting with item number 5, which is 14 Emery Street. It will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Donald O'Neill. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester. And I'm here this evening on behalf of Gold Star Builders in connection with the plan that has been filed for 14 Emery Street. This is for a three-unit, single-family attached building. We had needed some minor relief from the zoning board recently. for the project which we did obtain a couple of months ago and had gone through a pretty extensive, I think, review process as part of the ZBA filing as well. I have reviewed staff's memo and the recommended conditions of approval. And I would request clarification on one, but in general, the conditions are acceptable to the applicant. I do also have Nick Fasindola, who is the engineer on the project from Level Design, is available. online if there are engineering questions or other questions which I can't answer that the board has that he can chime in. And in terms of the recommended conditions of approval, there was a, one of which was 1D, which is on page two, that indicates reflective white or reflective coating to be applied to the top of the roofs unless the roof is for solar. I don't know if you have the building exterior elevations, but I assume that refers to the... top of the flat roof, obviously you wouldn't want reflective coatings on the mansard or roofing in front. So that's I just wanted to be clear on that. There was, it was a similar provision in the zoning. I'm not sure what if that, that may have been included in the zoning opinion as approval as well, but I'm just, again, it, On the flat roof, not on the rest of the roof, because that wouldn't make any sense at all.

Through the Chair, that's correct, and we can adjust the language to stay on top of the flat portion of the roof.

Okay. All right. And other than that, I'm fine with the other conditions.

Okay. Thank you. Staff comments on this?

Sure. Through the chair, Michelle Smith in the planning division. So in front of you is a site plan application triggered by the slope conditions on the site for three units of single family attached or townhouse style dwellings. So you see the proposed structure on the screen now. The applicant did obtain approvals for the use as well as for one lot for dimensional relief for lot area and then for two lots related to the driveway setbacks and landscape requirements we have from the zoning board back earlier this year. And We have conditions that are outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the staff memo. The majority of the comments that we had in the project relate to sort of erosion control. The test pits for the soil conditions indicate that ledge is present at a pretty shallow depth, one to two feet below grade. So we did have some questions and hoping that the applicant's team can just comment more generally on how they're planning to handle grading. light of the ledge conditions if they're planning to blast or hammer how that's going to be handled but specifically also how they'll handle restoration to vegetated conditions upon completion of that grading with the ledge being exposed as part of that process are they bringing in lumen seed and putting a substantial amount of material down in order to accomplish vegetation, or perhaps the conditions that were provided in terms of test pits were inaccurate, but based on the information that was provided, that was one of the unique conditions of the site, so hoping that they can talk specifically about that Really, that's the only thing I feel like it's worthy of drawing your attention to. We do have a condition that requires that, but hoping they can specifically cover that. We are happy to offer that recommendation for the change to 1D to clarify that it's on top of the flat portion of the roof, that we're looking for the wider reflective surface. But really, 1K is where we're looking for them to clarify how the vegetated surfaces would be reestablished above ledge conditions. So maybe the engineer could talk a little bit to that. We do have some conditions in here related to O&M plans because there's drainage components that cross the different property lines, making sure it's clear who's responsible for that. I will note that our conditions do not include the DPW comments, which were provided on May 11th. So just make a note that you'll need to add those into the recommendations when you move to a motion presuming that you do so. And I'll let Mr. Truman comment on anything that DPW had. The one final thing I'll say is the property is a corner lot. One of the streets that it fronts is a private street. The applicant has indicated they're not proposing any changes to the street at this point. But should they do any work in that location, it is subject to review and approval prior to the work commencing from this board because of it being a private way on the official map. So it's subject to review under the general revised ordinance, Chapter 12, Section 12, by this board. So just to be clear that the applicant should not be doing any work in La Chapelle Street. That's all I have for comments. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr. Truman? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Andy Truman, Director of Engineering. Yeah, we had three comments. Echo Michelle's was how they're going to deal with the rock removal, whether it's going to be blasting or mechanical. There's a lot of ledge out there. We did point out with the Drainage is crossing across all three lots, and since they're going to be single-family lots, you're going to need some kind of cross-drainage easement, because someone's going to have to get in there and maintain it. And then finally, given the number of utility cuts into the street, we will be looking on the permanent patch for full mill and overlay for the full width between the extent of all the trenches.

Yeah, I saw DPW's... comments and you know had to agree that that there would be the installation of the utilities would be pretty would need you know, is going to do a job on the street, I would think. So the condition which they recommend in terms of the paving to cover that is not objectionable to us.

Okay. Any additional comments from city staff?

Just if we can be sure that we get some clarity on how they're going to handle the ledge, I think that would be great. And we can unmute the engineer, too, when that time comes, Mr. Chair. Thanks.

Do you want to have the engineer comment on that?

Sorry, I couldn't quite hear that.

Staff's question is what the plan for restoring the site to vegetation is given the proximity of the ledge to the surface once construction is complete?

Yeah, I'm sorry, I still didn't hear you.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I do see Nick Fasandola, the engineer, does have his hand raised online, so I can go ahead and unmute him. Nick Fasandola, the engineer?

And maybe cable services, if you could turn up the volume a tad on the mics, that would be great.

I believe Nick is on the line and would be the best one to respond to that. And Nick, I believe you are unmuted, so you should be able to speak now.

Yes, good evening. For the record, Nick Fasindola, Level Design Group. We prepared the submitted site plan for the proposed development. I don't know if it's possible to pull up the site plan sheet, maybe the grading utilities page. That may give the board a better view. There we go. So to address rock removal ledge, we anticipate using mechanical means, you know, given the close proximity of existing residential dwellings. We don't believe blasting would be feasible out here. The applicant has been on site, done some preliminary digging, and feels confident that through use of large excavators and hammering, they should be able to clear all the ledge that's required. In the design for the proposed development, We tried to work our best to utilize existing grades. So we have drive under garage and we're going to be grading off of the building foundation as it's using it as a retaining wall. So the rear yard, excuse me, will essentially be coming out of the first level, which is a story above garage. the proposed garage. So we're stepping up in that fashion. And at the rear of the property, it looks like there's a lot of grading, but it's about a four to five foot grade difference from the back of the property line to where we have that small drain area. There's a lot of grade lines there as we're cutting in a small swale to collect any surface runoff, which runs off of that hill before it gets to the proposed dwellings. And that also gives these units a small usable backyard space as well. So to remove that water, we have a small yard drain system. That yard drain system will also have overflows for proposed rain barrels that these units will have because we cannot do any on-site infiltration at the property. So that's that dashed line that you see there. As far as revegetating the site, You know, any earth removal, rock removal would have to go down at least an additional six inches in order to install loam and have that area seated. Based on our test pits, we did about three test pits on that back row. You know, ledge ranged anywhere from 31 to 17 inches. um so we feel that you know based on those numbers there'd be a minor amount of rock removal maybe a foot or two uh in the worst case scenarios where then we would have to uh cover those areas with loam and have that area seated so uh final grades are three to one slope so we don't anticipate it being any major concerns one of the comments are requested by the board or staff was that we provide additional details on how we're going to stabilize that rear area so we'll be including some additional details on the final plans with regards to stabilization seating and different types of slope control mitigation measures so erosion control blankets things of that nature specifically in that rear yard portion and the northerly side of the site where there's some additional grading as you go towards la chapelle street

Okay, thank you for those comments. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? Not seeing anyone in the room. Is there anyone online with their hand raised?

We do have one person online. Your name is Skyann. I'm not sure if I'm saying that right. I'm going to go ahead and unmute you. You should be able to unmute on your end. Let's see here.

Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Hi. Hi. My name is Steven Vanna. I live at 24 La Chapelle, which is directly across the street from the construction. And I just have a couple of questions in regards to access when we're doing, once the utilities and the road starts getting, Emory starts getting torn up. Will there be access to Arcadia Street by Emory Street during the construction? Will you be covering the holes up with plates? Because if we have to access, we have to leave by LaChapelle Street. LaChapelle Street is not really a street. As you've been told, I was at the meetings for the zoning board meetings and it's not much of a street. So if that's the only main access, I have some concern for myself and for my neighbors who I'm speaking for in the cul-de-sac in back of me and on Kelleher Way there. And if everybody has to leave here by Lashapel Street, I think that's gonna be a problem if that's the only exit that we can use um it's not it's a terrible street people who have low uh cars hit bottom all the time there and uh that's what that's one of my concerns once this uh once the ball gets rolling here okay did you want to bring up another concern as well or uh would you like us to address that one Well, I just have another couple of questions. I see there's a fire hydrant that services our area there that's in front of that property, and I don't know if you have plans on moving that anywhere else besides where it is now. And my other question will be, as far as the electrics are concerned, will you be installing transformers like on the post right there, or Where would the transformers be located for that electrical hookup?

Mr. O'Neill, does the applicant want to respond?

Yes, I can. Maybe the engineer could talk about the transformer, but I know that there's a couple things. One, there's a provision in the conditions that say that there'd be no work within La Chapelle Street, and we're not proposing any work within La Chapelle. I don't... it is in terms of anticipation of blocking emory street and arctic street i don't see that as a particular issue we will be have been requested to provide a construction management plan uh... and i think that some of that issues related to that would be addressed but i mean they are too emery street and arctic street uh... are not the same as much pal i mean that there fairly well-maintained streets, certainly wide enough to allow for some construction activity to take place without any major disruption, I would think, to the neighbors. But aside from that, in terms of how La Chapelle might get used, I'm not sure of that, but I know that we are not proposing or planning on doing any work to the street. I'm not sure about the fire hydrant. There was no discussion about moving that. So I assume we wouldn't be moving it unless it needed to be moved. And, uh, that, that was never discussed previously. So I suspect not, um, the transformer, um, there is a condition also in the, uh, written by staff that provides for appropriate screening of the transformer when they're located. I know National Grid tends to be a determinative factor in terms of where it's going to be placed. I'm not sure that we know in advance where that might be, but Nick might be able to respond to that as well. But wherever it ends up on the lot, there's a condition which requires that it be screened to provide a visual block.

Understood. Thank you.

That was it. Right. In terms of the questions.

Right. Can I still, can I still respond? Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Um, the question was about Arcadia, about, uh, Emory street. I know it says in the, uh, in the memo here that no work will be done on Lashapel street, but I'm concerned about the neighbors that live right on Emory street. Um, 10 and, uh, 12 Emory Street. I mean, you have the road all painted up and marked up right in front of their houses and stuff. I just wanted to make sure that them and us have access to Arcadia Street from Emory Street during the construction. That was my initial question. I know it says more than once in the memos here that no work will be done on La Chapelle Street or going in from La Chapelle Street, which I actually find that hard to believe because I'm looking out my back window, but looking out my living room window right now, I see a huge pile of ledge that they've already hammered. And I'd be interesting to see how they would be able to get that out of there without going down La Chapelle Street. It wouldn't be possible.

So I can just address a couple of your questions, sir. The attorney for the applicant, Mr. O'Neill, did say Emory Street's pretty wide, so their plan as of right now, and they have to update this with the Department of Inspectional Services before they get fully permitted, is to not need to be using the whole road at once. So you'll still be able to pass and repass on Emory Street is the intent right now. will be incumbent on the contractor to communicate if that for some reason you know needs to get disrupted for a half an hour or an hour or two at a time uh and regarding what chappelle street the uh they're certainly allowed to use the road what they're not allowed to do is do work that alters the road without um coming before this board to fully explain that process

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I was going to say also the, you know, we're not doing any work on it, not use, there's no driveways off and not using it for access, but it is the street. Um, and, um, you know, um, they would be allowed to use the street like anybody else could use the street. Um, but I will, would point out again that, um, I think some of that, um, mechanics would probably be addressed in the, um, construction management plan.

Thank you, Mr. O'Neill. And just to the butter, any further comments or?

No, not at this time. Anything, anything, maybe it might help the street if they fill the truck up with ledge and flattened it out while they were driving.

No comment from us, but understood.

All right. Well, thank you.

Anyone else from the public wishing to comment on this?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Not seeing anyone else with their hand raised. Thank you, Mr. Carey. Board members.

Hi, this is Connor. For myself, no concerns with this project. It sounds like the applicant's comments have addressed most of the abutters and staff's questions. I think the only item I wanted to clarify was just minor change to condition 1D was to note the flat part of the roof would be painted white. Is that correct?

Correct. And also, just another note for you, Mr. McCormick, we need to incorporate DPW's comments because they're not in the conditions already.

Right. Okay. Yeah. Otherwise, I have no other comments and happy to support. Thanks. Okay.

Mr. King?

No concerns. Thank you. Mr. Toomey? no comments thank you i also have no comments i think we're ready for a motion yeah i would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 14 emory street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on pages two and three of the staff memo with the uh amendment to condition 1d and also to incorporate dbw's conditions outlined in their may 11th letter Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Motion passes four to zero. Good luck. Thank you. Next item we'll hear tonight, new business, item number six, 17 Pearl Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan and a public hearing for an extension of time related to a special permit in the CCOD and some dimensional requirements. Cool.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. For the record, Mark Borenstein. I'm an attorney at the law firm at Prince Lavelle representing the applicant. This evening I'm joined by Rishi Patel, one of the principals of HHMQ Properties. So before the board this evening are two applications, one for an extension of time and one for definitive site plan approval. Unfortunately, the site plan approval decision expired before the extension could be sought. As in the last year or so, the applicant has been advancing the design of the building. There have been some slight modifications associated with the facade and some of the driveways and some of the utilities on site. Staff has worked through those with the applicant, and we reviewed the conditions of approval. They are generally acceptable to the applicant. We just have a few minor modifications. If the board would allow me now or we can talk after staff comment, I defer to the chair as to how you want to proceed.

Why don't we go through them now? Okay, cool.

So in terms of, one of the modifications was previously we were proposing some secure bike parking outside of the building. We are now proposing interior bike storage in the basement of the building. And so to that end, staff has requested some additional bike storage in the rear of the building near the entrance off the driveway. The applicant is willing to provide six, so looking at 1F, six exterior bike parking spaces instead of racks for use by guests unless deemed infeasible by the fire department. The area where staff has identified a potential location is adjacent to the fire control room, and so the concern was that if we put bike storage there, that might pose issues for the fire department. So assuming that's acceptable to the fire department, it's acceptable to the applicant. Beyond that, we have some additional language with respect to 1M. I might defer over to Mr. Carey to kind of read the proposal language that has been deemed acceptable to the applicant planning and DPW.

Sure. So in place of 1M, we would say, and we'd move this to prior to issuance of a building permit, would be the applicant and its engineer shall collaborate with DPW to confirm whether storm drain will connect to Pearl Street or Pleasant Street based on site and invert elevations and the location and elevation of existing utilities in both public ways to confirm feasibility. The applicant shall prioritize the connection to Pearl Street to the extent feasible. And I defer to DPW if that's acceptable.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, that's fine. Obviously, the preference for us would be to Pearl, but if they can't physically make it, then going to Pleasant would be an acceptable option.

Okay.

So those are our only changes, Mr. Chair, and we'd also respectfully request a reduction in the filing fee given that the full site plan approval fee would be $5,000 for this application. Given that the project had some slight deviations but not a significant amount of change, we would ask that the filing fee be reduced to $660, which is the major site plan amendment fee.

I see. Respectfully request. Your request is noted. I have a feeling, unless that request comes from staff, I don't think this board's going to be inclined to grant it, and I don't, I have not heard that request.

I think, I don't know if staff knows that you're looking towards staff.

I'm not going to put them on the spot, but I, If staff felt that that was appropriate, we would grant it, but for the most part, this is a fairly large building reviewing site plan changes, particularly site plan changes that, while they probably seem small from a developer or architecture standpoint, given the size of this project for you guys, might matter a lot to the city. You know, I think staff's probably invested a lot of time in this. So the application fees are appropriate unless somebody tells me otherwise. That would be the board's position.

No one's looking at Mr. Chair, so I'll take that as there's not going to be a vote of confidence. With that, happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Okay. Comments on this item from city staff?

Sure, this is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. As Attorney Borenstein stated, this is a definitive site plan approval from one that had essentially lapsed. It's an 11-story building, 139 dwelling units with retail on the ground floor. Obviously, activation through the ground floor fenestration is very important here, particularly in the Commercial Corridors Overlay District. We're glad to see, as staff, that the fenestration main street and pearl street elevations are largely not changing there's a slight adjustment of the pillars on those sides but the fenestration is largely remaining the same the alcove on pearl street is getting slightly larger and then the primary changes to the elevations really just at the rear where there previously was pillars at the back to support the overhung building the cantilevered building it's now a couple of pillars and more walls really rather than pillars. The reason for these changes to the rear, my understanding and applicant can correct me if I have mistaken, was that they previously had proposed a transformer that would be in a vault at the rear. That's being moved indoors and that sort of accommodating that at the rear sort of required this slight adjustments to the rear driveway. And then as part of those changes at the rear, the exterior bike parking that was there was removed. As Attorney Borenstein noted, we have requested that they add six bicycle spaces. We're comfortable with the language of spaces rather than racks at the rear there, if determined to be feasible by the fire department. And we're comfortable with that language change. I think that's all I have, but happy to answer any questions from the board.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. Other city departments want to comment on this?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, just one minor comment, Andy Truman, Director of Engineering. Just following up, similar to the prior project, when you do your permanent patching, I'm just looking at the trench restoration, it will be a full width or a half lane or full lane for a platoon. extent of the utilities. Right. Just so it's reflected on the plan. It doesn't need to be a condition, but.

Right, it's four years and six months, right? So. It's just a general one now.

Utility patches are four and a half with, yeah, because it's just clean for us. So just so you go over it in the cost, it doesn't need to be a condition, but just give you a heads up. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Come on up. Any of the microphones? Look good.

Addison Kahali, Worcester. We own 17 to 27 Pleasant Street, which is directly below your site map outline there. And we had a lot of issues about or concerns about egress passageways. And I've spoken to the applicant and we went back and forth a few times with different options. And they assured me that they're currently working on some kind of document that will give us a right or a deed to their new passageway that they're designing. So I'd just like to get that in writing or ask the chair to ask the applicant to get that to us at some point.

Okay. Yeah, understood. I did hear a little bit about your issue. I don't – Ms. Smith, I might need you to comment on this, but my impression is from our law department, their perspective is that we can't mandate they do it. We absolutely think they should do it and would encourage them and you guys to, you know, work together on this issue. I did understand that there was some sort of document going back and forth between you. Is that accurate? So, Mr.

Chair, there's been some discussions about providing loading access in the rear of the property. And so the parties are working through some documentation to establish what that arrangement might look like going forward.

Understood. Did I accurately characterize the law department's position on this?

Through the chair, I won't put Kobe in the hot seat here. So just generally speaking, there are private passageways that surround the property. And effectively, those are just like a private easement. So effectively, it's a thing that the private matter. Yeah. Yeah. Not a city problem. These aren't streets the way that we would typically handle like what we were just talking about for La Chapelle or public realm not that it is important but we have as part of the conditions to required them to provide demonstration that they have the right to install the improvements that they are proposing within those areas based on their council and our councils concurrence understood so what I would tell you sir is what I tell every abutter to an applicant who's got a concern that we can't it's not in our jurisdiction to make them do it

But we encourage everyone, you know, we're all neighbors here. This is not, Worcester's not that big a town. So please work together. I'm confident you guys can find a resolution knowing a little bit about what the issue is.

All right. Thank you. We appreciate it.

Anyone else from the public on this item tonight?

This is Steve Carey. I'm not seeing any other folks with their hand raised.

Okay. Board members.

Hi, this is Connor. For myself, no concerns with the proposed project. Happy to see it coming back and that it's still moving forward. No issues with the adjustments to the conditions that were outlined and appreciate the applicant willing to work with the butters on that issue and happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King?

No concerns. Glad to see it moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Toomey.

No comments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Toomey. For myself, I would just echo that this is a major project in downtown Worcester. I'd love to see it come to fruition. It's not a fully utilized site right now. So Uh, very much rooting for you guys. Um, I do think, you know, staff has done a pretty good job, a fantastic job of reviewing the issues, the many issues that come up with a project of this size. Um, and I applaud DPW by the way, Mr. Truman, uh, for trying their best to make sure that we don't leave giant holes in all of our streets, uh, that we've recently repaved. Uh, with that, I think we're ready for a motion.

I would make a motion to close the public hearing. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Four to zero. Hearing's closed.

I would make a motion to approve the extension of time for the special permit to modify dimensional requirements for off-street parking in the CCOD and to approve the definitive site plan for 17 Pearl Street subject to staff recommended conditions with the adjustments to conditions 1F and 1M as articulated by staff. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick. yes mr king yes mr toomey yes i vote yes four to zero motion passes good luck uh next item item number seven 120 washington street lot 3b this will be a public meeting for an extension of time for a definitive site plan and a public hearing for an extension of time related to a special permit in the ccod

Through the chair, I think we might have Anthony Rossi online.

Yes, I'm online. Back there, Mr. Chairman, Anthony Rossi, on behalf of the commissioner. On this property, we're actually on site today because we're almost done with the MEPs and structural plans, but we're just working on getting final pricing for construction development on this. We're hoping to get this actually permitted in the next three to four months. I think construction financing, but we just had to finalize some structural plans and meet with the geotech representative regarding the soil conditions because of the different elevation of grade on the street. So we're just looking for an extension on this until we can get all final numbers together and hoping we can get the construction financing done in time. This is really strictly for belt and suspenders, just in case.

Understood. Thank you. Additional comments from city staff?

Sure, through the chair. So this is a project that was approved by the board last year on April 9th. So there's a safe plan as well as a special permit. The safe plan for the project, which involves six stories of mixed-use construction, so it's five floors of residential with commercial and retail on the first floor, and then a podium level of parking below, as well as some surface parking that the board members will recall as part of the larger table talk redevelopment area. You've got the rendering of the proposal, which is visible here from Madison Street on the screen. And so they're looking for an extension of the site plan for up to two years. So that would be through April 9th of 2028. Sounds like they're close to progression of that, but I think seeking to preserve the option in case circumstances change, I will note we'll still need revised plans. I think they're aware of that. And then related to the special permit, they're seeking to amend that in order to provide for an extension. The maximum extension that's authorized through that process is a one-year period. So that would bring the approval essentially through May 1st of 2027 for that. And I'm happy to answer any questions the board members may have, but our recommendation would just be to approve RETAINING ALL THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS THAT WERE IMPOSED BY THE BOARD.

OKAY. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT?

THIS IS STEVE CAREY IN THE PLANNING DIVISION NOT SEEING ANYONE WITH THEIR HAND RAISED.

OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD?

This is Connor again. No concerns. Happy to support it. Yeah, thank you.

Mr. King?

No concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Toomey? No comments. Thank you. Mr. McCormick, I think we're ready for motion.

Make a motion to close the public hearing. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes, 4-0. Hearing is closed.

It would also make a motion to approve the extension of time special permit to modify dimensional requirements for off-street parking in the CCOD and the extension of time for the definitive site plan, retaining all original findings and conditions, but to extend the site plan, I think it was to April 9th, 2028, and the special permit to May 1st, 2027. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? yes mr toomey yes i vote yes as well four to zero motion passes thank you everyone good luck uh moving on to item number eight 625 franklin street a public meeting for a definitive site plan good evening mr chair again for the record mark bornstein attorney law firm principal bell here in worcester representing the applicant um

We weren't anticipating to move through the agenda this quickly, so I've notified the rest of the development team. So I'm hoping folks will be able to join momentarily. Ownership will be coming soon. We have a short two-minute video for the board. And after that, we'll go over staff's comments and provide additional context to the board. So I'll leave it to Steve to start the video. Thank you. We'll get it one day. We'll get it one day.

It's like a movie theater.

You gotta get the recliners. They have a Blackstone now. Pay $30 to see a movie. It sounds like the audio's coming out of your laptop. You want that, Michelle? Michelle, we might need some technical assistance. Mr. Capital X LLC is excited to present his proposed redevelopment at 625 Franklin Street. The property consists of approximately 20,871 square feet of land and is currently occupied by an auto repair garage. The property is located exclusively within the BL1 zoning district and Mr. Capital X LLC is excited to present his proposed redevelopment at 625 Franklin Street. The property consists of approximately 20,871 square feet of land and is currently occupied by an auto repair garage. The property is located exclusively within the BL1 zoning district and within a managed growth area and baseline citywide growth area under the Worcester Now Next plan. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct a new three-story, approximately 28,712 square foot, multifamily low-rise building with 28 residential units comprised of 10 studios and 18 one-bedroom units. The interior will also include recreation space, bike storage, a lobby, and common areas. The development will result in the narrowing of the existing curb cut along Franklin Street and the construction of new sidewalk areas. Exterior improvements will include outdoor recreation areas, new retaining walls, exterior bike storage, a dumpster enclosure, and new landscaping. The development will be served by a total of 27 parking spaces consisting of 18 podium spaces And nine surface spaces, which will include one van accessible space for ev ready spaces and five compact spaces, the applicant will employ a transportation management plan which will aim to deter single occupancy vehicle dependency and promote alternative means of transportation. The proposed development will transform the site, elevating its aesthetics while blending into the neighborhood's existing character. By intentionally mirroring the architectural massing, materials, and finishes with a modern building next door at 629 Franklin Street, the applicant will create a cohesive and attractive streetscape. New landscaping and vibrant outdoor recreational spaces will breathe new life into the property. The development will prioritize community safety and convenience by improved access, additional sidewalk areas, and ensuring safe circulation on and off the property. Above all, the development will provide high quality residential units, which will be a lasting asset to the entire community. If I may, Mr. Chair, since we submitted the application, the application was heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They granted a suite of relief through variances and special permits. One of the requirements of that relief was to reduce the number of units from 28 to 27. such that we would have one parking space per dwelling unit. So we have reduced the number of units down to 27. So in the materials and then I think in the staff memo, there's references to 28 units. It's now 27 units. In terms of the staff conditions of approval, We would ask for just some slight modifications to 1D. It says reflect additional glazing at the main entrance and door facing Franklin Street. And it says use a contrasting color of entry awning to add prominence to the entry. The architect has updated the plans following the ZBA hearing. The architectural team has improved the prominence of that entry, but there wasn't a change to the color of the awning. So we just have the language use a contrasting color for the entry awning to be struck and the remainder of the condition to remain. We would ask that condition 1G related to the detailed materials for the retaining wall be moved to before a building permit is issued. In addition to that, I believe we had a requested change to one of the engineering comments, which I think might have been addressed through one of staff's updated conditions of approval. Is that fair to say through the chair to staff?

This is in regards to the infiltration units proximity to the building. Correct. Those are, my understanding is from DEP, those are really more guidelines more than strict regulations. I think we're, if that's the only feasible location for it, I think we'd be comfortable with it. But I would defer to DPW.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Andrew Truman, Director of Engineering. Yeah, I guess, I mean, since this is essentially, I think the infiltration units are going to be level with the slab, garage slab right below it. Correct. Typically, the reason the 10 feet is to stop the infiltration into the basement. So I guess in this case, given how low the slab is and just real estate you have to work with, I guess we would be amenable to it. Okay.

So just looking at the DPW comments, I think it was, is it the first or second comment?

Comment two.

Comment two. So we ask that that comment be struck. And then there's two additional conditions of approval from staff if you want to really review those. Sure.

While we're talking about conditions of approval, when we were reviewing this, we did have some concerns just about stormwater, just to make sure that based on test pits that were provided to make sure that the infiltration units would function as they were designed to. We have the following additions. We're going to add a condition number three, which would be under prior to and continuing during all construction activities. The condition reading, a third-party registered professional engineer currently licensed to practice within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts specializing in stormwater system design, installation, and management. shall be on site during installation of the stormwater infiltration system and shall ensure any fill is suitable for infiltration. And then for prior to a certificate of occupancy, we have an existing condition number seven. We're going to add essentially a second sentence to that one before the third sentence that says, basically caveating about the certification saying that The certification shall document installation of the impermeable barrier to prevent stormwater seepage through the proposed retaining walls in coordination with the structural engineer and document subservice soil conditions for the stormwater system. So we're just, both those are really geared towards making sure that the infiltration and the retaining wall is not gonna be causing any issues. I can get into other staff comments unless Attorney Borenstein has more they'd like to present on.

The rest of the conditions of approval are acceptable. A lot of them were incorporated in the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. Actually, the plans have been updated to reflect that already, so we're happy to submit those to staff and move towards the issuance of a decision to the extent that the board sees fit to issue it.

Thank you. Sure. And that's what I was going to say is that, yeah, many of our conditions, a lot of the conditions of approval from the ZBA were reflected in an updated architectural plan set that we've seen, and just a number of those have to be migrated over to the site plan, which is the subject of a number of the conditions of approval. Otherwise, I think we've covered everything that we had flagged. And I would just note that the proposed architectural for this building does mimic the neighboring property, which I understand is the same developer. Yeah, that's all we have for staff. I'm happy to answer any other questions.

All right, thank you, Mr. Carey. Other comments on this item from different staff departments? Hearing none, anyone from the public wishing to speak on this? Anyone online?

I am not seeing any members of the public with their hand raised.

Okay, board members.

Hi, this is Connor for myself. No concerns with the site plan. I'm happy to see that this project is moving forward in this location. I think it's a nice location for additional residential development. I think the size and scale is appropriate for the location and complements the existing project that was recently completed. So happy to support it from that sense. I believe I got all the adjustments to the conditions, but I can go over those when we get to making a motion. But otherwise, all set. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King?

Overall, I think the project's a good use of the space. Happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Toomey?

no comments thank you no comments either mr mccormick i think ready for a motion okay i would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 625 franklin street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval um on pages two three Yeah, two and three of the staff memo with the amendments to conditions 1D, moving 1G to prior to a building permit. Was it eliminating DPW comment number two? so uh yeah through the chair was to eliminate um dpw comment two or i mean yeah i guess it wasn't really conditioned but i think the other comments can be can be included in the motion as well striking condition too okay so including dpw comments but striking number two um and then adding uh a new condition number three uh regarding stormwater infiltration in the additional language to

uh current number set second on the motion mr mccormick yes mr king yes mr toomey yes i vote yes motion passes four to zero good luck thank you moving on to item number nine nine beckland street this will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ahmed Hatim. I'm the applicant for 9 Beckland Street. I'm proposing the construction of a new four-bedroom house with four-bedroom septic system, two parking garage, paved driveway, and less than four feet high retaining wall on the western elevation and partially on the north and the south elevation around the septic system. The property slope more than 15%. which triggered the planning board approval, and that's why I'm here. I received the memo. I reviewed it with the civil engineer who put the site plan together. We found that all the recommendation and condition are reasonable and make sense. And I'm happy to answer any question or concern that you guys have.

Okay, thank you. Comments from city staff on this item?

Sure. This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. This is a single family home. The trigger for Lake Plain Review is a slope trigger as this property kind of slopes upwards from west to east. There is a septic system as well on the left side. There is a sort of steeper slope there from what's going on. So one of our conditions is around just making sure um, slope is, uh, stabilized. Um, also with the proximity of this site to wetlands, we have a number of conditions just around, um, erosion control and making sure that, uh, during construction, there isn't any, uh, sedimentation that flows into there. I understand that this is a, there is a, um, condition of approval. I mean, uh, order of conditions with the conservation commission as well. Um, there are one, um, sort of thing that we, uh, sort of caught up, uh, got a little caught up in the review is just with regards to the architectural plans. A plan set that had been submitted showed a walkout basement and the applicant has provided amended architectural rules that have a note basically specifying that there will be no walkout basement. It will be built on slab as proposed on the site plan. So I think that's all we really have for staff comments. I would just note that the applicant should request waivers from showing on the site plan trees in excess of nine inches in diameter and for soil types.

Okay. And just to the applicant, you would request those waivers?

Yes, sir. I will.

Thank you. Okay. Other city departments on this item? Mr. Chairman, I'm Chairman of the Director of Engineering. We have no comments. Thank you. Board members? I'm sorry. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item?

No one online with their hand raised. Okay. Board members?

This is Connor. No concerns for myself. Happy to support.

Mr. King?

No concerns. Thank you.

Mr. Toomey? No comments. Thank you. I think we're ready for a motion.

Okay. I would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 9 Beckland Street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on page 2 of the staff memo. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Four to zero. Motion passes.

Good luck. Great. Thank you. Have a good night.

All right. Josh, are you ready? Next item we're going to hear tonight, moving back to old business, is item number two, 1103 Milbury Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Joshua Lee Smith, I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bowditch and Dewey here this evening representing the applicant in connection with this definitive site plan application. We were here before this board a few weeks back, presented the project, and went over a few of the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the DPRS memo. I do not believe that the memo dated April 22nd has been updated, although I had some communications with Michelle prior to the start of this meeting, and I believe that the civil engineer, who I hope is on, will be able to address some of the questions that she might raise. So, Mr. Chair, from the last meeting, we had some homework to do with respect to providing some additional information pertaining to the geotech report, which has since been submitted. We also submitted updated plans with respect to some of the other previous comments that had been requested in connection with the ZBA approval. So we've submitted those and those updates as well, we believe addressed many of the conditions of approval that were set forth in the memo. So with that, I don't believe that we need to represent the project as we did that at the last meeting. The other update I will say, however, There was a request by the board with respect to the fencing and the row of arborvitaes at the top of the hill along the rear lot line. There was a request for some photos of the existing conditions pertaining to a 50-foot buffer that the CONCOM is requiring as a condition of its approval, which has already been obtained. And so that 50-foot buffer, we've since provided some photos with vantage points that demonstrate what the view shed looks like from the rear property line looking towards the properties in the back. Again, it's upsloping. The point of that was that because as we submitted the plans initially, that 50-foot buffer was actually not contemplated. My client had anticipated that he was going to be clearing up to basically up to the property line in the rear. And again, because the Concom requested and required that there be a 50-foot buffer, we felt that the fence in the back, along with the row of arborvitaes, was no longer necessary. So just a little bit of a reminder with respect to that. Otherwise, we're happy to answer any questions the board may have. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. City staff.

Sure, through the chair of Michelle Smith and the planning division. The board discussed this at the previous meeting. And I know the chair, while was absent, has provided a Mullin affidavit. So the project, again, is a multifamily structure with podium level parking and a sort of elevated surface parking lot with a series of retaining walls. We had a number of concerns related to it. Grading, understanding slope stabilization, as well as some of the drainage for the retaining walls, given potential groundwater conditions that we've experienced in construction sites along the stretch of Millbury Street, creating issues during construction. so applicant has provided some responses to staff comments I think at this point we're recommending that all the staff comments and conditions well I should say all the staff conditions be retained the applicant had potentially requested elimination I think of one and related to two shade trees within a landscape island in the parking area so if you see the parking area, there's sort of the interesting turnaround, and there's a landscape island to the right. I believe they're proposing a transformer in that location. It did not appear to be shown on the plans, so if we want to adjust that language, to include reflect the proposed transformer my question to the applicant would be if they can accommodate one tree not knowing exactly where the transformer is going at least on the landscape plan and don't think it was shown so wanted to to confirm if that might be possible otherwise we'd be willing to see that that number reduced we'd prefer to see one tree if it's not possible to accommodate two understand if they can't do either but ultimately would be helpful to understand where that is and then related to the other conditions I would recommend and I apologize that we didn't have a chance to update this memo but we would recommend modifying one you to additionally require dewatering plan to be provided and a haul road plan so basically when they're exporting material I think it's about I have 15,000 cubic yards, I believe. Maybe I've got that wrong. It might be cubic feet. But of export, net export from the sites is a decent amount of material coming out. So we want to just make sure we've got a haul plan so that construction traffic and trucks that are coming in, loading, taking out material, we have all of that information to understand how that's going to work on the site. Because we've had issues with small sites, tight sites, being able to handle that. Otherwise, the comments that we had had last time related to just some bike parking, I can't recall if that was addressed, so we'd asked if they had any other opportunities to provide either higher density bike racks or additional interior or exterior bike racks and confirm the number of exterior bike racks. We'd also asked if they could clarify there's any potential for connection from the walkways that connect from the patio to the parking facility if there was a way to interconnect those so that if someone wanted to just get home and meet their partner out at the barbecue if you will if they'd be able to do that or if they'd have to walk through the building to get to that so that was just a circulation question we had we previously did spend some time talking about tree removal and vegetation I think you've seen the photographs we recommend just retaining the conditions as we have them given the photographs understanding that the applicant wants to maintain this 50-foot buffer that's wonderful I think in leaf off conditions, you still will be able to see through. Our concern would be, I think there was a discussion at the zoning board that the applicant was going to provide a fence or some sort of screening along the northern part of the property, kind of deviating away from that. I know that that addressed a lot of neighbor concerns. So we'd recommend just keeping it as is. And if for some reason they need to in accommodating The fence need to remove vegetation, preferably they just locate the fence in a way that it leaves that vegetation, but if it's necessary that they provide restoration or replanting of any vegetation that would be necessary to remove. And then finally, related to slope stabilization, we were hoping that their team could actually talk through and explain a little bit about the product that they're proposing to use for the slope stabilization. It's not one that we've actually seen folks use in the city. It's called manufacturer specifications Flex Terra AP FGM. So it's basically a kind of bonded fiber matrix, from what I can understand, that is applied to the slope. for stabilization, which we are familiar with, just not this particular product. Often those products have an odor to them, so wondering if they can comment on their experience using that product, where they've had success, the similarity in the slope steepness, and kind of site conditions, if they can just talk us through a little bit more about that product. We're happy to see other products be used, just want to make sure that it will actually work well. So maybe they can talk us through a little bit more along that. And we had asked for a cut fill analysis. They did provide a summary of what, again, that net export that I had referenced. We are looking just for typically a plan that shows like where the cuts and where the fills are. I had made note that that would be an additional condition we'd be looking for, understand the net export. And then the last piece of our comments had been evidencing how any sub drains for the retaining walls and any potential groundwater associated with the location of those would not adversely affect the site. So essentially either weep out weep holes, which I believe is what the plans show, proposed drainage and if that's the case just providing some description related to sort of groundwater and why that won't be an issue again our experience being that we've had issues with groundwater in this area kind of driving that and while we understand that some of the Conditions that were reported from the geotechnical engineer in terms of their observations. They attributed the weeping that was observed to recent rain There's only a few Locations that we have that data for and again just based on our experience in that area you want to be sure that they are confident that that will not create an issue and And then again, we've asked for the dewatering plan as a condition modification in the event that they do encounter that during construction. So maybe they can talk about groundwater, a little bit about bike storage, the patio, and then walk us through the Flex Terra product.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Go ahead, guys.

Thank you. We have, I believe, the civil engineer who was online and I believe Steve has let him in as a speaker. Lar, through the chair, Lar Green is the civil engineer. Lar, are you online? Yep, yep, good evening. Would you be able to address some of the items that Michelle just discussed? Maybe starting with the seed mix question.

So, see, yes, basically, it's basically a very specific hydroseed slurry. It's mixed up of paper, and then it also has palmers, but then it also has... really minute particles that allow the seed and the polymers to come together but it also has particles in it that absorb rainfall but it also obtains moisture then it also has like a minute ability of nitrogen so it's a great it's a great growing media for growing grass on very steep slopes we've done this on gravel pits in douglas and uxbridge almost one-to-one slopes and have had great success we can provide photos of that so we've had great success with it and This is kind of an industry standard hydro seed product for my profile products. And there's no odor.

Okay, thanks through the chair. I think just we would be looking for a clarification on the specific seed mix. I know that there's an application rate that was referenced, but I don't think we saw it with a seed mix. Typically a slope like this, we'd want to see wildlife conservation seed mix or something that's essentially akin to a metal mix, like a no-mow mix that allows us to sort of naturally revegetate over time and be left alone and grow some more woody vegetation that will help absorb water as well. So if that might be something that we can get added to the plan, that would be great. gladly yep that's easy what else would you like me to touch on uh so through the chair i think the the other question that would be helpful for the engineer to talk through is related to groundwater and the the walls and the drainage for the walls and the likelihood of encountering groundwater conditions

So pretending to the wall, so we did, if you recall, we did stormwater testing. I think it was the second or third round of testing. Basically the soils are classified a lonely sand with actually lenses of sand. I think we got back down almost 16 feet at the toe of that slope. So I, I, don't really have a concern with groundwater but we can be glad to provide a dewatering plan and then once we get into uh a little further design on the on the wall we can we can provide that wall detail and wall construction plan that shows where our where our back drainage will be and we'll coordinate uh making sure those outlet pipes don't discharge uh in an inappropriate spot okay ms smith do we have that appropriately conditioned now or do we need to add a condition for that

So through the chair, I'm going to recommend that you modify 1E. We say highlight the areas where erosion control blankets are proposed to be used for slope stabilization. They're proposing this other product. So let's say highlight the areas where Flex Terra is proposed to be used for stabilization. They have a note, but we want to be sure we see the exact extent of where the spray is going to be applied. and then provide the detail for the product specifications. We've looked it up, but if they can provide the spec, and then we will ask that that include the seed mix, which should reflect a wildlife conservation or meadow seed mix. So I think that takes care of the slope.

Sorry, say that again?

That should take care of the slope.

Okay. Josh, any objections to any of that?

No.

Okay. I'm going to defer to Lar.

Lar says yes, so we're good with that proposed change with respect to E. Okay, I think there was a couple other items.

Through the chair, so we had said one end, which was about the transformer. Not sure if the applicant was able to confirm on that.

One end pertains to... reflect expanded landscaping, including two shade trees within the enhanced landscape island adjacent to the fire turnaround. And through the chair, Michelle, I think you had requested one additional tree.

Sure. Yeah. Through the chair, the applicant's response had indicated that they weren't unable to provide shade trees in that location due to a proposed transformer, but the transformer was not shown on the plan. So we want to have that be changed to include and reflect where the proposed transformer will be located, but we were still hoping that at least one tree could be accommodated. So just wanted to confirm that that's possible.

Yeah, we can. Yeah, that's glad. Gladly we can do that.

Okay. Okay. And do we want to talk about the fence in the back? I believe staff's position is that they'd like to retain the fence as originally proposed. You said maybe because we're leaving some forest, we'd like to remove the fence. I think looking at the photos, I would support staff's position. Are you guys okay with that?

If you could give me one moment, Mr. Chair. OK. Yes. My client is saying yes with respect to the fencing, which, just to be clear, the previous design proposed fencing plus arborvitaes. So the arborvitaes can be removed. Is that correct?

So we would provide like the what the previous plan had unless staff felt differently. I think my understanding of the way this conversation has evolved is concom approval requires a 50 foot buffer fence was originally designed with some Arbor righty. Staff was concerned that installing the fence would eat into the 50-foot buffer and would prefer not to do that. Sounds like you don't have a choice given the CONCOM approval. We think the fence is a good amenity for the neighbors. Arborvitae certainly softens the fence.

I'm sorry, Arborvitae is what?

Soften, as in if you're looking at it from your property side, having some Arborvitae there looks nicer than just a fence. which I would think would be a, you know, a benefit for the folks living here.

I think about that from you understand what they're saying.

Yeah. Through the chair, I can, I can clarify too. So basically the applicant was proposing a fence for this East or plan North, as you're looking at it near the neighbors, then just South of that, plan south of that, they were proposing a row of arborvitae. So the arborvitae would actually only be visible from the subject property up to the fence, not on the backside of the fence for the residents. So I think where there is a possibility of them installing arborvitae, that'd be great. Helps further screen it. for their residents down below, but I don't know how much utility there would be in that respect, just because the fencing is shown as being closer to the neighbors than the Arborvitae would be. So it's neighbors, fence, Arborvitae, 50 feet of woods.

So our preference is- The Arborvitae's on the backside of the fence from the property's perspective?

I believe that's how it's shown on the plans.

I think that's right, yeah. oh okay that makes no you don't have to do that because you've got all the existing woods already there right am i understanding correctly yes so mr chair as thank you steve so this is the original rendering rendered depiction which showed that it previ initially uh contemplated clearing up to the rear lot line the rear lot line is basically where you see that row of arborvitaes plus the opaque fencing And as was just explained, the arborvitaes were proposed to be on my client's side of the property. And we just feel as though, yes, with respect to the opaque fencing, but because there's going to be a 50-foot buffer, which you can just imagine here, that in combination with the opaque fencing, we feel there's no longer a need for the arborvitaes.

The Arborvitaes are on the neighbor's side? Is that what you're talking about? The Arborvitaes are on the project side, the client side. OK. I thought that there's some confusion about this. Or maybe it's me.

No, through the chair. So I think the condition that we have is still what we want. So I don't think you need to modify anything, which is basically it says if they need to remove a tree for the fence installation, then it has to be replaced. So as long as they're willing to accept that, then I think we're OK. I don't think we feel strongly about arborvitaes in the middle of the woods behind a fence. OK. Right. So if there's, I think our preference would just to be not to see any mature vegetation removed to accommodate the fence. So if you need to bend the fence around a tree, our preference would be to see that to keep those mature trees rather than see a tree get cut to install fence.

So thank you, Michelle, for clarifying. So through the chair, the key item that Michelle just said, which I think clears things up, is I believe that her position is that she's not... It's not necessary to have plant arborvitaes in the middle of a woodlands. However, with respect to the condition O pertaining to replacement, a one-to-one ratio of trees in connection with the installation of the opaque fencing, then yes, my client will agree to that. And it sounds as though there might be flexibility as well with respect to, where that installation occurs perhaps to avoid trees coming out, which I think would benefit everyone. That's what I heard as well, yes. Okay, all right, yes.

Yeah, if it helps, we can clarify that language that the fence shall be installed to avoid removal of mature vegetation. If you want to get rid of the replacement, we can just say we just had conditioned it as flexibly as we could, but our preference would be to see that entirely avoided, so just... um well maybe uh we can we can install we can say um any trees um sorry the fence shall be installed to avoid removal of any mature vegetation if poss if if necessary any trees removed to accommodate fence insulation along the eastern property line shall be replaced at a one-to-one ratio et cetera, et cetera. So preferences to avoid them, if there's no, absolutely no way the tree's a hazard tree and it has to get cut down, then we're looking for a replacement.

Yeah, can we just qualify by saying to the extent practicable on the installation and avoiding the tree?

I think we've managed to make this to the extent practical on avoiding the tree. I think the position is step one, try to avoid the tree. If you have to take the tree, you got to put another tree back somewhere. Okay.

All right. So that's, we agree with that.

Oh, okay. Are there other items, Michelle?

Through the chair, I'll just call that we had made recommendations to make you more robust to include the dewatering plan and the haul plan for export, material export.

And I think I heard the applicant say that they were amenable to that. I agree, Mr. Chair. Yep. OK.

If I could just clarify, and I apologize. I think we did discuss this the last time, but I just want to make sure. With respect to item 1G, We had requested that that be moved to prior to building permit. Reflect the location of any wall drainage and related overflow daylight locations with appropriate scour protection. And I believe we had requested to delete the rest of that link, delete the rest of that sentence.

Through the chair, we have no problem shifting that condition to prior to building permit. They'll have to update the site plans again. But if they're willing to do that, that's fine. Related to the groundwater. I think they've described that, so if the board's comfortable with the information they've provided in that regard, you could strike the which demonstrate that groundwater will not continuously be discharging through the drainage system. Their plans spec weep holes, so that shouldn't be interconnected with the drainage system.

Okay, thank you. Any additional comments from members of the city staff on this? Andy Truman, director of engineering. We have no comments. OK. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight?

This is Steve Carey in the planning division. Not seeing anyone with their hand raised. OK. Board members.

Hi, this is Connor. For myself, no. big concerns with the site plan. In terms of all of the conditions that were discussed, I'm happy to support them as we kind of landed on them. I appreciate staff working with the applicant to figure out a best way forward with these. Yeah, I think we've gone through this a bit at the last meeting, so I think I can leave it there, and I'm happy to support.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King? i always appreciate a collaborative process happy to support this one thank you thank you mr toomey no comments thank you i would just echo for myself i would echo mr mccormick's comments i know staff has put a lot of work into kind of negotiating the finer details appreciate the applicant's ability or a willingness to to work with them on that we'll be glad to see this project move forward

And Mr., sorry, before you move to the next step, I did, I also just want to clarify again, and I apologize if we had discussed this at the last meeting, but item 11 pertaining to a third party registered professional engineer. I believe that we had discussed the leading third party as well as item Item nine, we had some qualifications on that one too. Basically pertaining to monitoring, third party monitoring.

So through the chair, related to third party, the idea is that the engineer of record is not the person that's doing the monitoring. So the developer can select whomever they want as long as they have the appropriate credentials, but it's someone other than the person who did the design plans. So there are two engineers at the end of the project that are capable of certifying that everything is good. So where we have some unique drainage conditions, we typically like to have another party involved. Hopefully that clarifies what we mean when we say third party. There's not a selection process. It's something that you do, you pay, you fund, but there's just another professional that's involved. I don't know if that helps clarify.

I think I haven't done this.

I'll just clarify for the board members too. It's because the infiltration unit is located in fill. So we want to make sure that the fill material is actually the specified material. If it's not, it won't function properly. And then where there's retaining walls that are adjacent to it, we also want to make sure that the impermeable lining gets installed properly so that the walls don't leach out water. So extra oversight during construction, that's a standard condition for the board for that kind of situation.

Understood.

getting a little more specific with respect to item 9 would would the board be willing to strike the first sentence and keep the rest professional engineer geotechnical license in the Commonwealth shall oversee construction of the proposed slopes the remainder of that sentence the remainder of that condition would be acceptable

If I understand Ms. Smith correctly, we need it to be a different person than the design engineer. So that's what the third, that's the work the third party is doing there. So if we strike the third party. Sorry, Mr.

Chair, I'm on item nine. Oh, sorry.

So through the jury, you're referring to the first sentence of nine. So we're referring to the two to one slope in the rear. If we specify that that's the specific slope, are you good with what's there? Or you're concerned about having an engineer on site while the slope construction is happening?

I think that the concern is needing to have the engineer there during construction.

So through the chair, it's that they're overseeing it. So that may not mean that they're there the entire time, but they're there for a substantial amount of it to be able to certify and dictate at the end of construction that it's complete and per standards. And they've been on-site to observe and witness what was being done because we had concerns, again, about groundwater breakout and the stability. So they don't have to be there for every breathing moment, but they need to be there enough that they're able to certify that and have witnessed the contractor doing the work.

Yeah. OK. Okay. Yeah, so Item 9, we can live with Item 9 as is. Okay. And then Item 10, I guess it's similar. Again, we were a little averse to the the third party overseeing during construction. But I think the way you describe the expectation, Michelle, would be reasonable.

Yeah, and I think that based on my recollection of the wall heights, they're going to need to be structurally engineered for building permit purposes. So again, at the end of the process, we're basically looking for them to be able to provide that certification So there's a series of them, so the idea would be at the end of each wall if they're being phased, but otherwise.

Okay, sure. This is Jesse Hildenberg with Dixon Sallow Architects. For architects, we have a term that says, We have to oversee construction at periods that are appropriate to the status of construction, I think is what the term is. Could we add that to 9 just to clarify? 9 and 10? Is this our standard condition language?

It is.

Oversight though could be full-time. It could be interpreted as full-time.

I think we're maybe getting pretty far down a rabbit hole here. So I would offer sort of two options. I don't think we want to change our standard condition language. I think we've been clear, no problem clarifying what it means to us and how it's going to be enforced. But I would just say, you know, if we really need to go deep on some of this stuff, if that's the feeling, you guys are welcome to have that. We can continue this.

you know i don't think we're going to solve all this in in the meeting yeah i think it's fair mr chair as michelle characterized what her expectation is with respect to the oversight that it would be consistent with what jesse just described so i think we can we can accept this language as is um I will say, however, it's not standard language. This is not in typical DPRS memo.

I think it's standard language when we have specific types of concerns. You know, this is like, I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but this is like copy-paste from other similar situations. I'll take your word for it.

I've not seen this before. And I appreciate that this project has some constraints with respect to the slope, the grade. So if that's, maybe I haven't done a project where it has that condition. So regardless, I think we're there, Mr. Chair.

Okay, good. Thank you. I think we're about to make a motion.

Okay. Hi. Before I make the motion, I just want to maybe quickly review the conditions that were being adjusted. I had one E, one G, one N, one O, and one U. I'm not sure what, if any, language we just changed on 9 or 11.

Through the chair, I don't think we changed anything. Okay. We had, however, relocated, I think you already got G, but we had relocated G to pre-building permit.

Okay. But that sounds like I covered them all. I would then make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 1103 Milbury Street, subject to staff recommended conditions on pages two through... five of the staff memo with the adjustments to conditions one e g n o and u second on the motion mr mccormick yes mr king yes mr toomey yes i vote yes four to zero motion passes good luck thank you very much thank you to the staff as well appreciate it uh okay

That's it for our regular business A&Rs.

All right. First up is 11A, Forest Faya Street. They are dividing an existing lot in two. This is an RG5 zoning district where each lot and residential zone would require to have 50 feet of frontage, which they do have. except as one Attleboro Street, they're adding a zero lot line to an existing duplex. Each side of that duplex has to have 35 feet, which they do have, and Attleboro Street does provide legal frontage. Blythewood Avenue, taking an existing parcel, dividing it into three. In the RS7 zone, parcels are required to have a minimum of 65 feet of frontage for a single family detached, which these do have. 55 Bacasset Avenue. They are essentially adjusting an existing lot line that was previously endorsed by the board not that long ago to give lot 2A, which will be 59 Bacasset Avenue, adequate lot area, 8,000 feet of lot area. But for the purposes of ANR endorsement, each lot proposed does have the 65 feet of frontage needed. And then finally, 32... Marmion Avenue is, again, an existing lot being divided into two, into lots B1 and B2. Each lot is required to have 35 feet of frontage if they were to build a duplex. And the applicant did add to the plan the extent of pavement. There was some question just around the extent to which Marmion had been improved, just because it's right at the dividing line between when Marmion goes from public to private. But they have reflected the extent of pavement on the plan to show where legal frontage is. And that's it for A&Rs. Motion on the A&Rs?

I would make a motion to endorse the A&Rs. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. 4-0, motion passes. Does anyone have any communications or policy and procedure items? Hearing none, there are no minutes ready for us tonight. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Have a good night, everybody.

Thank you.