Opening the Tuesday, May 27th, 2025 meeting of the Air Planning Board. This meeting hearing of the Airplanning Board will be held in person at the location provided on this notice. Members of the public are welcome to attend this in-person meeting. Please note that while an option for remote attendance and/or participation via Zoom is being
provided to the public, the meeting hearing will not be suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the virtual broadcast unless otherwise required by law. Members of the public with a particular interest in a specific item on this agenda should make plans for in-person
virtual attendance accordingly. This meeting will be live on Zoom. The public may access the proceedings by joining Zoom meeting ID 978-7728220 or by calling 929-2056099. For additional information about remote participation, please
contact Danny Ruiz, town planner at druzair.mma. us or 9787728220 extension 144 prior to the meeting. First item of business is to approve the agenda. Move to approve the
agenda. Seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. Ken I. Julie. Yes. Kathleen. Yes. Nathan. I. Jeff. Yes. Chair votes I. And I believe the first uh item of business is Panther Place subdivision request for covenant
release. Come on up. You know the routine. How are you? Good. How are you? Joe, how are you? Um, just name name just the usual stuff. Uh, Joseph Lavine. Thank you, Joe. Good to see you. Uh, so for this is for
Panther Place subdivision on Washington Street. Um, the applicant has requested a covenant release from lots 3, 4,1 17, and 18. Uh the DPW did their inspections as they typically do for these uh lot releases. Um they have in their letter
they stated that um they would uh we would be at about 12 lots remaining under the covenant and um there's about an estimated uh remaining work of $210,000.
Mhm. So, we will be getting um to the point where we're close to being able to get uh release the covenant and go to a bond. Uh but we're not there yet. Um probably we'll we'll talk with the DPW
director at the next round of uh requests and kind and see from um from that point where we want to go. So, I believe that the the important core thing is that the uh director of public works approves the release. Yes, that is correct. Yes. Joe, do you have any additional comments? No, I've been
talking to DBW. They know what's going on. So, um, I've had a chance to read it. Look, seems perfectly logical to me. Anyone else have questions or concerns? No. May I make a motion? Please do. Move that the planning board do a covenant release for lots 34718 Panther Place
subdivision as um described in downtown Vancouver. Seconded. Excellent. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Okay, Ken. Hi, Julie. Yes, Nathan. Hi,
Jeff. Yes. Chair votes I. Thank you all very much. No, I just I'm okay. Thank you. It just confuses. Thank you. Special permits. Special permits only. Okay. All right. I get confused. I get it. It happens. I'm an
old man. Oh, I still don't get what she So, uh, the next item, we have to open a public hearing for 153rd Street, Pine Street. And I believe the applicant is here with a the engineer. Um, that's right. I need a motion to open. Move to
open the public hearing for 15, excuse me, 153rd Street, Pine Street, Map 34, Law 129. Application for site plan review, section 9.6 and storm water management permit. Seconded. All right. Hearing uh moved and seconded. Any further discussion
hearing? None. Ken, yes. Julie, yes. Nathan, hi. Jeff, hi. Chair votes I. Welcome, gentlemen. And uh Danny, you want to want to launch this and then let the applicant tell the story or uh Yes.
Let me just pull up the site plans for this. Damn. All right. So, uh this is uh the proposed project that has come before the planning board. It's triggered under our land clearing bylaw under section 9.6 as well as the storm water
management permit. Um this currently is a um it's it's one large lot uh but they're proposing it to create three lots. This is an existing paper street right now of Pine Street. ex extension
of Pine Street. So, Pine Street kind of runs north of uh uh east of here. Um this is right off Third Street. And um the applicant is proposing to build this to uh uh the standards that the building
commissioner has determined is sufficient for this uh this size of project because similar to Third Street, um there's uh there's a lot of paper streets in town. Uh, and for for the benefit of everyone here, could you explain what a paper street is? Yes. A
paper street is a um it's a street that is was shown on the G it's shown on GIS and subdivisions but never was built out to town standards was uh and its legal status and its legal status is they're
determined that they are legal and that they are allowed to be used for frontage. Okay. Thank you. as long as the project the road actually gets built out to meet standards today's standards. Uh so the applicants uh did meet with myself uh and the building commissioner
as well as uh uh Heather from conservation and uh the um Matt from DPW early on in the process where they determined that the determination was made that the roadway could be built out
um for uh access for these units similar as what was done at the end of Third Street um so that they can use this as access. Um the applicant has also applied under an NOI uh as there is uh wetlands notice
of intent. Thank you. Order of conditions. Um this is so it but it's right up against Grove Pond back here. Um there are wetlands. So there's part of the project goes within the uh wetland buffer. Uh there's also flood
plane here. Uh so they're currently before the um conservation commission for that. And um what was that? Aquafer. And yes, there is aquafer protection here too. Actually, I'll have to confirm on that
one. I don't. Yes, I believe there is. But um let me turn it over to the applicant. Now, just before we turn to the applicant, just quick question. So, what do you expect we can accomplish here tonight on this? Uh so, the applicant uh did receive comments from department heads. We have not received
uh responses from them yet. Uh so I think at this point it would be turning it over to the applicant uh letting them do their presentation, answering any questions that the uh uh board may have and then at that point we'd be just waiting on the responses from the from
the applicant and addressing the the um updating and that would be in a future meeting that that second part as well as uh the the comment on the AM. Okay, you have the floor. Good evening. Brandon Ducharm with David E. Ross, I'm here with the applicant, Dan Aaho. And
um just to kind of give an overview is is we've filed with you for site plan review as well as the storm water u management u major permit and it's a 1.42 acre existing parcel. It's got two
separate residents up along the frontage of Third Street. And the property is currently segregated. You can see it obviously along the bottom of the page there's the paper street Pine Street and then as you come down Fourth Street um heads in a northerly direction towards
the circle at Shelley Lane. So the existing piece is kind of split into two parts and what we're looking to do is to subdivide that piece through the ANR process. Um it's going to create two separate lots for the ex each of the
existing homes which are lots one and two. And then lot three is a 15,000 square foot U proposed lot uh in excess of the 12,000 required for a single family home. And on the other side of Fourth
Street uh what we're calling lot 4 is 27,846 square ft um which has the area for a a two family duplex um there. And in our initial conversations with with Danny and the DPW, we talked about
obviously the status of the existing paper streets and the the need to improve those paper streets up to standards. Um basically the maximum feasible compliance we we can do to get those uh improved to provide access
through each of the lost frontage. And obviously lots one and two have existing frontage on Third Street which is improved. And what we've done is we're proposing improvement of the paper street uh to provide access to lots three and four. And one of the things in
that conversation was obviously we wanted to address the storm water management. So, um, we've done hydraulic analysis, prepared the drainage calculations, um, to account for the improvements to both Pine and a section of Fourth
Street, as well as to account for, uh, the storm, any storm water that comes through the existing or proposed lots. Um, you can see there's a drainage basin uh, identified on that plan. It's just
south of the the two family home on lot four. Uh we're proposing it's a it's an existing 30 foot rightway. Um and what we're proposing is a 20 foot wide traveled way. U we're going to super
elevate that that through road. Would you say 20 or 22? Would you 20? It's 20 20 foot travel way. Okay. And you're talking about Pine Street. Yes. Okay. Yep. And it I may be getting ahead, but um fourth is just going to
disappear. Uh well, a section of fourth, I mean, what we we've done is we've actually provided an emergency turnout to accommodate that movement, which at that point, you're within the rightway of Fourth Street. Thank you. A portion, a small portion of that turnaround is
actually going to be on lot four um via an easement. Thank you. Access and utility. Thank you. So, Pine Street will be super elevated to push the water in a subtly direction that there'll be curbing there. And we
we've proposed um series of catch basins to to collect that. Go to a drain manhole to a uh a storm scepter water treatment unit to to polish the water where it'll go into that um that drainage basin there where
it'll get directly infiltrated. Uh in terms of utilities, um we're looking to extend uh water, electric, gas through Third Street. There's an existing sewer easement and a sewer line that runs along kind of between
u the proposed home on lot four and Grove Pond. And uh we're looking to collect sewer from plots three and four which will tie into the existing sewer there exactly where it's shown there on the
screen. So similar to the previous one that we we did down the road on Third Street, we pulled together applications. Um, we've requested certain waiverss that just pertain to the the scale and and the nature of this project being, you know, a residential subdivision
versus a commercial site plan with parking requirements and traffic and those sorts of things. Who wants to start? Yes, Nathan. Um, question about the paper street. This is mostly um for my knowledge. Uh,
so I'll direct it to to Danny through the chair. This paper street, there's other paper streets. This paper street is at the discretion of the applicant because is it part of the parcel and it's owned by the applicant?
No. So it it is it so um it's a paper street um that is actually shown that goes through the parcel um right so they're so the way it is is they're allowed to utilize the paper streets as it's shown and build it out to use it as
donnage because it's deed in the parcel or it's part of No yeah let me pull up the GIS because it'll Mr. own he he they don't no one owns it. No one owns it. No one owns it.
They So basically since a paper street the way it works is you get to you go to the middle of it. Um legally you go to the middle of the road and technically if you want to build it out to a public way you're allowed to do that. Thank you. That's good enough for me. Thank
you. Okay. Uh second question. Oh I just wanted to comment. Um, in question, is the gas going to be connected to the homes? Is the gas gas services? Uh, is the gas service going to be what? Connected to
the homes? Uh, well, I don't know if it'll be propane or if we can actually tie into the existing gas line in Third Street. I don't know. Okay. Okay. Don't know the answer to that yet. Yeah. One of these thing is Third Street has recently been resurfaced. So,
you're not tell. Okay. There's usually a two-year moratorum on that on cutting into a road when it's newly paved. Okay. Um that would be in my opinion that would be good if it could be done. Um but we'll see. The
other uh last question is I can't read my notes. Um, I'll come back if I Okay, that's that's fair. That's fair. Anybody else? Uh, sorry. Do you mind if I No, thank
you. Um, this is we're adding three residences to a parcel that has two already. So, we're going to have five dwelling units. The um inclusionary does not it's one more, right? Six. It it yeah it
would be an a net increase of five. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. So just Brandon for just one small clarification. This line right here does
that belong there? Yeah. So that actually was added during the conservation process. So that that is the limit of the ACE which is just uh Oh okay. area of critical environmental concern. So it was pertinent to the the notice of
intent filing. Oh interesting. So it's within partially within the aquifer. You are in an aquifer as well. Yeah. Which we just didn't talk about that. Okay. So that could you make sure you label that line because it was I thought it might not
belong there. Um, so really what we've got here is a situation where we had a town street laid out a 100 plus years ago. Yes. Just for clarification, I think it was. And the street never got built on. It's been sitting there. People have been using it
as though it's a regular piece of land that they could use and now along as an opportunity arose that it can be developed. Yep. Um, the fourth street piece is not being improved like a town street. It looks like it's a driveway more or less.
That's not going to contain any utilities or anything else, right? It's simply a driveway, but you are gaining frontage for that two bed, the two family home on Fourth Street, correct? Yep. Frontage on the other house is on Pine Street, the single family house.
So, you're telling us basically that all the storm water from the new construction is being addressed in that new that new basin that you designed, correct? Yeah. Um, what about a situation where you've got stone, you know, is that an overflow prevention
system where what the basin gets overcharged and it wants to drain off? Yep. How do you treat that? Just what happens if that goes over the top of that stone? So, that's exactly what it's an emergency spillway. So, um, in terms of treatment, that happens prior to
coming to the basin as well as within the basin. So, like I said, there's there's a storm water treatment unit, um, which is that manhole that's kind of closer to where it comes into the basin. So, so that's treating the water that's coming through the system. And then you
get the obviously this the settling uh, within the basin. uh these are CLA class A soils so you know it's anticipated that you know a lot of it's going to directly recharge right within the basin but we it also there is provided an emergency spillway so
so Dan when you are done with the project and that basin is sitting there who maintains that basin is I may yeah so like one of the comments that we received from the DPW was that they were to not maintain it. So that the town
wouldn't be maintaining it. So in that case, it would then fall to the existing homeowners through like a homeowner association um where they they would have to maintain that the infrastructure as well
as the basin. So, this is kind of one of those uh questions that are uh that Matt and myself kind of had on this was I know Matt's biggest concern here was because of the proximity to the house. Um as
well as it you know it the road would eventually become you know I assume it's going to become become public. That's the intent. I it'll be built to the town standard. And then you'd want it to be accepted by the town, right? So, we would have to discuss how would
how the town how DPW would want to deal with that storm water basin because of the proximity to the house. So, uh that's something that Matt and I have discussed, but we still kind of have our reservations on how how to deal with that. Was there any
did they ask for any waiverss to landscaping? Did you ask for any waivers to landscaping? So, they did ask for waiverss for the landscape plan, uh, which we typically see on these smaller, um, projects. We usually see the waiver request for landscape plans because you don't typically see it for single family
houses. Um, they did request a waiver from the lighting plan as well as traffic. Um, but those are the typical ones we see on these smaller projects. I would not be on board with any kind of waiver on the landscape because clearly that neighbor is what,
seven feet from the lot line, something like that. Yeah, the gentleman the ones that Yep. This one right here. And so all we're talking about is putting a hay bale line down there. So I'm having a problem just figuring out I know Dan's a
pretty fancy uh excavator and whatnot, how you could even cut that and grade it in that tight area. without extra protection for that house and things like that. I mean, and it's it's really a pretty tough project. What do you mean by but the landscape plan?
Well, that'll come later to screen it. Oh, okay. I'm saying even to do it now the way it's laid out between this building and you know, you're talking about some stinking. We would need to take a close look at when we do go out to the site at in the sitewalk at how
that we how comfortable is that that work. Um, so the road is 30 ft. The rightway is existing at 30 feet. The finished road is going to be paved to 20 feet. Then you've got a foot for the concrete
burm gr not granite in this case burm. And then you know the contours are pretty pretty close already right there. So like right now right in this area right here is 241 then and that's where 241 is. You got 240 in this area. 240
239 239. So for the most up at the street level, we have 243 up here. So I mean you can see I went out there and looked and you can see it pitches away. But in any event, the clearing of the trees, the whole work that's done there is extremely close to that person. We
have to have a yes a real good assurance of how that's going to be. I don't think there trees there. There's some huge trees there. The trees start back here. I know that. But what I'm saying is it's still virtually next to the guy's house. Yep. Yep. So, we need some reassurances of how
that's going to get get handled. I mean, just taking the material in and out in the whole project is it's difficult. It's difficult. Um we yeah we would typically on that I mean our requirement would be you you know
construction fencing to make sure to show the limit of work to ensure no one's getting past that and then also erosion controls as it's shown there. So, I think we need a little more detail on that site plan. And we definitely need landscaping showing the final uh
screening, I believe, along that lot line and what's going to happen there and some kind of protection for the uh for screening because once it's gone, it's gone. I mean, there's nothing there. You mean that's my opinion anyway. Well, so screening the backyard of a landscape plan at all. We have not.
We requested a wa land. Not that we're opposed to I understand the landscape plan not being needed at the houses, but what I'm talking about because it's site plan review. I think we need to look at landscape plan for the perimeter, the
border, the buffer zone, the buffer area, the 10. Don't we normally require like a 10 foot buffer of landscape on our site plan? That that's like a distance. Yes, that's that's when you get into the commercial standards, the parking lot standards and Okay. uh
multif family standards. There's I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see a little closer review of all the steps required in site plan review them addressed individually as they're listed in our site plan review requirements a narrative on each one how we handle this
this this and just double check that it's all there before we you know let it go. That's all. So, I'm I'm looking at, you know, the site plan review regulations and it basically talks about all the requirements. Yeah. The one that's the one that's shown on our
application. I'm talking about in the in our regulations. I plan Yeah, those are shown on our application. Okay. So, 14. Yeah, that's the waiver that they requested. 14 is the one the waiver they requested. Yeah. Okay. So, I'm not on
board with that based on what I just said. Um, and my question on the utilities, are we proposing for underground electrical? Is it underground electrical? Okay. So, it's no no polls or anything going on. I'm ask Dan, you're still thinking about it. I
know. I know you're still thinking about it. That's why I'm asking the question. Yeah. Okay. So I'm thinking that we do require underground electric with site. Uh no. So typically national grid makes a determination. No no this is a
secondary don basically to the houses but either way I think we need a a more thorough review of the you need a electrical plan for what? Yeah we don't so we don't typically deal we don't the planning board does not do that. The national grid proposes a plan.
They don't. Okay. But and they won't see that for if it was if it were a subdivision. Our subdivision regulations would require an underground. We would show not subdivision. So it's correct. But I'm recommending that the planning board
condition it with underground electrical utilities just so we don't see poles going down the street. That's it may not happen. I'm just saying that. And I think you'll like it too because it looks better than having poles and overhead wires going down the street.
Anyways, that's it trees bringing down wires and stuff which is not a common thing around here. Yeah. Then you have to maintain the trees and cut them back. So I'm just looking for a little more detail on the plan and there was a section in here that I thought was required
more criteria for approval and so forth. Just double check if we need any more narratives other than just a normal discussion on the drawing. Few. They did provide a narrative. Okay, I got it. I think we might need more. That's all. Okay.
So, were we thinking of going through any of the comments this evening or is should we wait the next meeting for So, I would say that the bigger comments we'd probably want to just uh I just want to make sure that the board understands. Uh so some of my comments
the bigger ones were Yeah. Let's you want to take us through the major points? Yes. Uh number four is big. Yes. So um under under the site plan comments there is under number four under section
9.6.2D1 roots shall be cut clearly rather than pulled or ripped during uh during utility trenching. Tunneling and utility installation shall be utilized wherever feasible to protect root systems and trees. The applicant shall be required to do this within the proposed utility easement north of the
easement should be left undisturbed. So my biggest concern here is that based on what I can see is the limit of work is they're clearing everything north of this uh proposed easement which I don't think is necessary.
um anything north of that. You know, this bylaw is really to try to make sure we protect as many trees as we can and removing the trees north of that that uh uh easement doesn't really do anything.
I I they haven't had a chance to respond to them, so I don't want to put them on the spot to to make any No, I didn't want to put them on the spot, but if you had if you wanted to say something, you certainly can. No, I mean I think it's a valid comment and as you look at north of that easement there, I mean what I would recommend is we look at what there
are for specimen trees there and and obviously we can preserve those trees. Um, most of the grading that kind of covers that area is trying to create a a drainage swale just to to carry that any
of that water that's coming down um from the direction of Shelly Lane and lot three just to make sure it goes around the proposed building as opposed to, you know, up against it. And obviously we were looking to do a a
gradual um swale if you were as opposed to like a a ditch. That's that's kind of why it was elongated up up the tie the existing gra. It's pretty with all that grading you think there's a possibility that there
are some Yeah. I mean just like the whole site is that's and that's my concern based on our regulations and the requirements. You know you we're supposed to try to reduce all that grading as much as we
can. Um and just in my opinion I I feel that any of that tree clearing north of the easement is going to it's just a we're cutting down trees that I don't think is necessary.
Um they're It's the 15 ft between the lot line. Yeah. And Yeah. Just Yeah. I know. It's a It adds some sort of a buffer. Exactly. And And one of the um Butters did provide a letter to Heather
through the de through the NOI process and and they had some concerns about screening back here. And that's just I I don't want to tear down all those trees along that way. Um if if we can do as much we can to reduce how much Okay. So,
as I look at that area, and that's why, like for instance, you can see there's a twin, I think 18 inch shown, this one right here, you know, as you kind of move, you know, down the easement there, we're proposing to modify the grades by probably less than a half a foot. So, you know, it's it's not a big cut, you
know, so if there was a tree there, you we could certainly work around it. Okay. Yeah. I think and I don't know, you probably would know better, but I think on lot three there isn't that's all like almost just grass there. Yeah. Yeah, definitely up here. So, there's
the tree line right here. Next lot, a lot of that is is open area. Exactly. So, we we located most of the specimen trees. I mean, you can see Yeah, you can see them shown on here. You know, when I read that comment, I kind of looked around to see which ones we we could
work around. Certainly like that that cherry up in the back potentially, but you know, we should probably go look at those. And yeah, and I mean, you made a comment. This is still still before cons conservation also, right? Because when I
read the letter, I was just trying to figure out what this get where we were in that process. Still before it's still okay. Yeah. Um if I may, Mr. Chair, that's a quick question. Just in looking at Pine Street, the expectation is the runoff from lot
three and lot three is going to go to Pine Street and then run down and then back up I'm going to say call it northwest into the storm. Yeah. So, you're going to capture everything there. This way. It's going to go down this way. It's all It's going to sheet this
way. End up on Pine. It's going to Pine Street. It's going to the the front. That's one to the left. Also, the far right. So, both of those are going to drain into the storm sector. Yep. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Quick
question. We could even bookmark this for later. You mentioned Danny. I meant the other four in miscellaneous. Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Oh, yes. Yes. So, that's another one, but I I have an answer for that one. Legal. Well, let me give you the question, just
so it's on the record. Yeah. Why is law suit legal? Yes. So, under our bylaws, under section five, um, actually it's under section six. So under section six of our bylaw uh 6.3 F um division of developed lots any
lot on which more than one house existed at the time of the adoption of this bylaw may be divided and sold to separate owners and used as follows. For each that such lot is less than 75 ft wide. One foot may be deducted from the
sum of the width of the required two yards provided that the buildable width uh needed not be reduced to less than 30 ft and further provided no sideyard shall be less than six feet. So this is
a similar occasion in which uh the sanding property with those two houses that were on the same lot they were allowed to se anr those into two separate lots. That's the same uh determination here from the building commissioner.
So it's done through the ANR, but it's what they call an 81L to separate two existing residences. Okay. If they were in existence before zoning. Yeah, before zoning. And our zoning went into place
in 1972, I believe. Okay. Is there anything else we can discuss this evening? Um, obviously the biggest one of the bigger questions was uh is this going to be a public or private and the applicant has determined that they're going to do
uh public with the road? Yes. Okay. Um, and yeah, the other questions are pretty st uh, you know, some minor storm water questions that I had uh um that the applicant once they address it and Matt has a chance to review it um then
it should be fine. Um, I know they have D they still have to deal with D comments that they need to address through the NOI process which I provided here on for the um for everyone to see. um conservation had some comments and uh
the DPW had comments. So, okay, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Who is the authority to make a decision on the storm water basin? Um so, on ownership of the storm water
basin. Yeah. So I would talk with the DPW to make a deter, you know, and ask them on their what their preference would be and then at that point I would let the board know what the preference of the DPW is and then the board would
make a final determination. Okay. So uh can we should we wrap this up for this evening? I just want to any further comments from the board. I want to one moment please. Yes. I'd like to open up for public comment specifically on this
particular project. Yes. Would you like to step up? Yeah. Thank you, Lauren. Hearing um question of clarification first, which is I don't understand where the driveways are for these two homes. Could you just point them out for us? So, uh one driveway is here coming off of Pine
Street. Okay. And then the other one is coming down here. It's I'm not seeing that one very well, but yeah. So you see this dash line see the line that's the that's the outline of the pavement. All right. So that's a large amount of
imperous layers. Okay. So um I wanted to point out that DPW did clearly state that they will not maintain that retention pond and so that has to be worked out and then noticing that um the retention pond is also very close to
Grove Pond. We are working hard to protect Rogue Pond and I would be concerned about all the runoff um and whatever is on the roads going um getting into the ponds um especially considering this is both a drinking water source. It's a zone two for the
grow pond wells and as you pointed out it does infringe a little bit on the ACE and I'm wondering if that line is accurate. I don't know how that's determined exactly but somebody here might know a little more about ACE and the protection of it. There's a little bit of what you're sketching out here
that's right in the ACE and that's of concern and I agree with what um Mr. Diskin said about being concerned about the neighbors and the impact on them. I'm assuming they're already been notified. Yep. Um that's really close to somebody
else's home. So, um, very sensitive area that you're proposing to develop in, um, a lot of impervious soil and what's going to be happening with that retention plant because DPW said clearly they will not take it on.
So, yeah. So, um, uh, I had a conversation with Matt after the letter. Um, it they weren't sure what the if whether it was going to be private or public. That was the main concern why. um they they may be open to um actually
uh maintaining it or not or um but we uh we have to really discuss that further. So that is a concern that needs to be addressed. Um in terms of the ACE and the um proximity to to grow pond that goes through conservation they'll they're the um because that's within the
buffer. Uh so that falls within their jurisdiction. Who who manages the AC? That's no that's that's a stateaterun entity and ACE just uh there's certain triggers of uh for
ACEC's like so if you're doing based on this what I see here um they they wouldn't uh they would be exempt from this I believe because single family homes yeah single family homes are exempt I think you think we're looking for continuation yeah um oh there's a
comment back Yep I'm sorry I didn't see Maybe one more question. That's my national street. Um, a couple of things that I would like the board and the developer to consider or the applicants to consider. Um, perfect for the storm water. I think it's really important
that the basin and the design be pulled out of the 100 foot buffer area which is also coincident with the ACC boundary is my understanding. I presume that there was a delineation of wetlands done specifically for this project in this vicinity. I just want clarification on that.
Heather, can Heather? Yes. Can I ask you, do you know if they did a a wetland delineation, correct? Under your NOI, it's in the middle of it. Yes, they they did the the delineation for the NOI for that. And the commission did do a site visit. The the question of the ACC came
out of D's comments. The commission has not met and discussed that 100% prior since then. So, we'll we'll bring that up when we have our meeting on the 12th. I did look up just to confirm that the ACC delineation is 100 foot buffer stone line. So it's coincident with the 100
foot buffer to grow pond in the wetlands that are adjacent to there. Um there seems to be lots of opportunities to treat storm water in other factions rather than expanding the basin to have to bump into the 100 foot buffer and
AC/DC area. So I'd really like to be revised and adjusted. There's lots opportunities as I understand soils were conducive for it that there could be underground infiltration. Um I also think that the overflow to the buffer zone in the ACC
is is not appropriate and so I just would like them to confirm that there is no increase in rate of flow for any of the design storms in the modeling because that you know would be inconsistent with DP regulations. And I also heard mention of sheep flow going
to Pine Street which also would be inconsistent with D regulations. So you know I really think that we need to closely look at the the modeling that's being performed to make sure that there's no net increases in any of those design storm
um you know uh any flow going off the property that would increase from existing conditions. Um along those lines, anything that can be done to reduce the impervious area would be greatly appreciated. I think that reducing the width of Pine Street itself, also the driveways and things
like that, but I'd really like the DPW and public safety team to consider reduction in width of the roadway and the addition of the sidewalk. You certainly need to maintain emergency vehicle access, but you could, you know, reduce the roadway of the system in a
lot of towns in, you know, very sensitive areas. And again, you know, the addition of a sidewalk there in combination with road rate with reduction, I think would be great. You could keep the sidewalk delineate in a different fashion because we don't anticipate that much traffic here in a
way that it would be kind of at the same grade so that an emergency vehicle could pass on the sidewalk to be able to do it. emergency vehicle turning. Um I also definitely want to reiterate the tree protection plan would be very
important. Reducing the amount of of grading that you could do here would be very important. And then certainly having a robust landscape plan again because we are right next to an impaired water body in an offer adjacent to an I hoping that all the disturbance gets out
of the wetland buffer in the ACC but you'll still be adjacent to it. Um you know so that is all very important as well as considering invasive species control because we do have a lot of invasives um you know in the pond area. I think the only other question I had
was whether or not town council has weighed in on the paper road and ANR um appropriateness for the project. Uh can you repeat that last one? What did you say? whether or not town council has weighed in on the questions related
to the paper street approvals and um the ANR allowances. ANR allowances. I'm not sure what you mean by that. That you were talking the way that you were referencing the ability for them to separate the lot. That's that's illegal. That's a state
law. That's a state law. It's already complies with that. That's 81. Um it no question on the NR motion to continue for continuance. I have one more comment. You do? Okay. Sorry. If you don't mind, Dean and
Heather. So on the notes from Yep. Could the second paragraph where it talks about being says discharge is near the critical area required to demonstrate compliance with standard six. Could you get that for me
that for the what standard six is so we have a way to rationalize that as a landing board? I don't know what it is but it must be one of their standards. Yeah, it's a storm water standards. It's a town storm water standard. Towns. No. State state.
Have a clear understanding what that is. Okay. Thank you. Y sir. Um your name, sir. Michael Go. Um just for clarification about this ACE or whatever. You said something about they don't cover single family homes. Who
Who's they again? It's Oh, I said they're exempt. Exempt because a single family home. That's a two family home there in that area. Single and D single and duplex. Okay. Okay. Cool. Just want to clarify that. Thank you. They're
they're exempt from filing. So they don't have to file an ENF, but they're not exempt from consideration of the impact to an ACDC. Right. That that calls outside. I would ask Mr. Mr. Chair, would it be
beneficial to do a sidewalk on this property earlier versus No, eventually. Okay. If we're going to do a continuation, can we handle sidewalk before we handle a continuation? Yeah, we should look at the dates of when you guys would like to do generally Thursday mornings at 8 or 10
have been successful. Yeah, that seems to be the unofficial. Yeah. So, I would suggest So, our next hearing is June 10th. I would suggest possibly I mean I I can't make this
Thursday, but I could we could do the fifth. I can't make the fifth. So, if the board wants to do it without me, that's that's okay. I can I can ask Heather if she can go along with the board as well.
I cannot make the fifth. Okay. The following week the following week which is the the the following week which will be the 12th. That's after our next hearing. Are you going to stake the storm water basin? We can request that if that's what the board would like. We will do
that. Stake the storm water basin. Sure. It actually is. It should be state but but I'll make sure just because we had a sidewalk con. So do you is suggest another alter an alternative um Ken to the 5th. I'm suggesting the 12th but that's up to everybody else. Is it is
the 29th out for you? I'm I'm away till the 7th. Okay. Oh, that's right. Of course. Oh, okay. That's right. Does it have to be a Thursday? We do the morning. It doesn't have to be a Thursday. It can be whatever. Morning or 10.
Yeah. What's what day does the 9th land on? The 9th is on a Monday. Oh, okay. Okay. Monday, June 9th at 8:00. So, Kathleen could do Tuesday the 10th. She can't do the 9th. I know we can't game for perfection here, but I want to
voice that. Tuesday morning. The 10th works. 10th works. Okay, great. That's good. 8 a.m. on the 10th. Yeah, 8 a.m. on the 10th. Hey, we can get stuff done. Make sure I get my dates. Yeah, I'll have it posted. And the meeting is also on the meeting.
Yes. And then the meeting is also on attend that night. Get a lot of us that day. Okay. So, I'll I'll get that agenda posted. No, I appreciate that. I think it'll be helpful to put eyes on it. Okay. I do I do I agree. Sounds good
with that. The commission doesn't mean to get into the 12th. So any comments or questions that the board may have that the commission would need to address will not be done until after the 12. Okay. With that I would move to continue the
hearing. 15 pine street map 34 lot 129 applications 9.6 permit to the planning board meeting on June 10th. Seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Ken yes.
Julie. Yes. Nathan. Hi. Jeff. Hi. chair votes eye. Great. So, we'll see you again next week. Thank you. And now we need to open for the [Music] Yep. Let me Well, we'll get through what we can get
through. All right. So, yes, we need to open the public hearing for the special motion. I'll make a mo Oh, go ahead. You do it, Jeeoff. You're so good. To reopen the hearing high street. No, motion to It's a new one. Oh, I'm
sorry. Move to Yeah. Yes, I was looking at Thank you. Move to open a hearing. Zero high street and 38 road 28 415 and 89 special permit. Read the whole thing. Applicants
linking developers proposal. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow for a density bonus in the proposed 55 unit open space residential development known as Lincoln. Okay, great. Do I have a second? Seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none.
Ken I. Julie, yes. Uh, Nathan, I hi. Chair votes I. May I ask to point the order chair? Please do. You also want to open the site review at the same time. So, it's it's an already open public hearing. So, we're going to we're
joining them together. Okay. So, we will be able to discuss both items at the same time. Yes, we can. Yes. I just wanted to clear on and then when we do a continuence, it'll be for both, right? Just like we did with Shredden Hill. I understand. I just want everybody on the same page. How many months did we do that?
So, but it was a win at the end. So, now that we open these up, Danny, can you can you are explain to us what we can get through this evening? So, this evening, what are we going to focus on? Yes. With this? So, um on the agenda, um
we have the special permit for the density bonuses. So, we'll be able we'll discuss those. There's also an update on the storm water peer review. There's the traffic peerreview discussion and the department head review comments and applicant responses. Okay. I my
preference would be to first take the traffic peerreview discussion. Okay. Um we have Amy Allen who's on as well from uh Green International um to help to discuss the uh comments and the
responses from the applicant. So, I I I would turn it over to uh Amy right now. Yeah. Danny, did you want me to go through all of the comments or or just the ones that we got responses for? Um I
would say let's go through all of the comments. It's not too It's not fairly long. Um that's fine. It's totally fine. I just wasn't sure how in depth we wanted to go. Um yeah, so our our first
three comments um were kind of just concurring with a few things. The general methodology, existing conditions, and crash data. We had we had no comments on those. We concurred with all of that information. Um the next one was that there was a
proposed development identified near the project site at 91 GR Harvard Road and the traffic study said that basically the traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by the new site would be similar to those generated by the existing site. So no volumes were added
for that. So, we just asked for some backup for this assumption just to make sure that we were in agreement and they uh applicant did provide a comment from the site plan review that basically stated that the town was in agreement that um that would not be a significant generator of traffic. So, we're all set
with that one. Um the next few so we we agreed with the methodology for the background growth. We agreed with the trip generation which um was 416 daily trips, 26 trips during
the AM peak hour, 34 during the PM peak hour. So we agree with that methodology and and those estimations. Um we agree also with the way that the trips were distributed based on the census data that is typical for a residential development. You you'd look at basically the journey to work
data where most people who live in air are working and then assign trips to the roadway that way. And that is what they did. and we concurred with that methodology. Um and then the other the next thing was the operational analysis. So because it
was uh relatively low volume, we agree that you we don't expect to see much of an increase in delay associated with these trips, it came out, you know, if you look at 34 trips during the PM peak hour, that's about one car every two minutes. So it's not really expected to
add any delay at those intersections that they'd be passing through. Um the next was the site distance. So we went out and we verified that the um minimum sight distance was available at the intersection of High Street and Winthrop a and we found that the stopping site
distance was available. Um a desirable intersection site distance was lacking in one direction but they are proposing to add stop control at that intersection under the proposed conditions. So that should um mitigate the um the lack of
sight distance, desirable sight distance on the one approach. We asked the question about how trash pickup would operate during the site. We we weren't sure if there were going to be, you know, like a separate dumpster pickup area, but they responded that there's going to be
individual roll out containers at each unit. So I guess the trash truck will just circulate through and pick them up at each unit. Um there won't be like a central dumpster that it needs to back into or anything.
Um our next comment was we wanted to see a plan showing the pedestrian crosswalks and signs within the site for review. Um they did provide that plan to us and we had we had a couple additional comments on that. We we thought there was a good opportunity to add one more crosswalk.
And then we would also like to see stop bars and stop signs at the the internal sections internal to the site just to make it clear who needs to stop for who and yield for who. So um that's one revision that we would like to see. We also asked that they show the ADA
accessible parking spaces. And I understand that there there was no requirement on this one because there were not any like large parking lots within the site, but they did show provide a plan showing one accessible parking space. Um, another comment we had, this was
kind of a general comment about how the traffic accessing this site is going to be passing through the um assisted living parking lot. that we wanted to just make sure that there were signs or markings or something to make that um as safe as possible. Um they did respond
and said that there was some agreement being worked out with that facility to construct additional parking in a different area on their site to eliminate that conflict. So I guess that satisfies us at this point. Although although we would be happy to take a look at that plan in the future to make
sure that we are in agreement with it. Um, can I may I ask a question? Yeah. Yeah, of course. While you're on that entrance at High Street, what do you think about that turning radiance and and the the the proximity to the building there and
just the tightness of that turn as the major really the the point of entrance and egress to the site? Do you see any issues with that? So, I did see they did provide the provide the turning
movements at some point. I'll need to look look back. I can't find it in this plan set, but I I thought I had seen some some turning movements that showed that the heavy vehicles are able to access that, but I'll I'll double check that and if if I can't find it, I'll I'll request it
again. All right. Thank you. Yeah, no problem. Um, okay. The next one, um, we do agree that the intersection of High Street and Winthrop Street, it would be beneficial to provide stop control at that
intersection. Um, we also think that because you'd be introducing a new stop condition that doesn't exist today, it would be helpful to put some stop ahead signs in advance of the intersection just to warn drivers that there's um, that they need to start slowing down and stopping. Um, we do think that this
should should be made a condition of approval. We think it's it's pretty important to accessing the site. Um, can you hold on because that recommendation 13 she's talking about? Or maybe that was 14. That's 14. Did we
Did we thoroughly cover 13 the recommendations in the response? Yeah. So, I mentioned that when that it seems that there's an agreement that would be taking place to to relocate some of the existing parking. We it
doesn't sound like there's any plan yet showing that. So, um I guess until there's a a plan available, um we we can't really comment further on this one. Amy, we 13 here.
213 typo. Sorry. Oh, sorry. I numbered on the one I'm looking at. Sorry. Yeah, we numbered it. Oh, I get it. 213 on mine. I'm wondering what you're talking about. There's two. That's a whole mess on the the applicants response there. There is a there's two. So, the um green
this one up here, the one that I sent you guys just what we got earlier um has it fixed. So, yeah. So, she inserted an 11A. Is what you're saying? That's her newest comment.
11A is the newest comment based on the the newest site plan. Can I see which this is? Yeah, that's that's what I saw. You know, you're talking about talking about offsite with the granite curb and stuff like that. Offsite marking in the show the second
13. Oh my god. We haven't gotten to that. I didn't think she commented that. Yeah, because we haven't gotten 50. Yeah, that's Yeah, we haven't gotten to that. So, what number is that? So that's 15. It's 15 on the update. This is this is what we're going off of right now. That's okay, Ken.
All right, cool. It's right up here if So let's go back to 13. Yes. Okay, this this what actually I'm reading is Vanessa's Yeah, that's Vanessa and Associates's um response including their response. Yes, we just received these
today um from from uh Green. So I on mine I'm only on like 12. Yeah. So we're we're on right now we're on 13 no 14 on on greens which is and and the win
green concurs that the high street westbound approach and win street southbound approach should be placed I got it. Yeah. Okay. That's where we are in this one. All right. Yeah. Just finished that one and they were um agreeable to that. So, and and
just on that quickly, the um applicant did provide me with a uh plan for the uh new parking lot um that I can I can send over to uh to Amy and I can also send those out to the board. Technically,
it's not part of this application. It would be its own separate site plan application, which they would still need to come before the planning board. So, but uh I can get that information over to the board members as well as to uh Green. But it's solving the problem of the parking and on the southernly side
of the building. That is correct. Got it. Okay. Or it's changing it's a solution to the problem of the current parking on the south side of the building. Okay. Good. Thank you. Okay. So, the new 15 which is your 13. My god. Yes. The next one that the
traffic study had stated that a crosswalk would be placed on the west leg of the intersection of High Street and Winthrop. Um we did not agree that it should go on the west side. We thought it should go on the east leg actually and and I'm not sure maybe it
was a typo in the original report. Um and then we also think that along the frontage of the assisted living facility, there's kind of a sidewalk but not there's like a flush area. When I when I was out on site, there were vehicles parked on it. So, just in just
to um you know, formally establish that pedestrian connection, it would be nice to have a raised sidewalk with a vertical curb along there. So, a crosswalk across that east leg and then sidewalk continuing north from there and tying into the existing
sidewalk that I think starts at the next property to the north. Anyway, so for clarification, this will require a separate drawing obviously approved by DPW and the whole work showing the construction method, the type of material builders. Yes. Yeah. So, we uh
Matt and myself met with uh the applicants out on out there last week and we just we we did go through that as well and we did discuss um if I can just have Matt come up on this one just to um gonna decline.
explained. I have to put the plan up. So, yeah. Yeah. Or put up the GIS drawing or something so we so we haven't we we know what we're talking about. Yes. East a little bit. Hello. Good to see you. Good to see you,
too. So the area that she's talking about for the the it's kind of like a small raised asphalt sidewalk. It's maybe raised an inch not suitable. No. Yeah. So that's
and that did come up during our discussion. So they uh Matt, if you want to just kind of touch on what was uh what we discussed. Sure. Um, so basically that little tiny half sidewalk um in front of the VA that would be a
formal sidewalk, the town standards. Um, and that would run along the whole frontage of the assisted living facility, that new sidewalk. Um, and right where your mouse is, Danny, um, there would be a crosswalk going across from there to the
south side of the road. Um I think so DBW put in a sidewalk a couple years ago. I'm not sure if this area right here. Yeah, it's shown right there. Um so that would be a formal sidewalk connection. Um and I think that's a
pretty reasonable um request to have that a condition of approval for this project. And depending on what happens, if there's a movement of those parking lot parking spaces, the sidewalk will go to the end. Yeah, it all depends on what happens to those
parking spaces. Yeah, exactly. So, it's a little bit unknown at this point, but the east leg is right there. So, it continues down and across here and then across down here on the east side connecting. Yeah. And exactly. It would connect to here. And based on our discussion out on
the site, you know, these parking spaces would potentially stay and then all these would be removed and that would be where a docking a dock station, you know, it'd be striped for them to pull off their trucks and uh unload their their uh trucks, whatever they bring in.
Yeah, because they also have dumpster areas back there and some other things. Yeah, they do have that right here. So, it's just just remove the conflict from that area in one one one form or another. Yeah. And it would be proposed uh based on the plan it would connect off of this and in this area where this
is the flattest area. We'll see. I mean I know this is somewhat related to traffic but DPW is working with them for the redesign of the high street from Winthrop to the project to build it to
town standards. Yeah, we would basically review the plan and just make sure they haven't given us a plan for that. What's that? They have not given us a plan for that yet. Correct. No plan yet. Cuz you you can see the alignment of the
high street on the left is not aligned with the driveway on the right. You mean the sidewalk and everything else? You mean right here? Yeah. So, we did discuss about this um potentially being able to add add Yeah. add the sidewalk here as a connectivity to go down here
since there is the space. Um it would work, but we have an expectation that we're going to receive a plan from the applicant for that distance from the intersection to the entrance to their property. Right. Yeah, we would we would need that or we could it would we either need it
now or condition it. Okay. Thank you. Just to follow Mr.'s comment um in looking at the plans internally, are there sidewalks in front of plans? Yes. Okay. Yep. There's one There's one sidewalk. I I can I think there's one on one side of the road, not both sides of
the road. No, just on one side if I recall. Yep, that is correct. Let's hope that they connect. Let me just uh pull them up in the new tab. While that's loading, we can keep going. Yeah, let's just go back to the other
comments. Still loading. So, yeah, we can go back to these comments. We can come back. So, I think we're at 15. Uh, we just finished 15. Yeah. Yep. So, the next one is number 16. Okay. So, this one, it might be helpful
to actually go back to that GIS map you were looking at for this one. Um, so about 300 ft to the west. So, just off of Yeah, 300 feet to the west, we noticed that there were existing curb ramps, but there's no actually marked
crosswalk there. So, we were just um There it is. That's the one. Yeah. So, we were just recommending that the applicant um make that a formalized crosswalk. And I'm I'm not sure maybe there was there one at some point or something, but it was not there when we
were out there. Um they did agree to that to install a crosswalk at that location. When you talk about installing a crosswalk, you're just talking about striping it, right? Yeah. Yeah. You're not Yeah. There's an existing sidewalk that runs along here and then it's just
a matter of striping the street. Yeah. Okay. It's not much. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thanks. So, the next comment we um we're basically looking at what the pedestrian pathway between the site and the
downtown area would be. And um we our comment was that the applicant should consider making like filling sidewalk gaps along that route to downtown. They did and we were suggesting between the site and Colombia Street because there
seemed to be pretty consistent sidewalks once you got to Columbia Street that led to downtown into the MBTA station. This one we got some push back from from the applicant on. They said that it would be a disproportionate to the impact of the
project. Um, so this one may require a bit of discussion, but we were we went back and we took a closer look at it and we found that there's it's pretty much continuous sidewalk along that route except for about 400 ft which is along
Home Street and then a bit of William Street. Yeah. So that Home Street there that kind of goes north to south and then just a little bit of William Street to the west is missing sidewalk. And then besides that, there is already sidewalk continuously to Columbia
Street. So, um, we were going to kind of defer to the board on this one on whether you would like the applicant to to attempt to fill in the sidewalk gap or if you if you think that's disproportionate to the project's impact. I just left it as discuss.
Yeah. I'm not sure if there hadn't been any conversations with the applicant about this. No. Um, no, there hadn't. Okay. Well, we we did briefly discuss this when we were out on site. Um,
uh, we did talk about cuz I think it was this area, right? Yeah. Right here. Yeah, it's right here. I think we did discuss this, didn't we? We we we spoke about it. Um, yeah. So yeah, we we basically landed that
this would be um you know referred to the board, you know, for further discussion, but I do know in the just kind of off topic in the um going way back to the development impact statement, they did show clearly that pedestrians would travel, you know, down
High Street, down Home Street, William Street, Columbia Street to downtown. So, um I guess there's a question whether or not filling in a sidewalk gap would be relevant to the project, but it is shown in that impact statement. So,
yeah, we were thinking, especially given that there's a train station there that if anyone wanted to access the commuter rail, there should be a continuous pedestrian route. I don't know if the board wants to discuss this now or I don't I'd rather
wait. Yeah, wait. Yeah, let's So, this is a new comment or Well, no, this is So, the applicant has not responded to these comments. So, if the board wants to discuss these at the next meeting, is there one more? Yeah, there's a there's a couple more comments. I'm just I just
mean specifically this one. Uh we can talk about this at the next meeting when they when the applicants had a chance to respond, right? because the applicant has not had a chance. We just want everyone to understand. Okay. Yeah. Can you summarize what the issue is? Electric vehicles. No, no, just the one that we were just discussing. Oh, yes.
Haven't got there yet, Nathan. I agree. Okay. Oh, yep. Um Yeah. And then and then our last comment was just regarding providing electric vehicle charging stations or bicycle racks. We just wanted them to consider it. We didn't want it to be required. Um, but they
replied that basically the electric vehicle charging stations, it would it would kind of be up to the individual homeowners if they wanted to install them in their own garages, which I think is is reasonable. And then they had a similar response that most homeowners will probably store bicycles within
their garages, but that they're open to adding bicycle racks. So, our response here was um we're in agreement about the electric electric vehicle charging stations, but we still do think that it would be nice to have some bicycle racks um maybe in in some of the like communal
parking areas or something just for for visitors or anyone who wanted to bike to the bike to see someone there and not park in their garage. It seems like a kind of a small expense. So, um, yeah, that that was it for our
reviews. So, as you can see, the three highlighted in yellow, those are the newest responses that I just added to their responses today. And so, they haven't had a chance to respond to those three yet. All right. um board. Yeah. In terms of we'll talk
about the open stuff at the next comment at the next meeting when you have a chance to respond. Yeah. I just wanted to see if the board has any questions for Amy based on the discussion right now. I don't think I I Yes. Go ahead Nathan. Um, you
mentioned 413 daily 416 416 daily trips. What What percentage are heading down Colombia to Route Two?
Let me double check what they had for percentages. Um, yeah, they do have a figure showing the trip distribution. I'm just trying to pull it up. Um, oh, page
19. You can see their percentages on 19. So, what Yeah, it's kind of hard with these comment bubbles, but which route were you asking about? I can read the percentage. Yeah, basically traffic's going to go north towards Grten or south
towards Route Two. Correct. So they had south to Main Street. What's going south to Main Street? There you go. There you go. This is it right here. So to down to Main Street, 72% if you add the two together,
the 64 and the eight. Okay, makes sense. I mean, you'd expect commuters to be heading towards the circle and out of town. Yeah. And again, this was this was based on the census data, the journey to work data, which we did verify.
Interesting. How deep do we want to get on this, Mr. Chair? Like, this is this is a big concern of mine is is Colombia right here. Right out the window. Oh, yeah. Um I I come down Central. My commute every day is down Central. And
um more and more I have to be sure to make to look for traffic coming down Colombia. There's going to be more. Yeah. And then I predict that there'll be a light here within 10 years and this will be a a contribution to
that. Uh but I think that's the you know basically two threequarters of the traffic is coming to Main Street. I I think that's that's worth
thinking about. I think it's even more important when you add the 17% that are potentially going to take a left turn here. So then you're really saying that it's Yeah. 64 72 that's 89%.
Yeah. So So yeah, 17% the other way around. It's 11%. So 11% 11% doesn't go down these streets. Correct. Goes the other way. Well, 89% goes down the street. Yeah. I think that's significant. Mhm. But is it significant or is it undo you
know it do you do you see any safety issues with that level of traffic? I mean because when we get what I noticed about all your comments is that you seem to be in agreement with the initial assessment regarding safety and traffic and I just want to get an assessment from you about your comfort then it seems that you seem comfortable
with the level of safety with the traffic numbers that have been provided. Yeah. Well, we are we are comfortable with the the methodology that they used and the numbers that they're showing for the peak hours. Um you can see most of our comments focused on some additional
mitigation for for things like the safety and and pedestrian trips and things like that. But um yeah, the methodology was sound though. We couldn't find any fault in in the in the numbers. Oh, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. If I can just
add one thing. Please do. So, I know a lot of the public knows about the town's plans to upgrade Main Street in a couple years. So, we do have um right now we're only at the 25% design stage, but we have done like a
very thorough traffic study that includes that intersection. Um so, I guess what I can do is basically share these numbers with our consultant just to see if anything comes up um through that intersection level of service gets
worse. I think that's a or changes, right? It could change, but I just want to make sure there we would never I don't think we'll ever hit the number for traffic light there. Just just just so you know. It's a it's a it's a very very large number. So it is okay.
Empirically um being a resident next to the atria train crossing at Harvard Road. Yep. throughout the day. That generates a lot of pressure on this intersection. Now, nobody in our neighborhood goes straight
anymore. They just come. We all come down here to take a left, to take a left, or a right. So, I have a feeling that um and I don't know if the train is it outside the scope the train traffic, but um I don't know if anybody
else who lives near the train tracks has recognized in the evening how often the train whistle goes now. almost every 10 to 15 minutes. It's the train traffic is moving up and this is the busiest from what I've been told um with the train
people I hang out with on the real trail stuff I do. This is the largest busiest train yard north of Baltimore and it's still serving New York and Boston and in Portland.
So I just it has an impact because that road becomes impassible. I'm going to guess a couple a couple hours a day due to train traffic aggregate. Just to go back to Matt, um you're basically indicating that you'd be okay with taking this number of
cars and adding it to the study that's been done for the downtown area. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any com more comments from the board about the traffic report? I actually because I, you know, I go that
way a a lot. Um, the street that's right there. Yep. Um, I use it all the time. I actually think because I understand significance and traffic studies and how many of these trips sound like big numbers but maybe don't warn a light but a part of me feels like those extra cars
help like because I think sometimes for me it's having been 10 years going to visit my dear friend that way. I I don't expect cars when I'm coming to take a turn onto this road and get to Main Street. And I'm sorry I'm pointing
to the road, but but the more that I'm seeing people frequently come down into town from that route, like as we're pointing at the numbers on that form, um I I think almost a little bit of increase in that helps the traffic in a
weird way. But I just wanted to say that because am I wrong to does that land funny to I I Mr. Chair? Yes. Um when we when we did our sidewalk and I'll save my comments on the sidewalk, but coming leaving the
sidewalk, um High Street is a bit of a roller coaster through the uh the water way there. Um certainly pedestrian crossing hopefully would help meter that a little bit and more more cars. Yeah. Um I know that high homes intersection
you cannot have two cars passing on high homes uh even on to to Williams. So these are pre-existing conditions. I think somewhere between my opinion somewhere between the application and the DPW, but I I would
uh suggest to at the very least the DPW um as as you and maybe you already have look at look at those intersections, those streets um because this will if if if we do get 416 more uh
trips, this will um impact that High Holmes, Williams, Columbia, uh, all those roads may need to be improved. Could you put the GIS back up there? This just dawned on me
regarding the design. So, Matt, I was going to ask you on um, those rightways. William Street clearly looks like it's a wider rightway. It could be a 40 foot rightway. Do you know the width of those rightways? homes in in high street homes in where
high street comes in. In other words, is home is homes have to be narrower in its existing condition. Therefore, more difficult to rebuild. I see what you're saying. Probably a 30foot right away is what I I mean, just based on what I can see there, which would be an unus.
Yeah. and the and the coming down homes to Williams. You can't see a thing because that house is in the way. Yeah, this one right here. No, coming down to the bottom. Oh, down here. Yeah, because of this one. I've been startled multiple times on on that intersection.
So, could we just ask M to at the next meeting just give us an idea of the those rightways and absolutely what the chances are that maybe DPW could help design a better way to get around those corners. Um, would you like a concept plan or or something? Just simple.
Something simple. Just Yeah. And there's often cars parked on both sides of that. Yeah. As you can see right here, the second house going up 262-254. I believe it always has cars parked on the curb in front of it. Did Green look at any of that like the parking along the road situation and all
how that could impact turning radiuses and traffic and stuff? Maybe there should be no parking. Yeah, we we didn't we didn't analyze along along the route between the site and the downtown. We could take a look at it if you'd like though for the next review next round.
Yeah, I'm just thinking the pinch point looks like it's right there. Yeah. Yeah, it's definitely the toughest. I mean, driving up there, it's definitely the the toughest one cuz it's the smallest definitely the smallest portion of the of the area, the tightest area, especially with the cars that are parked here. Um it's it's definitely and
especially like up here too. like this is used as a driveway. They park up here all the time. So definitely more the it's the it's the most congested area and actually and yeah and I think to also to our suggestion to add a sidewalk here. I think you would you would
basically eliminate the ability for on street parking if you had a formalized sidewalk there with a vertical curb. So that that could give you a bit of a um traffic calming effect as well. And if you could expand it just to include the turn on the Lincoln Street because
that's also it's but High Street is more looks like a wider thorough maybe. But I believe Lincoln is also a narrow street. The next the one that's just off to the upper corner. Mhm. I think Lincoln is also a narrower street. Yeah, Lincoln. Yeah, I think Lincoln and Holmes are
almost the same layout. A lot of these are I and Williams are are the same. Lincoln homes are Yeah, a lot of these were put in during the same subdivision. A lot of, you know, so a lot of these were some of these are like the Lincoln Street homes or there's there's an Adams
Road here, Paper Street, Norwood A like Exactly. There's a bunch of those but that but that the Williams to Homes to High Lincoln feeds that upper Yep. Watch out west neighborhood and stuff like that. on the backside from Colombia.
Interesting. It's the way to get up in there. One one last just quick is is there um what percentage does is this development to exist? Do we know that or or could you have that for us next time? When you when you're going to
fold this in Matt to to your your master plan, what percentage does this add? 1% 10%. Yeah. You mean in this area or are you talking about at this this section? What does the development add to traffic today? 86% of the traffic goes this way. How many street? Sure. What if you So if
you've already got uh 700 car trips a day going down here, I think what you're asking is how much does it additional impact to that you So you have already got this this number, right? Yes. From to Main Street. I know we have numbers at Central Abs in Colombia as part of
that study. I'm not sure if it's if it goes up. yet sort out. So what you're asking Nathan is I think he's whatever number he has here now and you add the do count what's that? So you had 380 390 trips is that 1% 10% 50%. Got it. Um I can have that for next meeting as well
as um just any recommendations on on home streeter concept. Thank you. It would be horrible to make homes make it worse. Go ahead. Yeah, we have a lot of agenda items to go. So I hate to rush. I want to give everyone a chance to
discuss this. So, are there any further from the board itself? Any further questions or comments that traffic stud? Yep, I will. Okay. Hearing none. Does the public have any questions or comments regarding the traffic comp? Yes. Come on up. I'm truly far into it.
I live a Can come up. Can you please come up? Uh, just so that people on Zoom can hear you and the recordings can hear you and us. Yes. And and and us. Okay. Uh, I'm Truly Ken. I live on Bena Court and um I have a problem driving on
High Street where where you go down that dip and up the other side at night because when you're coming down your headlights are pointed right at the dip and you can't see very much the what's at beyond that is really very badly lit.
So, I'm wondering if anybody has taken that into consideration or thought about adding street lighting or something like that. Or if somebody's actually gone and looked at what it's like there at night.
Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I believe there was another question. Okay. And for example, one win avenue on the house with the different colored rocks in front of it. right next to
uh assisted living. Um you probably know that there are a huge number of walkers in our neighborhood. Not only the people that live at the assisted living, but lots of dog walkers. People love that neighborhood. It's quiet.
Great. Um, it 416 new car trips a day is going to have an incredible impact on the larger neighborhood. We're talking about the other streets that that feed up to High Street. I don't
know if you're taking that into consideration, but I think it's it's going to have a really negative impact on the neighborhood, on the quality of life if you um uh believe in those kinds of things
these days. So, I hope you do take that into serious consideration. Um the other thing that I want to say, I want to respectfully disagree with Mr. Tillitson. Uh you mentioned that the um parking that there was a solution for the parking on the
other side of the assisted living facility. It's not a solution. You're just moving the problem over to Pardon. I I got it, Julie. Thank you. Please go continue. You're the the problem is still existing. It's going to affect a
lot more neighbors. There are four neighbors that abut Webster Avenue, which is another paper street. Um that's right next to my um property as well as three other of my
neighbors. So, please don't believe that it's a solution. There's just going to be more traffic on that little paper road. Okay. Thank you, Lori. Oh. Oh, I believe there was someone. All
right, go ahead. And remember, let's let's keep the comments and questions related to traffic. Yeah, thank you. It is. It is. It's really a question to Matt. Janet Pro one court. If you can move your map over to the side to where the intersection of Winthrop and High is.
I'm asking this for one of the neighbors. All right. Currently, right now, the town owns and plows for the snow from High Street onto Winthrop. And the house that is located 2737,
um, they go ahead 2727. Is it 272? 27. 2727. Um, the snow gets dumped right on their driveway. Okay. So, my question is, where does It's High Street Extension, right? I think that's what it's going to be called. Where is High
Street Extension that the HOA is going to have to take care of um start and where the town will end? Is it still going to be the same thing? So, it's going to be right there. I think it'll become a town street. Yeah. No. No. No. To their entrance?
Yeah. So, their entrance? Well, it's already I think it already is a town street all the way up to believe it's I think they believe it's VA Street, but when we do it finish, it'll become a town street. No, it is a it is a town street, but I'm telling you it's treated like that. It's treated the other way.
Oh, you're saying it's treated the other way because now VA will plow it. So that's why the town goes that way. So I'm just wondering whether or not the town will continue until the entrance going into the complex. So that that's the question. Okay.
Build the town. I would Yeah. Come up. Yeah, it would it would pull out. Um, yeah. So, we looked at the town clerk's records just with street acceptance. So, High Street is accepted all the way to
the very dead end, that little stub by the VA. Um, so we would plow all the way through to the end if this were to be an accepted project. Um, we would plow right to the transition to where the development would begin.
Um, was there another question? I think that was that was that was it. Thank you, Matt. Hi, Cheers to Davis, 23 High Street. Um, specifically on the traffic, if we can go back to the map when you guys are talking about pinch points. So, I drive
this route all the time. I also walk it a lot with my kids. Um, this corner going from Winthre to High Street, there's often cars parked right at the corner. So, it's hard to actually walk onto that corner. No,
the right up here. That corner. Okay. Um, so like right in front of that house. So, you can't often um access the sidewalk there, but also when you're driving, you have to see past cars that are parked on that side. And then also
on this um south side of the street of um Oh, sorry. I'm in the wrong spot. Um this is this is High Street. Um can we move the map back? Sorry. I'm talking about Williams and Homes. Oh, Williams and Holmes. Oh, sorry. I'm so confused.
Now, okay. Sorry. This this corner right there. Yes. You're talking about up here. I'm talking about Nope. Down in on Williams Street in front of that house. There's often cars parked along there, which is the sidewalk, but so it's
essentially inaccessible. Um, and there's also often cars parked on the south side of William Street, which becomes a problem when you have cars on both sides and then you have Columbia Street right away coming up and you're,
you know, in the other lane because you're trying to get around cars. So, that's probably my main concern for that area as far as traffic and pinch points. Um, and then just to clarify, going back now to the other corner to the top of
High Street and Winthrip, um, is this the stop sign that's proposed, is it no stop sign if you're coming up High Street, like similar to going up Colombia? Is that like where do the stop signs go? cuz we have rescued many
people who have been gotten stuck trying to get up the hill in the snow. Oh yeah. Cuz because of the steepness. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is there a stop for going up high or is it just Winthrip and the kind
So that's my other question. Westbound approach and Win South approach should be placed under stop approach. Any further questions, comments? Yes, Lori. Lori Nearing, um 35 Highland Avenue, top of Highland. So, we're we're affected by
this as well. Um I wanted to clarify a couple of things. First, one is is it 419 vehicle trips that will be added each day? 4 It was 416. 416, I believe. Um, when you reviewed, I
guess this is a question for you, Amy, Ellen. Um, when you reviewed the report that was submitted, you said that it it met the norms. Could you clarify when they determined peak rush hour? What were the hours that they chose to determine that?
So they um they used they collected traffic counts along the road and then the hour in the morning that had the highest volume and the hour in the evening that had the highest volume, those were um what they used for the peak hour analysis. I'm asking you what
those hours were. Oh, sorry. What the actual hours were? Yes. Let me let me pull it up based on their data. Okay. So, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. in the morning was the highest and then 2:45 to
3:45 p.m. So, that's how they determined the 416 trips was those two separate Oh, no. Sorry. The the 416 trips were determined. Um there's an a database the
Institute of Transportation Engineers has a a database of sites that they've collected data for around the country. And so what you do is you find the the land use code that corresponds with the
the most similar land use to what you're proposing. And in this case, um, they looked at the number of dwelling units and how many trips are expected to be generated per day based on the number of dwelling units. Okay. So, I what I'm
questioning here is it sounds like they counted the traffic from 8 to 9 in the morning and then again from 2:45 to 3:45. Am I interpreting that correctly? No, no, no. Those you asked for the peak. Those were the peak hours. Okay. I want to know it's over the whole day. A whole 24 hours. Starting at what time,
Danny? It's It's 24 hours. 24 hours. They were counting traffic. Yeah. 24 hours into noon. Whichever. What hour period do you want to start? 116. Okay. Okay. So, so they started counting. They were counting for 24 hours straight.
Okay. And And what day of the week was it? Like a Thursday or something? It's in the stud Monday. It's in the appendix. One second. Let me pull it up. It's always um Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, but I can get you the exact
date if you want. Um that's the standard. Yes. Yes. So, it was February, not February, September 18th, which let me check what day of the week that was. Wednesday. Wednesday through n the Thursday.
There you go. Yep. Wednesday and Thursday. Okay. Thank you. I misunderstood that. So that does help me understand better. Oh, that's okay. Um, I wanted to clarify a couple of things and just supplement what Lori Sable was saying because we live across the street from each other and we um are very
cognizant of the elderly neighbors that are now walking our streets. So, first of all, I think everybody in this room knows, but I want everybody here to know that this is a historic building. It was the original hospital for air and it does have a fair amount of significance. They're required to maintain the
significance. So to protect the rights of the people that are living there this time of year, we're seeing people constantly with with their walkers and sometimes with their dogs hobbling along the the road because there's no usable sidewalk for them. It's a very bumpy
sidewalk as somebody already said with telephone poles or something's in the middle of them. So they're not very useful sidewalks. So these people do walk in the street and they love walking. They're wonderful neighbors. we like them a lot. Um they walk out to the Rotary often times. Some of them are able to walk down the hill and around
the block. So I want to make sure that we're caring for this these people that deserve to have a peaceful um uh place to live. Um there are other concerns related to their view is going to change, but I'm trying to focus just on the traffic. Focus on the traffic, please. We have a lot of agenda items
this evening. Lori, I'm I'm struggling to hear you. Could you keep it to the traffic? Yep, I am. Um I'm concerned about the traffic and the impact of the people who are walking. Um we didn't talk about people walking to school. There are lots of kids especially at the high school level
that walk to school and if we've got proposed 55 homes certainly they're going to be some high school kids. Um I'm also concerned I don't think I don't know if this is part of the traffic study but um most of those homes are going to have two cars with two trips a day.
Um there's not much place for extra cars to park for if you have more than two cars. You have teenagers who have cars. You have visitors. I counted 19 parking spots that were extra beyond what the people have. Yeah. So each car I mean I believe they're onecar garages with uh
enough room for two cars in each driveway. I don't know if that's adequate for this size population. So, um I think that's all I can talk about with the traffic issues. Um the other things really related to where's the snow going to go.
Um I like that you're adding crosswalks. I think that's helpful. Um what Julie Kornsuit was saying about going down the hill. I walk these hills a lot. I walk around the neighborhood at nighttime and it is exactly on that it's very hard to see any anywhere beyond your car lights
and I felt like I'm going to get hit myself walking and it it is a very popular dog walking spot. So I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you. So Danny, can you summar What we have one more. Can you please just clarify
what in their traffic study was included for the Central and Colombia and the Maine and Colombia intersections? Because I I feel like those should have been included in the study area. And um like the impact the level of service at
Main Street and Colombia is a very important question and it's you know it's worked for our town engineer to to consider that and it's generous of him to say that he will but did the applicant adequately address it?
Yes. Yeah. So it's in here uh under their traffic study. Um you you were asking for which ones? Which corn? which Columbia and central and Maine and Colombia and whether or not they evaluated level of service. Yes. So
Maine and Colombia they did a level of service existing no build and um 20 um31 build um they did Columbia Street at Newton Street Central A that's also on here High Street at Winth A. High Avenue
Highland Avenue at Norwood Avenue and Washington Street at Norwood Avenue. And what was the level of service. Um, which turning? Yeah. Which ones do you There's There's a lot of It's in the traffic study. There's a whole lot of them. But are you talking about counts
or level of service? Level of service. Maine and Columbia, South Street. What's that? Okay. Maine and Colombia. So, uh, under existing currently, um, Col. So, there's several ones which we're looking at. Um, Maine and East Eastbound is a
level of service A. Uh main westbound is level service A. Columbia Street uh um southbound is a level service of F existing. Um as in F as in Yeah. As as the lowest service
that's existing. Yeah. Um so this is available. Yeah. I I we're going to be here all night if I have to go from there. 15 if you want to find it in the grid. I know you can just wanted to clarify. I didn't hear
any discussion. I mean that friendly, my friend. I don't Thank you. Uh so Danny, can you tell us what what next steps are regarding traffic? I think there's one more person on the on on Zoom who wants who has a
raised hand, but I don't know who it is. Yes, Danny. Good evening. It's Pauline. calmly and I've been waiting patiently. I just have a simple question. I hope um I'm listening in carefully. I'm not
understanding why there is any traffic impact on Cambridge or Colombia Street since from what I've read of the plans or seen of the plans, there's no access from the proposed site. Could you just
give me like 25 words or less on that and I'll follow up another time? Yeah. So, the impact is uh the cars the vehicles um coming from the project to those other access those other roadways.
I understand that, but there's no access from the maps I've seen that were submitted. Columbia, I'm sorry. Cambridge and Wusid are an an L that or a culdeac that are closed off with no access and I did not see any access to
Colombia. So, if I missed something, I'm I apologize. Just please explain that. So, what were the two areas you were asking about? Cambridge. Cambridge. Yep. Which is my street. Y and what you sit at. um which
are they connect at the very top of the development. It's off of Lincoln. Yes. And you know what? Just get back to me another time. I know you're not making decisions tonight. I was just really curious to hear about the possible traffic on
Colombia, which runs not too too far from my house. That's all. All right. Yeah. I'll I'll I'll look into that. Um I just don't have that in front of me right now. No worries. Thank you so much. Okay, let me see if there's anyone else. I don't see anyone else. All right, so
next step regarding the traffic review. So close this. So I would say the next steps for this one is obviously the applicant is going to have a chance to respond to the comments. Um, I will uh Matt and I will meet and discuss, you know, some of the other
questions that had come up um for Ken and some of the other resident questions. I I took a list of those. We can discuss those and I'll also um reach out to Amy about these and um seeing if we can have these uh
considered into the um comments and so that the applicant can address those as well. Um, and then so I would s I would say that at the next meeting we could probably do that. Um, okay. Great. You think you could follow yourself? Okay.
Yep. Yes. Can I ask that we have someone here from the police department at the next meeting? If we get into the situation where we're talking about cars parking along the side of the street, it's way beyond our jurisdiction. Yeah, that's parking violations. So, yeah. So, when we're talking about existing sidewalks that aren't there, we're
talking about street lights that aren't there and we're talking about cars parked on the street. Those are things that the town should be addressing, I think, independently from the planning board. And I'd like to have if we can get a comment about that. Do you guys agree? I mean, I'm just asking on my
own. So, I agree. Okay. Thank you. All right. What next can we discuss on this agenda, Daniel? All right. Um, next item we should discuss. Um, and thank you Amy. You can uh hop off. Thank you very much. Okay, sounds good. Before I go, I
wanted to let you know that um the storm water peer review, you can expect the comments tomorrow from Jim. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Bye. All right. Uh so that's an update on the storm water.
We're going to get it tomorrow so we can clean that off there. Um so why what's coming tomorrow? storm water peer review from Green. So, it's going to come tomorrow. So, we no point opening up now. Yes. No, no, no. Yeah, that's and that's what the update was kind of to
give the board to just to let you know where it's good to know that it's coming tomorrow. Um, I'll make sure that that gets posted on the website for everyone to be able to see. Um, I hope that everyone has noticed like I'm kind of breaking them out so that the traffic peer review, storm water peer review, and all department head comments, they're kind of broken out so that
everyone can find them. Um so storm water traffic is done. Um we can take uh the special permit for the density bonuses discussion and then if depending on the timing uh department head
comments. Yeah, I know it's I think realistically I mean what is it we can actually do tonight? So I would I let's let's do this the density bonuses first. All right. And and there's a limit even with the density bonus. is only so far we can go this evening. Correct. Yes. Yes. Uh I
don't envision this is an an introduction to the density bonnets. Okay. I don't envision a the vote the the board taking a vote tonight. Uh there's there's information that's fair. The applicant will uh need to you know submit along uh for this. So it's going
to be the introduction to the discussion on this. Okay. And regard I'm just excuse me Ken. So, regarding the department head review comments and and and applicant response, we can do that next meeting. Yeah, we can we can address those at the next meeting. Okay. So, let's start with the density bonuses
then. Um, we'll just we'll we'll have the applicant come up as for this. Hi, good evening. Hello. Hello. Let me just uh uh start this. So, under
the um OSRD bylaw, under section 10.15, the applicant is allowed to submit for density bonuses. Um, and I'll read it uh so that everyone knows. It says that the unit count determined under section 10.1.4 Four may be
increased through density bonuses in order to advance important goals of the air master plan, air open space and recreational plan and other planning document approved by planning board and on file in the planning department. Density bonuses are given by a special permit at the discretion of
the planning board based upon the expected public benefit. Um may I ask you to pause there for a moment? I I I it's just important to draw a distinction here of density bonuses and other things like waiverss etc. So density bonuses are not by right as some
other things are. They are entirely at the discretion of the board and it is the applicant has the obligation to not when they request the density bonus to explain why what's the benefit you know what what is the added benefit to the community of air by the
uh board exercising its discretion to say yes. So I just want to put that context out there because it's very important for this conversation. I'm sorry Daniel please continue. And so the rest of it it it reads they are calculated by first determining the allowable unit count under section 1
10.1.4 without r rounding fractional units up or down then multiplying that number by 100% plus the percentages that follow. Resulting fractional units if any shall be rounded up or down as in section 10.1.4. And so under this section under
a there are four different density bonuses that are allowed um under the OSRD. The first one is about uh if the applicant uh allows deed public access to the open space portion of the property and the planning board finds
that such public access provides a significant recreational benefit such as an access to an important natural area or a trail system. That is a maximum of 10%. Okay. The next one is the if the
applicant permanently restricts ownership and occupancy of units allowed by section 10.1.4 of the affordable housing as defined in this bylaw and makes a binding commitment to construct such affordable residences a maximum of
25%. For every unit included in the allowable unit count under section 10.1.4 four that is built in that is built and dedicated as an affordable unit. Two bonus market rate units may be permitted up to a maximum of 25% of the
allowable unit count. Um, so on this one specifically, the uh affordable housing committee uh provided the board with a letter regarding this section because under our newest inclusionary housing
bylaw, we have a um updated density bonus for inclusionary housing. And what so that everyone knows at our when we propose our next change to amend this section um that would just refer back to that
section and uh to se to section 10.3 and so the letter um asks the planning board which I can pull up um to consider using the inclusionary housing bylaw uh
density bonus and not the OSRD. And would you explain to everyone what the difference what the consequential difference of those two calculations would be? Yes. And so under this one the way it under the OSRD is um for every
one unit uh above the uh required amount you get two market rate units under the inclusionary housing bylaw. It's for every one you get three. And the reasoning behind that is because uh the
cost of affordable uh units there is a loss and what we we're looking at is to try to build in a cushion to allow for more affordable units and uh have the applicant be able to provide for the get the market rate
units. So that's number two. Number three, uh if the applicant preserves as me as permanent open space more than the minimum required percentage, a maximum of 10% density bonus per additional 5% of the parcel preserved as open space.
The applicant has not applied for this density bonus. So that one's not applicable. Correct. The last one uh which is also u out of date because we currently under new state uh building code under the new
building codes um solar ready is a requirement um but the it reads if the applicant has designed the development to protect solar access and agrees to provide solar ready construction for the proposed dwellings a maximum of 25%. For
purposes of this section, pro protect solar access shall mean that streets and lots in the OSRD shall be oriented to maximize the solar resource available to each lot or to as many as possible as determined by the planning board. Solar ready construction shall mean
construction of homes in such way that installing and connecting solar energy whether photovoltaic or sol solar thermal does not require additional wiring plumbing or building modification.
Um this is out of date based on last on based on the the building codes update which I believe went into effect 2020. Yes. But I know they but but legally
legally they are allowed to apply for it currently showing it's still there okay I would prefer to think of it as we were on we were looking forward when we wrote this correct when the board wrote this years ago the stretch building wasn't in place correct as of 2024 yes and so
under this the under this section they are required to show the board that they've met that condition of having the houses oriented. So there would be a sun uh sun
di sunlight diagram where it shows like how much of the houses are getting hit by solar, how long and all that. So the applicant would would um would need to prove that to the board as well. So those are the four that are
allowed within our bylaw. Uh the applicant has applied for number one, number two, and number four. And that would mean the for the access for the solar and for the affordable housing. Yeah. And for the affordable housing. So I think the first
one we should pro we should discuss is the um number one which is the applicant allows deed public access of the open space portion of the property. Um I'll turn it over to Jan.
Um I'm sorry. I really don't know. So where to start? I don't know where to start. Um we we've talked about the open space a lot and what you know what we pro um promote it to be. Um, I mean, I don't want to I I think we
should uh do we want to read through it or do you want to um I think let's let's go with the uh specifics of what you're proposing. Okay. in terms of open space. So, um I mean every I feel like everything is just peeling back layers
right now, but um what we what the plan is is to provide um more than 50% open space and this um lot that um has access down to Graten Harvard Road to um create, you know, land that will not be
built upon with any buildings at any time in the future. So, this would be deed permanently non-constructible. Um, I know that we've like had some discussions back and forth about, you know, drainage and that kind of thing. So, I don't know. I don't I kind of want to just stick to talking about it as open space for today because
I guess we'll cover that. um storm water discussions, but um we proposed um putting a um you know some keeping it very natural but
potentially marking out some um trails that you where you could access from the bottom at Grten Hover Road up to High Street. So, um it's a it's this dotted line that you can see up on the plan. There could be pedestrian access um for
hiking, but at the same time, you know, we've talked about trying to just keep it as natural as possible, too, and not cutting down any additional trees that need to be cut down. Just, you know, kind of and it's well, actually the board knows, right? We were walking out there. It's walkable. You can you can walk through um the major, you know, the
majority of the land. There may be some areas that are that are kind of steep. Sorry, you're good. Sorry. Um, but you know, as a large those acres are not
going to have any houses or any type of um buildings that now or in the future that the the town would own the land. So I I thank you. I I I think I need to uh clarify what may be a potential confusion here.
So there is the deed open space. That's dear. That's what required for the whole OSRD concept. So the density bonus is is not just that you have that 50% open. It's that having public access for recreational activity. Okay. Now what I
want to draw my board's attention to is that we've done four other OSRDs before this. None of them have ever had a butters around the pre the projected open space. They've always abuted to either an easement, power line, other property, etc. Open the open space did
open it. It was actually open to something else that was open. This time we have a unique situ well not unique but this situation is all the open space is pretty much surrounded with the butters. So that changes the whole I think that changes the conversation
about access recreational activity etc. And I just want us to be aware of that that that's a conversation we should have. And in my mind, I'm wondering given the site, given a bud concerns, given that there's nothing on
the site that's particularly distinctive like a lookout spot, a wet, you know, wetland spot, it's just the space is, you know, it's it's scrub. Yeah. And whether really public access for recreational space makes any sense in this on this particular open space,
that's a question I have. Okay. That I would have that's a concern that I have. Do any of my other colleagues on the board share a similar concern or something different? They want to contradict that. I have a similar concern. Um, you don't quite seem to be
positive enough in your presentation at the moment about the open space. Yeah. Were you fully aware of what we're trying to do here with the density bonuses? How you going one by one and whatnot? Yeah. I'm I didn't I I'm sorry. I was not expecting to give a a
presentation on that. I just thought it was more of a write up and read in advance. I didn't realize that. Oh, okay. So, all right. I and I was like, do I just read this aloud? I'm sorry. I really didn't know what to expect, but fair. Um, that is an interesting perspective and one that I hadn't really
thought about to I had looked at it from a perspective if there were going to be um, you know, construction in my backyard, I would prefer to have a buffer, but I didn't really look at it from perspective of I don't want other towns people potentially in my backyard. I'm not sure. or if it was a
conventional subdivision where we took every possible. It's not a conventional subdivision, but it could it could be your other. So then our our to not
have houses on every portion of that and having open space on it. What? Why are you shaking your head? We're not comparing it to anything else except that's part of our that's that was part of our um decision making in this process to have open space not have
a conventional but subdivision when we spent a year and a half doing this already talking about this. This was part of our our our plan with going to the town for a year and a half talking about what would the best option for this land be. And
other than having a conventional subdivision, this in our opinion is in along with other board members and other town and people is the best plan that we've come up with so far. I understand what you're saying though.
It's a different perspective that I hadn't considered in the past and I don't know how that would factor into the board's consideration. I you know I I'm not sure. Um can I go back to step one just to clarify at the moment we I
think we need to repeat that there are 34 homes at this point at this point. I wanted to state that at the beginning. Yeah. I I Yeah. So I I agree with you. Yes. So, based on what the board voted at our last meeting, the board voted
that the base unit count is 34 units. Now, the plan shows a proposed 52 units um because they're applying for the density bonuses. This is what they would like to get to arrive at. To arrive at arrive at and if I may, and our
messaging says 55, which is also confusing. Yeah, because that was the original application. I just want to lay it out on but one thing but either way the base number is not 52 or 55 correct base number is 34. Absolutely. And we
but and that's like so in this discussion about density bonuses that's kind of what I would ask for the board is some direction like if you don't want if you're not considering doing density bonuses then you know let us know and we can just divi design 34 houses in the open space. You know what I mean? We
don't but they would be bigger houses. You just said you designed 34 houses. We as a conventional subdivision. So what she what she's asking is if the board is not amendable to the density can just give me a second. The applicant
is saying that if the board is not amendable to the density bonuses they would look at an alternative option. Right? Okay. If you if it's not something that you want to entertain, I understand. Then we could look at this as, you know, doing an open space, a
standard open space residential development with 34 homes instead of 54. 53. I'm not I actually have lost track today of what the number is. I think it's 52 is 53 as far as as I recall. Okay. Yeah, 53. That's right. Five.
53. We could count the plan, but um so so yeah. So that's when we're looking for direction from the board and you know we've been diving deep on on some items but kind of this one is is more high level and we would just need to understand you know if if town houses if
dense town houses is not what the board desires then you know and I'm just going to speak from on my behalf as and myself when I met with um the applicant Heather and the parks
department out We had a discussion of the pocket park. I do understand that there are some concerns uh from the residents about that and um another uh another thing that was brought up by a resident was a pocket
forest. I don't know if the board would be amendable to that as well. Well, so these are things that are being I'm what I'm trying to bring to the board is the the applicant based on what this says. It says that the deed to public access in the open space portion of the
property in the parking finds that such access provides a significant recreational benefit to the town. If the board does not find a recreation a significant um recreational benefit to the town having this open deed open
space then the applicant uh would have to look at another would have to just remove that deed access to the open space. Right? But the open space would still be there. It would still be conservative. It would be conservation restriction. It
would be and its value is its envi its environmental value and and and the the the minimizing of impact of construction. That's its value as opposed to the recreational element. So there's still there's still a considerable value to the open space.
What I that's why I made that distinction. The recreational part I I have questions about. Okay. No, Jeff, I don't want to get too deep on this, but we haven't had the discussion of construction in the open space either in conservation. And that gets to be a
sticky widget pretty quick. Sure. Yes, sir. Um, so we're talking about 3.4 potential of up to 3.4 units, dwelling units. Mhm. That's that's the ask is
make a case for 3.4 units. and providing access it's it's a field of dreams to your your question uh Jonathan providing access if people don't want to come deed access access
different than access deed deed access right so there is a path for the public and and a right for the public to get to this property they don't have to come right but it and do
we do we withdraw it's an interesting argument uh you know do you withdraw public access to for for what benefit I mean there's a benefit
of I mean at some point it's open space can the condominium association prevent people from accessing that land. If the deed if the deed public access is not then yes. Okay. Okay. Well, I don't
think the condominium association could control the open space no matter whether it's it's going to be owned by the town. Correct. Well, that's the conservation restriction would be owned by an entity. We don't know somebody in the town is what we don't know the entity, right?
Yeah. That's that and that's where we would leave it for right now because we don't know who would take ownership. Okay, fair enough. So, I guess I would ask that the board think about it and and please give us
some direction on whether or not density of development is what you're interested in versus, you know, building standard homes. I mean I I so I think for we should because each
of these are different going to be different right so I think right now let's focus on yeah each density bonus is going to be different okay it's we each has different requirements each each has different explanations so I think the first one as of right now I I
think the board should voice how they feel about that and give the applicant a direction in where they should go. Okay. So, I've already gone. Kathleen, did you just a question? So, on on that when the the
significant word is recreational benefits. So, there were hiking trails proposed and a pocket park. So, are we basing a decision on both of those entities? Assuming Okay, it's Oh, yeah.
It's the density bonuses are a carrot, right? Uh the applicant is encouraged to by the bylaw when they buy a property to make make a uh an offer for
um to to encourage the OSRD to provide access to it so that they in this case get 3.4 more dwelling units and In my opinion, it's up to the applicant to make that offer
and it's up to us to accept it. It is right. Right. We're not obligated to accept it. Correct. All of it. We can accept even part of it. I just, you know, I just raised the issue because I see the value of the open space. I think that recreation
creates problems in this spot that wouldn't be problems in in the other OSRDs we've previously done. There are issues here. I don't know where people would park to access the little park or playground. I don't know where a trail would go and what you would see in that
little space, you know? I I mean, but I've been to the spa. I've been there. I mean, we've all been there. It's And it doesn't go anywhere else. It just stays in there. It's not like it's got a pass through to another open space and it makes sense. So I see where it makes sense as an open space for environmental
reasons. The recreational part is something I again I raised the question for discussion. Now that's just one of the three density bonuses that you're talking about. Please keep that in mind and we have the other two to discuss. So I I would hate for you to think that you have to start from scratch based on one. Let's there are other conversations that
need to be had. Okay. For example, an important one is regarding the inclusionary under which is it going to be applied under OSRD or the new inclusionary. Yeah, the difference can be important. Let me pull that letter up. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Yes,
please do. So, we're not going to take public comment at the moment. We're going to continue comment among the board members. Jonathan, you're mentioning parking spaces and like so if there's public access making it like thinking parking taking parking
into consideration, but the whole big picture, but do we have a requirement for that? Like if we're talking about nature and open space and we just got off a call that's saying bikes. No, I'm just I'm trying to think this through and I need I need that dialogue from my head.
But I don't know that we they need to be to I haven't heard that we have to we usually do combine them right that there needs to be parking with a trail head but sometimes trail heads could be so small that you're right no one wants to
drive there but as local residents that may be walking they may want access of ways to get off a street I walk these streets regularly but I don't necessarily need my car there. Like I guess I'm thinking as we're looking at it as a more dense
area of town. It is it a nice I don't I don't know. But is it a nice place to be able to take refuge off the street and walk casually not a hike that I'm driving and parking and packing and that's my
question to us as a group. If I may, Mr. here. We had an earlier discussion about the density of uh traffic of multimodal traffic on the streets surrounding the um surrounding this piece of
property. Would the would it be a benefit to the folks in the neighborhood walking their dogs and things like that to have a recreational path system? Would it push the traffic or would it give them an opportunity? I just don't know the answer to that question. That's the future. But in many ways, yeah, like
I have a lot of trails near my house that people aren't driving towards, but the neighborhoods are enjoying. Yeah. The neighborhood residents. So, I don't know. I'm just asking for dialogue. Mhm. Sorry. Can I say something? We
originally proposed parking down at the bottom, and I I sent like a plan and photographs of what that could look like, but maybe that's something that the board does not desire. So I just there is visitor parking up here that they have proposed throughout the site
and the shown on the plan the trail head would connect right in front of three parking spaces but it would you know may or may not offer ambulatory traffic from the neighborhood around it may not work for the folks in the VA but it might work
for other neighbors. Mr. Sure. Yes. When we were walking that view from where the trail head crosses behind the homes on the south side. Yep. Down here. Yeah. That's that is an incredible
view off of that that top. So there is, you know, you you could go take the evening sunset in um from that perch. Can I make one comment? I'd like to finish first. Yeah. Hold on.
For the applicant, he's the engineer. Is that Yeah, he I mean just when when you talk about the neighbors and the benefit to the neighbors. Uh I mean there's there's certainly a
benefit to the neighbors especially on Groten Harvard Road in the fact that they're not develop developing behind the houses. So you know Well, I agree. Yeah, I see that. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I'm just cuz you said you're saying, you know,
because it's surrounded by houses, it's not like an open I I specifically made the distinction between the environmental consideration and recreation per se. That's the distinction I make and I still hold. Those are two different things, right? Yes.
I'm not saying the open space has no value. That's not what I said and it's not what I believe. I just think we may may want to rethink that whole idea of access for recreation. I don't know if that works here. That's my concern. Okay. But recreation for the people who live
there. I got it. Maybe. So I agree with you. It's the first of all, I think there might be a misunderstanding. There's no question that you owe us 50% or more open space. That open space is a requirement of the open space residential development. What
you're applying for tonight or in the discussion is whether we should grant you a special permit use as a bonus, density bonus, and get you get an ability to build more units based on your application and the strength of
that application. In this case, it says provides significant recreational benefit to the town. And I do not believe this re rises to that level. Right? We have a complete conservation walking trail system a quarter of a mile away. That is a bad town. And this could
be a a system where if folks move in there, they can walk around in the woods if they want to. I do not agree that we can put a parking lot or a pocket park off of that busy street. I've been down I I drive down the street almost every day. There's
very little sight line getting off the street coming from the north to the south. People would have a problem getting to that park. In addition to that, the fact that you're now putting the proposing to put the subsurface drainage system under the park. I would have an issue with that because what if
we have an issue there with anyway my feeling is that it's not a strong enough case and it doesn't rise to the level that it provides a significant recreational benefit to the town and therefore I don't think it qualifies. In addition to that, our requirements for
special permit allow, you know, basically list six things that you need to to, you know, show to us that provide the benefit. Not the least of which one says traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading. I don't think you you made
any there's nothing in your application that indicates how you rise to the level of a special permit for the and meet these requirements. So, in my estimation, the open space bonus density bonus just doesn't rise
enough for me to to vote for it. So, if I may make a procedural recommendation, and I I agree with you that it's a benefit to people who move in there. Okay. Okay. And the people live there, but not the benefit of the neighbors. So, what I would say is I would prefer that we discuss all three of the density
bonuses first before we vote on them, each one individually, because that way you have the bigger picture what the number could be. Do you you see where I'm what I'm saying here? So I what I want you this evening is to get a sense. This is what you asked for. Where is the board on this? And that's what we want to give you tonight. So what you're
hearing about the first one and I would advise not to go to vote is that well there's there's there's there's conflicting points of view on that. Right. I think that's a fair way to describe me. What I would suggest is let's talk at least in a broad way about the other two so you get a sense of where the board is. I think that would be fair to you and to everyone else. All
right. So the second thing is about the affordable housing. Yes, Kathleen. I just was going to wrap up and and for the record. So my my opinion was that it it doesn't rise to the significant recreational benefit. The opinion stating that the bylaw clearly says to
the town and I think we have talked about how it benefits the development but but that bar is set at the level of the town. And I think particularly, you know, if there isn't parking, we're now talking about the neighbors. And I think we've read a lot from the neighbors that
they don't want a hiking trail. And we've read a lot and heard about people walking with walkers. And it's hard to imagine those folks in that trail system. At least in my opinion, it doesn't kind of clear that town bar. Let's talk about the affordable housing.
So Annie, could you describe I know this is this I'm struggling with it and for everyone else to clarify. So the applicant has options here with with this with with the affordable housing density bonus. Yes. Could you ex explain what the options are? Yes. And the
consequences of the options? Yes. So, under our OSRD bylaw, there is a we talk about having one for every one additional affordable unit over the um required amount, they would get two
bonus market rate units. But under our new inclusionary housing bylaw, which we u we got approved at town meeting in October, which is what the intent of the inclus of that is, is would be one unit
per um for every one unit they would get three free market. Yes. Yes. and the affordable uh housing committee provided a um the planning board with a letter of a recommendation that the planning board use uh the density bonus under 10.3 our
new inclusionary housing bylaw using the one for uh for every one they would get three. Now to resolve this legally who has the discretion to determine which of those two pathways is is that a board decision or is an applicant choice? That sounds Is there a third person? Town
council. I I would say it's the board's. It's up to the board's discretion. Okay. And And so the board has the I can I can check with town council if you would like me to. I was The only reason they brought it up is because the bylaw is so new from last
fall. Are we absolutely required to do it under the bylaw since the bylaw is just brand new? I thought town council might come in on that because it's we have because this I'm trying to find out from town council is because we passed it last fall. Does it override the OSRD
requirement automatically automatically? I would say no. No, no, not automatically. I'm just I don't know. Just thought. And is there is there a lag time we have to wait for the attorney general with that? No, the
attorney general already approved. So it's going to jump on e code on the e-code hopefully within the next week couple weeks. Do we need a does the board need to arrive at a determination about which ones applicable? I would say
the board should make a finding a finding. I would I'm not necessarily saying you need to make one tonight, but a finding would ne would need to be made. So for the second one, the affordable h the the density bonus for
affordable housing, the thing there is is a finding from us. Which of the two apply? Whether you get two per affordable or three. Um and and based on the affordable housing committee, they
they recommend the inclusionary housing, which is the one uh get three units for every one above. Okay. Jeff, do you have a comment? I was just going to make sure. I just want to talk about in numbers, but go ahead. They they want the
recommendation from the affordable housing committee is to use the inclusionary the inclusionary that was approved at the October town meeting, which would give the proponent three market rate units for every affordable unit above the required above the
required number of affordable units. Correct. And so based on on the base unit count it's three units based on based on the so the exact so it's one it's divide by 10 no fractions. So if we
work with 34 as the base unit count three affordables are there. So if they want to add a fourth affordable they get three market rate units. Correct. I just want to talk the math out guys all on the same page. Yes. Yes.
Still requires a special permit, right? It's not automatic. I'm sorry. Bad choice of word, but I want to It's a very bad choice of words. It's a very bad and um we get they start with three.
That's right. Okay. And in the letter from Miss Provide from the affordable house, did did they she put her reasoning for why she uh favored that? I think that might be important for the so I can read the letter. On behalf of the air affordable housing committee, we would like to share with you the
committee's support for the project as well as recommendations as the planning board begins its process of reviewing this project. Lincoln Hills is the first project to apply under the OSRD uh 10.1 where the updated version of the inclusionary housing section of the zoning bylaw will apply. The air
affordable housing committee members would like to encourage the planning board to use the recently amended inclusionary housing bylaw requirement and the density bonus requirements on in section 10.39 which may allow for more affordable housing to be built by the
developer. This would be a win-winwin situation for all parties especially the town of air. As the current boards and committees keep working together, we find to find ways to help more create uh create more affordable housing units in town. We look forward to supporting
projects such as this, which helps create diversity in the housing inventory for residents. Okay. All right. Would board members like to share any thoughts about where they stand with this? I I will start with myself. I'm
inclined to follow the recommendation of the affordable housing committee and go with the one uh one to three as as as they uh have asked. I think that is more in line with our master plan goals. I mean creating more affordable housing
and I think that's entirely reasonable. I just thought the applicant might want to comment on this discussion but you haven't thought about it. Maybe has it been brought up to you guys to think about this. So I did not know um that that was available. Yeah, I did. Yeah,
we're we're kind of understandable. So that their you know narrative will have to change. Yeah. Yeah. This has to be rewritten based on that. Yep. And as they say in the House of Commons and House of Lords, here here and that's part of the reason why I didn't want to
move to votes on each of these because I recognize this new information here that may affect the application your submission. Yes. Exactly. Right. So, Mr. Chair, yes, please. We're debating 25% is the OSRD's current. You could you
do 25% of the 34. So, we're talking about 10 units. Mhm. Right. So, if the applicant would have to offer more than three additional d-restricted affordable units, you'd have to you'd have to have
six, seven, seven for this to even make a difference. No. So, if they were to propose three additional units, they get 10, then they get nine. Um, yeah, but it cuts off at 8.5. No, that's un so under you're talking about specifically under this
the OSRD bylaw. It's a different because there's there's up to 75%. We changed the number in the inclusionary housing one. Correct. From the OSC OSRD, not just but also the percentage increase.
Am I right? Yes. That's why I'm going to pull it up right now. And this is why I wanted to talk numbers, guys. So up to a maximum bonus of 75% on okay 75% I didn't know that the the 34
of the 34 so that you could do you could do the nine works what in your know if they if they provide that many affordable units affordable units that's in the world of air fairiness
and that would be way more affordable units that we've received than we've ever received before. Actually, we've never received any affordable units under our inclusionary which which would be the advantage of going with the inclusionary recommendation from it's probably not
based. Yes. Otherwise, I mean, if the applicant does is not going to go over three six total, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter for the applicant. Correct. Yeah. I don't know. I have to sit down and they have to look. We know that.
Exactly. They'll have to sit and look at that. Ken, you had a comment. Yeah. So, um I would support, you know, using the new inclusionary housing bylaw because a lot of effort was put into that, you know, by sub subgroups and
working groups and the uh you know, affordable housing committee. And I think it's worthwhile, you know, to look at the math and double check it. However, in the application, the applicant has indicated that they would like to provide five
uh restricted deed restricted units. So, you guys are going to have to look closely at how that math works out for you to get that density bonus and get the number up, right? Um, but I'm I'm I'm on board with using the new requirements that were passed at the
fall town meeting of 2024. If I Mr. Chair, the intention of the inclusionary zoning is to create more diverse housing and more opportunities for people to come to town and to stay in town and I think it's a good I as I said earlier here here I think it's I think it's the right direction for us to
go in and it does change your calculus tremendously and changes the discussion about open space and some other things I think. So can I make another comment just on the extra open space? So far, we've said we're not
going to provide any extra open space, but I think that might just change. Correct. There is a possibility that could change. So, we might include that as one of the bonus numbers. That could happen. You You're saying you may want to apply for the special permit for that
density bonus as well. Yes, that would still be on the table. Yes. Right. And but we at this point are not sure what our required area is that we need and we have to make you the planning board has to make a decision on
how they're going to calculate um what of the open space can be used as open space. Oh boy. Yes, that's right. That's still that's still open. Yeah, there's a couple big things preventing us for from you know kind of fi
finalizing things. So, but all right, if we just stick with this for right now. Yes. So, the the the third one, you know, it would be a solar access, we did hear you comment about the potential for over 50 and that when we're pausing
because we'll see what you come back with what that works out with. So, solar access, I'm just again I'm going to start the conversation this way. The big thing with solar access and solar, it's not just a solar ready construction. It's a solar oriented building. And I got to ask you, are you seriously
considering redesigning to face the buildings in an appropriate way for the solar? Well, we did the math. We did the math and I think it was we were at about I think it was 72% of them have the right um which orientation, which I don't know. My interpretation of your
bylaw is that you maximize it as best you can. And that was the Yeah, because it says for the purpose of the section protect solar access shall mean that streets and lots in the OSRD shall be orient oriented to maximize the
solar resource available to each lot or to as many as possible. Y and we did do that in the design and my understanding of what solar readiness is a little bit more than I think what the code requires. What we had proposed to do and I had written in here is to the framing
which is now I think a requirement of the wall but there's also conduit up to the attic um and yeah so that so what you would really have to do is panel size um hire somebody to come put your panels in but you know your your
infrastructure within the house is ready for it Mr. Chair go for it Nathan Broadly speaking on density bonuses um you know this is a business um that
that for the for the applicant too. The I think one of the one of the values that was stated earlier is the market affordable um portion which would be potentially all the rest of the nondeed restricted homes.
the more homes, the more dwelling units that go into this um proposal presumably the smaller the square footage and cost is generally home price is generally tied to square
footage first order. Um, so if we value market affordable homes, that would be an encouragement to find a solution for the
maximum number of dwelling units. Point taken. And we proposed, I think you probably remember about 2,000 square 19 2000. Everyone's looking at me. So, I'm going to tell you. So, put my cards on the
table on the solar. I'm on the fence. I I'm not solidly no. That's all. Yes. I'm on the fence with that one. Um I feel the strongest about the affordable. And then I really don't see it with the recreation. I'm just those are mine. I know. Not speaking for everyone else. I'm just saying so that you know when
you're making your decisions in between the meetings and you're thinking about what you want to do, you know where I am and I'm hoping that some of the other board members will share where they are so you can incorporate that thinking in your your application. Go Ken,
I'm going to put it a different way. I think the change in the inclusionary zoning by gives you something to think about. Yep. And I think that's probably enough to think about So making a decision now may be an inacc. Yes. I I
that's a real big change. Making a decision. What do you I'm sorry. Three units for every affordable. Okay. Three markets for every affordable. That's a pretty big change to think about with a max of up to 75% of the 34 units. Whether or not that can be placed and stuff like that, but that that's your
job isn't it? You said the first three we have a copy of the bylaw. Yeah. You get three. We get three no matter what. Everyone you add no matter what work with Danny on this because as I've been told by another in the crowd
tonight I can't be wrong. Um but you there's three come with it based on the base count. But inclusionary gives you rewards you three market for every one you add. Right? So if we make six we get nine or four we get nine nine additionals pretty off the top of our
head back envelope. So that's going to change your calculus. Right. So I I I agree with Jeff, but I think um giving your opinion on number four would would also help. Ready? Yeah. The solar starting I could talk for hours. You know that. Just
wanted to make sure. Um can I tell you my joke then? Do I joke? No. Let's No, let's go. It's late, my man. Since Since the stretch code is available, why don't you get twice as many bonuses? I'm joking because solar isn't necessary. It's the orientation
piece and similar to the chair. Um I'm kind of like I I mean my property doesn't work for solar because of the way it's wooded and stuff. Like a little more information about that. Not that I don't trust you, but I think a quick these work for that reason would help me
along the line. So doing that. Have you given solar bonuses? the place didn't mask. N so up on uh to answer your question is no one's master bonuses at this level. Yeah. No project hills 34 units or
whatever they could have had open in 90. They just wanted to build what they're building. So the one on uh so Washington Street did apply for it but never followed through. Never followed. Um Straten Hill never applied for it. Um
Curly Circle never applied for it and Shaker Mel Pond never also never applied for it. if you've never done it before. So, this would be the first one. Yes. Well, the Washington Street did apply for it. They just did not submit the rest of the information like a sun shadow diagram, you know, the additional
information that Jeff just requested. They just never submitted that even as with compass information. There's ways to do it. Yeah. Mr. Yes, Ken. So I have this similar issues to to the
solar in the description which and I'm really surprised that you stated that the applicant has designed the development to protect solar access and agrees to provide. I I don't see it. I mean I think the development was designed to make the units fit you know within the the applicable space that was
left over the 50% space. Um, one of the problems with this, the way this is written, unfortunately, is that it refers to lots and and this is, you know, to each lot and we only have one lot because it's a site plan review. So, it's kind
of written like for standard subdivision application where the houses within the subdivision can be lined up to have solar access to the sun with their roof. It's kind of like what we dealt with on earlier occasions talk within but we
would apply it to the units right but in this particular case the streets I mean I just do not believe it was this development was designed to protect solar access it was designed to land the units on the streets but both can be right true at the same time I agree but
they would have to show me some real engineering and some design standards and whatnot well that's what the sun and shadow that's what I Jeff was requesting I I think it's more like 30% of the houses would work instead of 70 students. That's my own personal opinion. You could be wrong. I know
nothing. So the other concern I have on the solar is that um not sure how you would present to us in a multifamily 4unit building how that solar would get assigned to each owner of each build of
each home in the in the multif family unit. typically. I mean, I I just don't it's not I'm not familiar with that concept, how you can do it on a four-unit building and then have it divided up into the four four people would have to agree. I don't I don't even know the complications of something
like that. So, I I just don't see the the way that this lands into the solar um you know, density bonus situation. I just doesn't What more information would you need? I don't even know if you could write it up. How could you write up a
document that guarantees that the the units each person who buys a unit is going to want to pay for the the solar installation and therefore we could say they got to do it. Excuse me. Well, for us to you have to be available. It's not a requirement. In
other say that then we're we're going off the bylaw that's written. Okay. So my I I'll just go with my original statement that the development does not seem to be designed to protect solar access. And to me, if you can show me
that in an engineering way, then on how much of it? Yeah, we we h we have 72%. So, well, it doesn't say it has to be all of it. So, it doesn't let me let me go back. Okay.
You're asking for a special I'm basing it on the fact that you're asking for a special off by say has to has to be a benefit to the town. So that's my I start from that need to show us that there's enough strength in your application to comply with the special
permit requirement and that we can vote on it and say we find in that decision that there's a benefit to the town and the benefit to these other situations together and what happened at Panther Place I'm just kind of remembering is that we did condition the approval but
they never could provide it. That's what I so that I just Yeah. So on this one, I I I understand. I agree with you that it does say each lot or as many as many. So we would have to apply it to units.
Yeah. To the units. So each as many units as possible as determined by the planning board. Right. So based on what you're requesting is the information that shows that there's 72 72% is is designed in to meet this standard.
Because 100% of the units will be will be stretch code anyway. Yes. Correct. So it's the it's the orientation and exposure to them. Correct. We're not going to get direct conversation. Yeah. It says, you know, the lots in the OSID shall be oriented
to maximize the solar resource available on each lot. So we only have one lot. Yes. But this is says it's a strange language. It's it's it's because this applies to a subdivision typically, but we have we we dealt with this earlier
about this discussion. We are specifically talking about dwelling units for this one because it is a uh one lot condominium. So what I would advise this the the point of having this density bonus discussion tonight was to give the applicant a sense of where our minds are
with these. And I I I'm suspect that as a consequence of discussion so far, you realize there's some more math to be done. There's some work to be done. I think this is an appropriate cut off point for this evening. It's already past 9:00. Do you have to give the
residents to I will take care uh but I what I want Danny from you is just to summarize where do we go next steps from from here? What happens next? Yes. So, what we would do is at the next meeting, I don't know how much time you
guys would need to be able to relook at this and re get this uh like update this information. We could at the next meeting just discuss storm water and go through the uh the department head comments and the updated site plan. Can
I can I address that? Yeah. I don't think we should touch anything at this point other until we have come to a conclusion as to what our bonus because it like the project only works certain ways. So, you know what I mean? Like we can't design it as this project
if it doesn't number of units and and and I think we could comfortably present something to you within a week. Well, so before the next meeting covering all all the or before the next meeting. Mhm.
on how we came up with our numbers. Okay. So then I think you're Okay. So I would agree let's we would specifically deal with the density bonus at the next meeting if that's agreeable. If if that's agreeable with the board and we'll present something to you that addresses
all the issues that you brought up and then if at that point we will we'll make a decision. We'll figure out what it sounds fair to me. I got it. Yeah. No, I I I got it. I understand. Yeah.
I'd like to open up for public comment. Okay. Yes. Um Yes. But Heather as department head will go first. Go ahead, Heather. Thank you. So, um in regards to the density bonus on behalf of the conservation commission
as being one of the entities that could possibly be taking the orphan space. Yep. Um, in regards to the the discussion of the all level for public access, I think that discussion should be brought to either the conservation commission or another entity that may
take that open space for their comment. I understand the purview of the planning board, but they're not the holders of that open space. And those people who may be holding that open space would might want to comment on whether or not they would if they would take it if public access is not allowed or if it is
allowed. So, I think having some sort of information from an entity that would be holding the open space might be um important in order to make that decision. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I believe there was someone else. Yes.
Come on up. Julian Goang, 34 Greten Harvard Road. As a matter of process, I have one question. How do we determine what open space is when there's an open issue about the
infiltration system and the retention pond? How can they do their calculations when that decision hasn't been discussed or determined? Is that later down the line or is that We did have a preliminary discussion about this at the last meeting. Um and based on the
numbers that they had provided us, they they meet the 50%. Even though it's not undisturbed ground, it's going to be dug up. Trees are going to be taken out. It's still open space. So based on the OSRD guidelines, that is allowed. Okay.
Yes, sir. Just one tiny thing. Jacob, 30 Grant Harvard Road. Um, one second. Wait, wait, just one second, sir. was in the minutes that you got you were going to follow up with town council on the right of way. Yep. Yep. And and um I did
reach out to them. I have a hard back. I can follow up on that, but I don't I don't think that will be an issue depending on in front of us now. Okay. All right. Okay. This question I mean on that station no right away there
council that can be open place. Okay. Um so in the open space residential development regulations and design guidelines in town of air you design the the definition of a building envelope which would the building envelope wouldn't be the open
space it's the building envelope um reads as the area of attractive proposed for an OSRD subdivision in which roads homes utilities storm water basins etc are located. The building envelope should include all areas to be developed, constructed, or that will
that will be disturbed over the course of building out the subdivision. That to me is most of that utility space and any other perimeter space around the edge. In addition, I have it
highlighted. There's um uh a guidance that uh for the identification areas, the house lots of the street. Once the preservation areas are delineated, our outline gives shape to the subdivision building envelope or the area in which
the houses and subdivision utilities are to be located. In addition to dividing the rough perimeter of the housing lots, um they Oh, no, it's the wrong one. Sorry. There's one here that talks about the the thing. I'll I'll move on to the other one for the next. But I do want to
say that in our own documentation on the town site for the guidelines, it does say the disturbed area is part of the building envelope and therefore I don't think it should be part of the OSRD. So I I I do understand where that is. So there's also a section in the guidelines that says power line and other easements
in open space unless permitted by the planning board. the area within power line and other public utility easements cannot be counted towards the minimum required percentage of open space um in the OSRDS. So that is that's the one specific one where they're talking about
if existing easements and utilities. It does not pro prohibit them from um putting in private line private utilities through that. No, it doesn't stop them. at the disturbed area during the course of building out any of the subdivisions is what it says. Building
out the subdivisions at all. So that entire perimeter line that they have around the whole edge that's your access point. You're going to tell me that 50 ft because it's exactly pretty much 50 ft all around to fit isn't going to be disturbed during that process. I find that highly unlikely and therefore that
area should not be considered as well as the entire area of all of the water infrastructure for the storm drainage that they're going to have to dig up and tear up because that's considered disturbed in the course of building out the subdivision. That's all. Thank you, sir. Uh so the
guidelines does allow for the storm water to be put into open space as part of that. Uh, in the terms of the uh, strip, I'm not exactly sure exactly where he's talking. I'm assuming it's Are you talking about back here?
Sorry. I'm not sure exactly where you were talking about the strip. Um, yeah. So, if you pull up so that on the bottom part of the plan, that's the minimum. The 50 ft width is the minimum. What can be considered the open space you're
constructing? No, no, no, no. So it I I think you mean 30 ft and but it's only 30 ft between units. Yeah, cuz we did I did we uh it was brought up at the last meeting. But you're going to be building along that
edge. I don't know how you get a I don't know how you construct there without disturbing that stand and they they would have to prove it prove that they would never disturb that during correct. Yeah. They would have to
prove that. Yep. You again. You again. Thank you. Um, just to revisit, at the last meeting, we had a map that had two different greens and one was considered doable area that we could pursue. And
the other green was this entire area here. And I'm on G1 if that this entire area was to be undisturbed and disturbing disturbing that area took away from the open space plan which
Danny you just told me that's now allowable but in the last meeting it was not allowable because it was the lighter green on the map. I'm not sure if that was the engineers map or if that was a town map, but I specifically came up here and I said just so we're clear, this entire
green section would now be disturbed land and that is not permissible. At which chair, if you excuse me, I believe you nodded to me and say that's why it's now a concern. Your exact words to me. So, I'm not sure what happened between the last
meeting and this meeting. And please do correct me if I'm mistaken. But this doesn't have any colors on it. But this is the same area we're talking about. The colors were shown by the engineer. They were approved by the planning board. We haven't approved the open
space yet. We're still having the discussion. But how can we deter How can they determine what they have to work with when they don't know what their open space can be? We have to make the determination. I mean, if it's frustrating for me, it's got to be insanely frustrating for them trying to
work in theoreticals. So that's why I'm pointing it out and that's why I apologize. I'm edgy. Jess, come on up. But it wasn't nothing's Jessica Gino at Mountain View. But I'm
speaking as a conservation commissioner here. Oh, okay. Okay. Um, I do think one of the things you have to establish fairly soon is what is uh counted as the open space. I know that 7,000 square ft of the driveway
easement, I think town council needs to be really pressed to respond to that because that will determine if they've met even the 50%. Much less going over the 50%. I do believe if they haven't met if it just hits the 50%
uh commission brought up at the meeting I think it was in February or March February February the joint meeting the joint meeting yeah February that we did not consider and state guidelines don't consider that surface storm water
systems can go in the required open space the 50% minimum but it seemed like you said that They could go in there tonight. No, they can't. No, they can't. They're as long They can't count it towards their 50%. They're not. So, in
order to establish also what happens with the undisturbed or land to be disturbed for utility easements, I think you really you need to start specifying more clearly at this early stage what is or is not the legitimate open space and
what counts as disturbance. I think the OSRD bylaw was written with the idea of protecting the environment and you know if you don't want to give public access which personally I would prefer public access my opinion but if you don't want
to give public access then the primary reason for the open space is to protect the environment but if you're going to allow massive disturbance to create the utility easements through the open base. As a commission member, I I I would I would
strongly discourage that. Um, in addition, how do you even create that utility trench without major disturbance to the land around? Even if the trench is going to be a fairly narrow thing for
utilities, with all the ledge in the area, how do you get equipment to get down there? I'm assuming there might have to be blasting. Um this is major major impact on what should be undisturbed open space. Thank you. Does
the law say that the open space I believe that the Yes. I believe at the beginning of the bylaw it talks about the priority given to protecting the environment. We got that. That that would be my opin strong opinion. Thank you, Jess. I'd like to
enter something for the record for Danny. I one of the problems that I have with the open space is it very hard to find a actual definition of the open space. We struggled with this already that there's a real definition. I did a little research. That definition that I
just handed Danny is for the state guidelines for an open space residential development. But at the very end, it does talk about the open space itself. So I think one of the problems is we actually don't have a pure definition of open space that define that tells us
exactly what is how it's supposed to be left. So I just enter that for review by the board and as the definition of an open space residential development under that chapter that's at the top of the sheet from the state and then there is some language in there about what the
open space should be. Yeah, you can read it at the next meeting or whatever. Put it in the I'll give a copy to the chairman now too. But thanks. So when we get back to the discussion of which we all intend to do, what's open
space, what isn't, we can consider that language. Okay. Thank you, Beth. It's a long night. Come on up. I'm on the I'm like We're getting punchy. We're getting punchy. Well done. I apologize. We
like um following up on what Jess had just mentioned and the other comment about the building envelope. I think you have really clear guidance on what is allowed with open space because we just heard what the building envelope is. And at the first meeting
that I attended when conservation was also here, we were talking about open space development, you had read the statement that said that the storm water could not be included in the open space unless there was a special, you know,
like inclusion that the board decided it would be. No, what I said. That's what was read. No, no, no. I I'll read it for you. And And did you hear the envelope again? Let's just make sure we all heard what the Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The same thing that you just read. Yes. We we're
going to get to that. We are going to we are going to concentrate on this. Okay. Yeah. So what you're what you were referencing is the storm water basin uh detention and retention basins and related infrastructure cannot be located in the open space open space areas that are needed to count towards the minimum
50 50% required open space per the OSRD. So it can be storm water basins related and related infrastructure can be cited in extra open space provided that the extra open space was not used for a density bonus but they have not offered
more than 50% and they have the basin inside of it. No that so at our last meeting they showed us new calculations. Okay. So all of the grading, all of the utilities and the basin are in above and
beyond open space and and the and the easement for the driveway. That's still for the board to determine to to discuss. No, no. What they've proposed right now because you said they just changed it. So what did they change? Uh based on their calculations there we're at just over 50% taking out the storm
water basin. Um as well as uh I that's all they took off. Yeah, I think it was just storm water. Again, let's think about what the building envelope is and anywhere that they're changing grading and removing vegetation for the purposes of any storm water or
utilities. And then certainly an existing driveway is not open space, right? Um, the other thing that I wanted to mention is that I think, you know, I'm I definitely support maximizing the amount of affordable housing here. I also
really appreciate your recommendations about thinking about middle housing and smaller sizes. I know that the planning board needs to consider multi- family housing and I didn't I have never heard
that the applicant has proposed a multif family unit beyond duplexes or triplexes or anything like that. So there there's several there's four. Okay. Okay. So a triplex in our in town in town is considered a multif family. Okay. But
they haven't considered something much larger. Oh, you mean like an apartment style that's not what you want to build? Not at this point in time. That's not what they We're not here to judge what they want. No, no. I'm I'm make I'm I'm just
seeing if they've considered it. And I think what we would like to consider in regard to the affordable housing is that before the board makes a determination on which of the ben bonuses that they would grant because I certainly support
you know again the affordable housing but to to do some tables and look at the math about which one results in the highest percentage of affordable housing because there's a number of options on the table and evidently you have some discretion in making a decision about
which bonus to grad to to offer. I you know I I think that the OSRD has a 25% minimum it's a maximum it's maximum and that is not what they've proposed. So you know we want to get to the number of
they propose 10% right? No no no the maximum is the density bonus our ours is 10%. Our requirement is 10%. They're talk the max the OSRD talks about a maximum of the density bonus but I thought it was 25% affordable
housing bonus 10%. Is I think I think I'm going to try. So but again this is why the different the different math being done would be helpful. 34 units they have to give us three. They can go up on affordables to a max of 25% of the
original number of units. Just for clarity, at the moment we have three affordables and 31 market rate. 34 have been approved. Yeah. They require 10% on the base. So we already have three. There's three affordables and 31 market
at this point in time. And under the original rules, they could max out at 25% of the original number of units in the development. A lot of math. Okay. So nine roughly. So we can only get more no more than nine affordable units. A 25%
cap on the number of units. The inclusionary gives them three, not two for every affordable up to a max of 75% of the original units. That's how that math works. It's a little confusing. Yep. So looking at each of the options and the number of units and the percentage of units that would be
affordable would be nice to see that laid out in the table. Okay. A little bit. We got to that tonight, Ben. Okay. Um, regarding the public access, I think that we're again at a big disadvantage
because at this stage when we were looking at their original proposal related to the conservation area, we didn't have a lot of information related to vistas, stony outcroppings, um, trees that we wanted to protect and
and you know, like just the scen scenic value of the site. and the trail location that you would want to propose because of those values. And just because that wasn't done at that stage when it shouldn't have been
done doesn't mean it can't be done. So when we talk about public access to the o open space, I think it is really really important that we have it. This is a very important connection between Grten Harvard Road and the High Street
neighborhood and for all of the community. I mean, you wouldn't believe how many people are going to use that connection if it exists. But of course, screening for the residents that are going to be impacted by that additional traffic is really, really important. But my point is that the location of the
trail through the large area, including through the buildings and prioritizing where that is is really important so that it's screened for the residents. You know, if you're putting a trail through the units, you want to screen it for the residents that are there and you want to
screen it for the residents that already exist along Graten Harvard Road as well as as those at the assisted living. So again, trail connectivity is really really important for this site. Public access through that connected trail network I think is really important for this site. I was just I was co-chair of
the open space and recreation plan committee and I just took a look at the open space and recreation plan to make sure that I could check and I can send this in my written comments or something like that if you like. But I'd encourage the applicant to look at the open space and recreation plan and identify what things you could identify on the
property that are priorities within the plan as well as the trail and the wildlife corridor connectivity. So again, as you construct a trail, you're putting in the screening, you can also add the elements that create a better wildlife and habitat corridor. Um, so
again, I think that the I do think that the open space access, public access is is very important. Thankfully noted. Thank you. That's Mr. Buck. Norman Buck 58 Central A. That open
space strip along the south. How wide is that? I believe it is 30 ft. 30 feet. Okay. You're talking about putting the walking trail through that which I No, we're not we haven't decided. No, but that was just I'm just gonna say that's because
that reduces some vegetation which adds to storm water runoff. So, I just want to put that out there. And I'm directly downhill from that. And she's talking about screening because that walking trail is a nice view into my backyard.
So, that's just what I want to say about that. Thank you. Thank you. I want to wrap this up this evening. It's late. Um, do we have a a motion for continuance? Move to continue this high street across
27 28 3041 657 application special. Oh, wait. There's someone on the Zoom who Oh, I'm sorry. Who's holding who has a hand up? Oh, we'll take one more comment from Zoom and we're closing this out. Um, enough talking. We just have to get
through this for all of us. iPhone. Pauline, sorry. Real quick, I promise. Could Danny, would you post online whatever um Ken Diskin handed you this evening? Yes. All right. And then the only other comment I had I will continue
I will wait to your next meeting because it doesn't matter tonight. But thank you all. Thank you. Okay. You want to continue, Jeff? Thanks. Good catch. Good catch. The hands are silent. They're hard to find. Uh move to continue public
hearings for zero high street and 38 Rotten Harvard Road, Lincoln Hills, Map 27, Parcels 208, 30, 4165, 70, and 189 to the June 10th planning board meeting. Seconded. Any further discussion
hearing? None. Ken, I. Julie, yes. Nathan, I chairs I. Uh, regarding the project status updates, we we don't need there's nothing to say nothing urgent. How about the the minutes? April 22nd. Move to approve the April 22nd 25
minutes. Second as submitted. Woohoo. Any discussion? Hearing none. Ken I. Julie. Yes. Nathan. Hi. Jeff. Hi. Chair votes I. Uh, motion for adjournment. Move to adjurnn. Second. Okay. Good
evening everybody. And thank you for your patience.