Hello and welcome to the Tuesday, April 14th, 2026 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 inerson meeting. Please note that while an option for remote attendance and or participation via Zoom
is being provided as a courtesy 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 inperson versus 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 9292056099. For additional information about remote participation, please contact Danny
Ruiz, town planner at druizair.mma. us or 9787728220 extension 144 prior to this meeting. First item of a business is to approve the agenda. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion we approve the agenda
as presented. >> Seconded. >> Any discussion on the agenda hearing? None. Kathleen, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Ken, >> I. >> Nathan, >> I. >> Julie? >> Yes. >> Chair votes I. Uh, agenda is approved. Our first item of business is a public
meeting for 3038 Main Street. Do we have a representative of the applicant here? Come on up, sir. >> Danny, if uh if you would lead us through this. So, first uh Daniel, just give us a little background, then I'll turn it to you to tell the story, whatever story there is to be told, and
we'll take it from there. >> Yes. Uh so this is an ANR application for uh the creation of three lots >> parcels. >> Uh parcels correct uh parcels. These are there is a note on here that these are considered not building lots and
intended to be conveyed and combined with adjacent lots. >> Um so I will turn this >> they're parcels now but once they're conveyed they become part of the underlying lots. >> They're to be combined with budding three individual buting lots. >> Okay. Thank you.
Um, yes. So, this is the this is on on Main Street, 3238 Main Street are the addresses here. And these are all these all conform to zoning. Um, the obviously the these are not buildable lots because of they don't have frontage, legal frontage, but
they're going to be conveyed to these parcels to the lots. >> They do not conform to zoning. They're parcels. They have no frontage. They they do not have adequate area. They're parcels. Can you put up the GIS room? >> Yes. >> Um,
>> so it's behind the florist, the cottage, and the other little >> I know where it is. >> Okay. Just >> so for clarification, they're they're part of another existing lot right now. >> They are all part of the backland lot. Yes. Worthingale owns. >> There's a registration line and a
recorded line that cut right through it. >> So, it's >> that blue parcel that he just had highlighted. Correct. >> Nathan, you had a question. Uh, did we get your name, sir? >> David. Last name is Brochuk. B R O W C H U K. I'm the manager of the survey department at GPR. >> Thank you.
>> That was my question to ask, Nathan. >> So, that's We don't have that plan, do we? >> Oh, >> yeah, we do. >> I forgot to give it to you guys, but see the plan, >> right? I forgot to give this the paper
copy up to you. >> Nope, that's the wrong one. That's the next one. >> Oh, sorry. That is the next one. Are you the next one? >> Uh, I'm keeping my seat warm, so sure. >> All right.
Those You can just put that right. >> All right. Here you go, KEVIN. OKAY. >> SO, it's carving the ples out of the lock. It's got a point on it. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> And three parcels A, B, and C. >> This may help colorized.
>> Yep. Right. See? >> So, we're Yeah. The red, the blue, and the green. >> The intent is to tie them into these. >> We're going to add a B to there. And then also creating an easement at the same time for access. Can you point to the easement? The >> Yes, Danny.
>> The hatching in there. >> So, the access ement brings you from the other lots to the back here. >> Correct. >> So, there's a deed right to the back of lot parcel C. So, there's an existing way further to the left of building number 40. And now
we're creating we're formalizing an easement so that those three those three units can get access to the rear of their building over the remaining land of Warenddale. So we don't have to see the language in the ease of that's beyond us a legal deal
>> and the intent through the chair um is to be able to sell these parcels already. >> They're going to be Yeah. Some of them are already sold. It's to make it more conveyable. >> Yeah.
>> Right. So for example, so the parcel C is has independent access. >> Parcel C has access over easement X A and B. >> Yeah. >> Right. But now this will formalize. >> Yes. >> Any further?
>> Yes. Any further Kathleen, do you have any questions? >> I do not. >> Okay. Julie, Nathan, Ken? No, I don't go public. >> Mhm. >> Uh, I'll open up for public input starting with the room. Anyone here have
any input regarding this particular ANR? >> All right, we'll open >> What's that? >> Public. It's a public meeting. >> It is a public meeting. >> Yes. >> Can I just ask about public input? We voted the last meeting to time people at
3 minutes. >> Yes. >> Um, so I'm just going to check. Is that still how you want me to proceed? Cuz I would said I'd be the timer. Yes. >> I will accept public input on 3038 from uh anyone on Zoom. >> Okay. Hear anyone raise your hand? No.
Nothing. >> Uh I could use a motion. Make a motion. Uh let's see. Is it accept or approve? >> Endorse. >> Endorse. >> Endorse. >> Endorse. make a motion that we endorse the um ANR
for uh 3038 Main Street, map 26, parcel 329 as presented at plan board meeting. >> Thank you, Nathan. Do I have a second? >> Seconded. >> Thank you, Julie. Any further discussion, Derek?
No. Public input's closed. We move to the vote now. Um, Kathleen, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Uh, Ken, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> I. >> Julie, >> yes. >> Chair votes I. Uh, it is endorsed. >> Thank you.
>> Congratulations and good luck. >> Can we sign it later or? >> Um, we'll do it at the end of the meeting just because we've got a lot going on. >> You want me to pick them up in the morning or something like that? All right. I'll stay here for the next one. >> Okay. Okay. >> Uh, next public meeting 64 Littleton
Road. I just want to point out that there's you'll see this on the agenda twice. This is the public meeting just to discuss the ANR portion of this project and then we're going to open a public hearing for 64 Littleton Road for the site plan review and minor store one. Um so 64 Littleton Road, do we have
a represent? It's still you. >> I'm still here. >> Same guy. >> Still from GPR. >> All right. My head is spinning. My head is spinning. >> All right. If you can set this up for us. >> Danny will first and then we'll turn to you. I'll I'll turn it over to him on this one. Pretty sure >> Yeah, it's just a simple
>> existing parcel, cutting it into three separate parcels, has adequate frontage, has adequate area, and it has adequate access as it is on a county layout, and there is no restriction. >> I'll correct you. Three different lots, not parcels. >> We're creating three separate lots,
>> right? But you said three parcels. >> Oh, sorry. One single parcel into three lots. >> So, what was a parcel be? And each one of them each one of them stands has the appropriate dimension of requirements for the zone underlining zoning as as buildable lots.
>> Okay, Danny's nodding his head. So yes, uh colleagues, comments, questions? >> Just one uh what we're seeing is an existing there's a town easement that runs through. >> There's an existing easement off to the left side, the 20 foot wide sewer easement, and we're going to be
extending it across the other lot so it can serve lot C. Oh, so that's new with this >> correct? >> Okay. >> But these with this here now is designed to serve the existing 64 the house on 64. >> Correct.
>> Through the abuing lot. I see >> any questions? >> No. >> Think you got Do you have any questions? >> I do not. >> Um I'll take it. We'll combine public input when we get to the hearing. No, can't do that. >> So, I'll take public input right now
from the room regarding the ANR for this. >> Anyone on Zoom have any comments? >> Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Try again. I make a motion that we
endorse the um ANR for 64 Littleton Road, map 36, parcel 257 is prevent presented at planning board meeting. Second. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. Kathleen, how do you vote?
>> Yes. >> Ken, >> I. >> Nathan, >> I. >> Julie? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? I know it's approved. >> Thank you. >> All right. We'll see you in a little bit. I guess >> contact either Hut or Great. >> And uh we'll be over in the morning. All right. Take care. Thank you. Okay. Next
item for uh public meetings, Lincoln Hill. >> Rub it in. Yep. Good evening. >> Good evening. All righty. Um, so to set the stage on
this one, this is the formal formalizing the a the agreement uh the tripartite agreement uh between the town, the bank and the uh developer. um in uh in December when the project commenced,
there was $250,000 that was set aside with the bank. Um initially, we've been kind of going back and forth on um uh the formal agreement and the uh the amount. Uh we did finalize uh the
recommended bond amount which was 300,000. So, the um developers uh put in an additional $50,000 into the bank um with the bank. And so, there's a total of, let me just get the exact amount,
uh $300,82345. So, um that has been put um aside in the credit line within the bank. And so the tripartite agreement that's um before you um is to formalize the actual um
agreement between all three parties. Okay. >> Um uh I I sent this over to the board um for you guys to review. Um there was also a memo that went along with this from the uh from the director of the
DPW, Dan. Um and um Matt also they put together kind of a quick letter breakdown as to um the recommendation. I don't know if you want to read this. >> Well, I at least want to read a part of it. >> Yeah, go ahead. because I think that uh a question may be well how do we arrive
at 300,000 and I think uh the the uh director of public works put it very succinctly uh in his middle paragraph of he says it's my understanding that the intent of the tripart tripartite agreement as was discussed between the applicant and planning board this is the important part was to provide shy to
stabilize the site as opposed to value the remaining construction develop of the development because this is a private development so that's how we get to 300,000 >> I I believe there's remaining issue regarding the timeline. >> Yes. So, um and just quickly on the um
reasoning why he's saying that. So, typically under a subdivision, >> we would uh the town would eventually take over utilities and the roadway. So, what we typically do is we do some sort of a covenant, a sh bond, something to protect the town for when it it would
eventually take over the road. Um in this um in this situation, the town would never take over the road or utilities. Um it would always remain private. So if you know anything were to happen, the bank would be the one who
would end up taking that. Um, and so what this does is basically um sets an agreement that the 200 the 300,000 that's set in the bank, the applicant would use to restore the site um if uh
if something were to happen and the project were to go under or something, they would use that 300,000 to stabilize the site um and to you know close up everything that's necessary. >> Stabilize for safety, but of course it wouldn't finish the complete the building. No. Did you say the Did you
say the applicant would use the money or how they could? >> Yeah. So, no. So, the way I I'll explain that right now. So, the way the the agreement is written is the the developers would be the first ones to do it. Um, and in clause number five, it
says if it's not if the developers do not restore the time within and we put in here 60 days, >> then at that point the the um agreement would allow the town to draw down that money and do it, >> right?
>> And in fact, the town could do so directly to the bank without >> Yes. And that's so it's just the formalization of all three um parties into this. >> And to be to be clear, the three parties are >> the uh the three parties are linking uh
developers um lum bank yeah and the town of air. >> Um and that is all spelled out in here. Town council has reviewed this and um has addressed uh and um felt fine with it. There was just a couple of comments
that they had. We we did clarify those which was the um time required for them to have this done. We said Dan um had suggested 60 days um to get them to close it all up and within if if after 60 days it they didn't um finish it then
the town would do that. >> And is 60 days st industry standard or typical? >> Um I think 60 days was is is enough time. >> Okay. >> For for us. >> Good. So that that issue is resolved then the 60 is the recommended from from DPW >> from DPW. Great. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So uh it just remains for us to approve. >> Yes. >> Yes. Nathan. Uh and then just to be clear also for clarity this is a um this is like a full pool alarm in case of fire document.
>> Correct. that it if everything goes to swimmingly to plan this never gets exercised and then the developer after the um uh project is complete they can re withdraw that money. So the way it would
work is like we typically do with any other bond the applicant would come at certain stages of the project to ask for a release a partial release of the bond you know at certain intervals of the project. And I'm going to let uh Janet kind of give you uh guys a kind of a
status update on the projects cuz the project is moving very fast right now. And so even from when this document was written, a lot has been done. So, you know, it it's it's it's a it's a fastmoving target here.
>> Doesn't really spell out that they can with take the bond down in this document though, are they? >> No, no, no. that that's that's a typical >> I understand it's typically do that with a covenant but >> no with with with any kind any kind of bond. >> Um it doesn't say that in here cuz this
is just formally for the um this is just the agreement on the amount and how the the bond is going to be draw down and all that. So the way it would work is once the applicant you know once this is formalized and say the applicant's done
with all the utilities and they put down binder they they could come back ask for the bond uh for a bond reduction >> Mr. chair and then also just >> again just to underscore what's going to happen can happen is it's we still have
three parties going on when when the when the applicant developer comes to request a draw down the you you uh the bank uh follows follow suit but the planning board represents the town >> correct >> in that third party.
>> Yes. >> Yes. the the the planning board and with the assistance of the DPW so that they would you know make sure that everything that they have stated has been completed. >> Very good. So >> Dan, did you was there was there a
schedule of values related to this? That's what I thought we were going to see. >> Yes, it um >> I don't see it yet. >> So Dan put it together. That's where he got the number. Um,
>> so is it listed as like an addendum on attachment or how does it go? >> Let me see. >> But you must have worked with Dan on it. >> Yep. >> He actually he did it um he ended up pulling it together. So he put he tied it in a bow.
>> So it' be so much for water, so much for sewers, so whatever it is. >> It's more so >> more to the land, the grading. Yes, correct. >> Because can I just say >> Yeah. >> Um when we were going through the permitting process, a couple of the complaints that I heard or concerns that
I heard from the abutters was like if they were to fail, we're going to be left with this barren wasteland. What would happen to us? So, I suggested to to the board and to Danny that maybe we put aside some money for a level of comfort that the Abutters would have
that if Michael and I died in a fiery plane crash tomorrow, there would be money set aside so that they could make sure the storm water system was complete and installed and, you know, restore the site with grass and trees and whatever needed to be done. Mhm. >> So that's where we're at is and and I
think the only things that we would ask for a release for is um starting next week they're going to be building out the cult system at the bottom of the hill. So um once that's complete, maybe we can release, you know, those funds and those are all scheduled to be um
third party inspected by Green International. So that'll be very cut and dried. It's installed, it's inspected, it's >> okay. So this is kind this is what um Dan put together. >> All right. So that gets attached to this obviously. >> Yes. >> And then this will get all recorded.
>> I wish I had you doing the work at the senior center for that price. >> The street lights price. Is that >> anything? Well, town project private development. >> Okay,
>> I'm good. If Dan approves the amount, it's I'm fine with it. Would it be appropriate for Jenna to give us an update? >> Yeah. Um, so I think give an update and then the board can make their um votes and open up to the public. >> Jenna, did you did you say your name and everything when you got up there? >> I'm not sure if I did. My name is Janet
Field. I'm a representative for Lincoln Developers. Um, I actually sent Danny a couple photos. Yep. I'm going to open this up. >> He could share perhaps as a um update on the project. Just some um that is just I
sh took the photo today as they were um beginning the utilities on the last stretch of roadway. So that's heading um up around the corner. Right behind that pile is NOVA Park. >> Mhm. >> So that's just an example of them working there. Um, is that
>> I think that's >> Oh, that's Matthew Lane. Matthew Lane. >> So, that's shows kind of like the the little bit of a circle that goes back. Matthew Lane is all the utilities are in. It's graded. >> That's cool. >> That is Nicholas Lane. So, that's that's
the lane that go that's the longest >> street um down to um >> that's up there is um that kind of the rock wall. Yep. >> That that rock face. Okay. >> And that's the map that comes from um
that's on the job site trailer. And I went over it at the end of the day today with um the site foreman. And they, you know, they go in and highlight what they've finished in terms of um utilities so that you can see water, sewer, drainage are all highlighted. And
I thought this was kind of interesting to share with you because you can see where they're they've come all the way up to the top of the um easement and they're so now they're just about to connect. They have two structure, two structures of um drainage. >> I'm sorry, one structure of drainage and
then the out outfall and then two more sewer drainage um structures to install. >> So they're they're close. They're getting really close to tying that part in. And then like I said, the cult at the bottom is going to start next week. >> Wow. >> And um >> and then the last this is also needs to
be done as well. So I um despite all you know despite some of the scuttlebutt I am pretty proud of their their progress and the job that they're doing on site. >> Do you also want to give them a quick update up here on >> the parking lot? >> Oh the parking lot. I put a picture of
that. >> Retaining wall. When's the retaining wall? >> The retaining wall. They're actually working on that. Um so there there are some topographical um differences like so there is maybe it may be shorter in
and on the ends where it tapers so they're actually working on there's a wall engineer expert who you know so they're working on it need to go for building permits. >> Yeah they need a building permit for that. >> Yeah that's so that's that's in process. They had to they had to do um boring
samples and they're they're actively working on it. Um this is the uh this is the the storm water basin. >> Yep. >> They're actually they've been taking water out. That's the water truck getting filled up because they've been wetting down the site um while they're
you know reusing the water right on site to keep everything wet. And um Oh, I put in a picture of the >> control dust. >> Yeah, control the dust. >> I um that's the parking lot. So that's okay. >> It's it's almost ready for pavement. Um >> that's unbelievable. >> So they're they're work busy working on
that. Um, a couple more loads of graded base are coming in tomorrow and >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So, there's that. And then I I think I put a So, they got a new crusher on site today. That was the piece of equipment that got delivered. It's a super large piece of equipment.
>> Maybe I didn't It didn't Maybe I didn't transfer it when I grabbed >> Oh, that's fine. It But it's really neat. it. Um so we've had a crusher on site for months that um takes you know some like really oversized piece of rock and brings it down to 6 in minus they call it and now today a secondary crusher. So it goes through that first
one and then it comes out and it's like small rock for grading the >> road. So it's um yeah it's very impressive. I was really impressed watching it. >> So you guys will be balanced it sounds. >> Yeah, it's going to be very close. There is there's there's additional rock but
they're trying to find ways to use it on site. Oh, so the excess would be what's available. You don't have to bring anything in. >> No, the only thing we bring in um is there are he, you know, very small rock for around structures, sand to line pipes and just highly highly specialized
materials that can't be manufactured on site. But as far as um generalized fill, it's all there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Pipes have to be embedded in sand. And >> yes, >> those structures, those giant structures get um peace, I believe, around them.
>> Yep. Um so I would probably if the next thing for public comment, I would suggest open that for the trip agreement. >> Okay. >> Unless the board has question obviously. >> Yeah. I want to can you have any more? >> My only question was the schedule because I didn't see it there. >> And
>> yeah, I I did I forgot to attach it for you guys. >> Nathan, Julie, Kathleen, do you have any questions? There she is. >> I do not. >> Okay, great. I will open uh up the floor to public comment on exclusively on the tripartate agree. Uh am I pronouncing
it? >> Tripartite agreement. >> Tripartite. It sounds not easy. >> Tripartate agreement. >> Hearing nothing. Zoom. I'm What? Oh, do we have somebody? Come on. Yep. >> Is this regarding the agreement? >> Not the agreement. It was
>> spaghetti. >> Something that was mentioned in this >> go uh what's it? Yeah. >> Yeah, it was the uh the big uh the the big vehicle that was gone cuz unfortunately it was gone when my uh my
wife needed to go to cuz we are >> we're at 35 rotten Harvard road. I'm think um so um so yeah today uh is there a way that we could get like a know when the deliveries were coming because unfortunately there was a cop and
everything but my uh my uh we were trying to get out the driveway when that big monster came. Um so unfortunately we were held up >> you >> Yes. Well, it well, it was on the other side, but still when it was going, my wife couldn't take the left to get to
where she needed to go. So, we So, it uh I mean, it only it was only a few minutes, but still, it's just something that if we knew that, you know, it was going to be there, we would at least be able to leave 15 minutes prior or whatever cuz they get in the car and
then all of a sudden they're waiting for that vehicle to go. So that's the only question. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah, maybe you could um >> could you share my phone number? >> Yeah, I can I can put you >> share my phone number send you a text. Maybe you just say tomorrow morning
there's it's >> just wrapping up. >> I I I know it's you know it's only a few few and far between and all that stuff, but unfortunately it's always in the morning when everybody is trying to get to where they uh need to go and that's my only concern. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Mhm. Thank you. So yeah, you can >> Yeah, I can put you in your contact >> any Yes, Pauline. And this is Is this about the tripartate agreement? >> Yes, >> it is. Uh yes, it is, Mr. Chair.
Specifically, I want to be sure I heard the member correctly. I don't know if it was Nathan or Danny or Ken, but it was definitely male. So, those are the only three that the $300,000
set aside is a word I'm paraphrasing in the three-party agreement is to uh correct, pay for, fix any uh elements of the project that were not completed by the developer in the event the
project is abandoned. And I'm using that again as a paraphrase. Am I understanding that correctly? So the yeah so the the the 300,000 is to be used to restore the site um if the if
the project were to go under as we would say not abandoned but yes it would be used to restore the site to more to natural and so that it would be safe. >> So I I oversimplified the explanation but I did that for a reason. Yep.
>> We that $300,000 is expected to uh cover the cost to restore a now destroyed hill. And I use that with all due respect. It's destroyed. It cannot be rebuilt. And I only say this to you
having been involved in the Willows comprehensive permit project. I would suggest to the planning board and that you reconvene with the DPW. In today's economy, $300,000 is not
going to fix what has happened up there. And the developer will get whatever is not used to repair and refix and replace. Why not just put it500 $750,000? It's nothing off of them. It's only to
the bank. And if the developer or the the let me say it simply, the town's people should not pay a single penny to restore this property to its so-called natural position
if the developer fails. I'm not asking the developer to fail. I hope they don't after all this. >> Is there a question here? >> Yeah. No, it's a suggestion, Mr. chair that the planning board not just accept a $300,000 number. You all should do
what is best for the town. I believe that was what Nathan said. You need to add money to this party agreement to make it more palatable to the town. Otherwise, I hope >> Okay, that's it. That's your three minutes. Pauline, thank you.
>> Pauline, just to clarify, this number was given to us by the DPW director. He's the one. So, he he personally did the numbers, looked through the the um uh schedule of values and put this together.
>> I understand that, Danny. Thank you for that explanation. I heard that. Which is why I'm saying maybe you as the elected planning board, not you, Danny, but the members should consider just adding a little bit more. Why not protect your
residents better than you have? That's the point. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I don't Do we have uh any other comment? >> Do I have a motion?
>> I'll make a motion. >> Thank you. >> I move that we ex >> exeute. >> Execute what the tripartite. Yeah, cuz there's a signature page on the on the back. >> Yes. Yes. >> Um, we execute the tripartite agreement
um as uh dated April 10th, 2026 for Lincoln Hill project. That's it. That's all I got. >> Second. Any comment? >> Any further comment? >> Yes. >> Yes. Go ahead. So
in response to what was said, I don't think that I would feel anywhere comfortable going back to the DPW director after this has been worked on for months by the town council, by the town planner, by the director of the DPW. I would feel very uncomfortable trying to second guess that process
unless I was with the process right from the get-go. So I feel confident the process is working and that's the reason I'm going to sign it. >> Thank you. Any other discussion? Hearing none. Kathleen, how do you vote? >> Yes.
>> Ken, >> I. >> Nathan, >> I. >> Julie? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? I >> thank you. >> Perfect. Thank you for your time. >> Um, what I'll have them sign it and I'll call you tomorrow about when to pick up. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We need a motion to open the public
hearing for or is that 50 Jackson Street, right? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> So, I'll do that. Uh, I make a motion to open up the public hearing for 50 Jackson Street, map 19, parcel 57. Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Any discussion? >> Could you please read what the public hearing is? >> Oh, the public hearing is an uh is the application for site plan review from Seal Harbor Companies for a proposal of construction of a single family house including an ADU on a vacant lot containing 15,360
ft. It is. >> Um, Kathleen, how do you vote? Did we vote yet? No. >> Kathine, how do you vote? >> You seconded. >> I did. >> I'm voting on opening the public hearing. Is that right? >> Yes. Just the public hearing. Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Ken. >> I.
>> Nathan. >> I. >> Julie? >> Yes. >> Chair votes eye. The public hearing is open. Uh, so I'm going to turn this to Danny to kind of set us up and he'll direct it to the uh applicant for further information. Um, so let me just
pull up my staff report. All right. So, uh, this project um came uh, let me see when this started. believe it was either March of
March or February of um 2020 4. So um the actual no actually uh the meeting was on April 16th, 2025. Sorry. So um what happened was the site was
clear-cut. um the applicant did not know that there was um that they needed to come in for site plan review under um section 9.6 if they triggered over 10,000 ft of clearing. Um >> this applicant has never worked an air before.
>> No, it's I I don't know what happened. Um all we know is that the um the clear it was clearcut. the uh Mike made an enforcement on the applicant um where uh
he told them that they had to come to the planning board for site plan review under section 9.6 land clearing. The applicant uh then appealed that to the zoning board of appeals. That was then upheld by the um the building
commissioner's determination was upheld by the zord zoning board of appeals. Um and then that was uh also uh appealed. Um then there was um over the last year there was back and forth with town our
council and their council and the court and I believe a stay was put on and the applicant was going to come back to the planning board for uh site plan review. Um the application includes uh it's um
under section 9.6 6. Um, so technically under this one, since it's not uh over 20,000 ft, there is no storm water permit. There is still a component that needs to be addressed as part of this. So, the applicant came forth and
submitted a site plan review application for a single family house with an attached ADU. Um and as part of that application, there was also um let me just get the actual plan. There was also a landscape plan that was
associated with the project to make up for the trees that were cut down. Um right there. Um uh so yeah, so the applicant pro um provided us with a revised um set of
plans after we had a pre-application meeting um with a landscape plan um showing right up along Pearl Street a pretty robust landscape plan. But to give the board history, this is what the site
actually looked like before it was cleared. Um, and as you can see right here, that is that is currently what it looks like. Um, so a lot of trees were cut as part
of this process. So now the board's job would be to after the fact, um, review the project under our section 9.6 six um you know regulations which is the the whole point behind that
bylaw is to um protect as much existing tree cover um as can as as possible since the the site was completely clearcut. Now, it's where the board will have to take their um your um your
ability to uh look at the landscape plan, make judgment call on whether or not the landscape plan is sufficient to um provide uh to make up for the trees that were cut. Obviously, there's no way to make a
onetoone replacement on this one, but it's um the board's gonna have to do some um some discussions on whether or not the the the landscape plan as proposed is sufficient to address what what has
occurred here. Um, I think I I'll turn it over to Mark for him to make his any comments and um if he wants to go through his plans. >> Evening. >> Hi. >> To answer your question, 35 houses in this town. >> What's that?
>> To answer your question, 35 houses in this town before this. >> I know. That's why I'm surprised that you clearcut. >> Yeah. So, >> I'm sorry, Mark, but you have to introduce yourself. >> I'm sorry. I'm Mark Gallagher from Seal Harvard Development. I apologize.
Um, essentially what Danny has has um expressed to the board is accurate. Um, we purchased this lot to develop it as a single family home. We do not agree with
uh the interpretation of 9.6. Having said that, we got opinions before we even began to cut the lot. And the opinions that we received was that 9.6 6 did not apply pre-existing conforming
lot of record. Um so that's the reason that we we were um surprised to get the stop work order from uh Charlie actually not Mike and um you know we had a history with Charlie
with the fire station where he was an impediment to our ability to move the project forward. >> We're not going to just telling you the truth. as a matter. >> You asked me, you asked me to give them the background. I'm giving them the background. I don't believe that Charlie
was correct in putting a stop work order on it. I don't believe it was correct in the interpretation. When Danny became involved, we decided to mitigate this. Instead of taking the long course to court, the trees were already cut. um
house was already planned and uh we met with Danny and um decided that his approach would be the most logical approach. We did have a pre-application meeting. Um the house is essentially the same house that we originally were going to put there. Um the lot is extremely
narrow. It would have been virtually impossible to put the house on the lot and maintain any of the trees uh either if we had gone through 9.6 six originally and and been in front of you to today. So there was a suggestion that
we did a a rather robust planting plan which we did met with Danny and his staff to go over it. Our engineer made some adjustments based upon the input that Danny and his team told us and we agreed to to come in front of you um
this evening. So just to be very clear, we didn't intentionally violate the zoning bylaw. I'm very familiar with the zoning bylaws. we got professional uh engineering and legal assistance prior to making the determination to
move forward and that's what we did. So I um would love to entertain any uh uh questions this evening on the plan. I think we've done just about everything that we would have normally had done should we gone through site plan
approval on this. again have never heard of site plan approval for a pre-existing single family lot, but apparently that's the way that it's now being managed and we should have been a little brighter about it at the time. So, um we believe that this is a great addition to the
neighborhood. The uh the house fits the neighborhood. The ADU is something new that we believe will be very helpful to the housing market. Um, and we're doing our very best to recuperate as much with the plantings that we possibly could. We
have subjected ourselves to storm water. A low storm water permit isn't necessary. We have a storm water plan that's encapsulated within this that we reviewed with Danny and his team when we were in front of them. Um, there have been some recent comments both from the
staff which are minor in in in nature that we'll address over the, you know, the next >> Hold on. Hold on. Sorry. Apologize. Nope. Not I don't know what just happened. >> You said the internet was unable. >> Oh, I must have bumped it. Did I bump it? >> No, you did not. I don't know what's going on.
>> I'm still on. >> Let me just >> technology. >> Yeah, >> works when you >> obviously we we did, you know, the preamble to the meeting in CA, but I just want to see if I can um It looks
like the system isn't frozen. Can we just >> You want a recess for five minutes? >> Can we just take a fiveminute recess? >> Let's do a five minute. Let's uh be back at five after the hour. We're going to uh I'm resuming the uh April 14th Airplanning Board meeting. Welcome back
everybody. Okay, so where did we leave off? I'm sorry. I >> um >> I think I was done. >> Mark was talking. I'm sorry I interrupted. >> I think I've given enough information for tonight. You have questions. Um, so the uh the department head comments were
sent out to the applicant. The applicant did submit revised plans, but I didn't get a a >> fiveday >> an actual um like a letter saying um response the response to the comments. >> I think she sent it today. >> I got the cover letter, but it didn't have like responses to the actual
comments. Now whether all >> I think she incorporated everything they asked for in the new plan >> and that's what I wasn't sure of if that's um >> everything that was requested was back >> was into that. Okay. So then we'll just have to review the plans. Um and for for the next meeting um let me just share
content at this point cuz correct >> and by the next meeting you'll have any any comments back to the >> we've answered all the comments all there weren't very many minor >> in fact the only one I the only one I highlighted was
>> so um just so that everyone knows um the I cannot share on the screen for some reason because this the system is down. Um, so I won't be able to show the actual plan on the web on the page on the screen.
Um, yes. So, we will have to review the plans just to make sure all the comments were addressed, but they were very minor. >> Um, >> these are comments you just got back today. Is that I didn't have any in my package yet. >> The department had comments, but
>> I had to go online. I don't have >> Oh, I maybe I forgot to print those out for you. Um >> they probably were three or four days ago. >> They're um on the website. >> Fine. >> They were very minor. >> Yeah. Was Can I >> Yeah.
>> So like one just a couple of requests from DPW. One is DPW request the applicant provide storm water controls parenthesis dry well subsurface leeching chamber etc. and parenthesis to infiltrate the first inch of storm water runoff resulting from the new impervious surfaces.
>> We already did it. >> You're happy with that? >> And then I have no idea what the difference between an eerie and a buffalo style curb box. >> It's just a type. It's a type of box they use for the water curb [ __ ] Turn it on and off. >> Different towns use different ones. >> So,
what about >> Oh, go ahead. Who's first? Ken and Nathan. Nathan. Ken. Nathan, do you want to go first? Um what's up? >> Two questions. >> Um just mentioned that's Can I just get a little more background on storm water? >> We just >> So this project doesn't trigger storm
water. Okay. >> But but >> um the DPW >> under legally under this any project that goes to site plan review has to do storm water component under our MS4 permit through the state.
We are in the process of internally discussing you know how we address that because you know Mark is correct on this that it doesn't trigger storm water but the comment was that he has to address the 1 in storm you know a 1 in of rain over
for the impervious which they and based on what we see they have >> we have a solution for that >> we have a solution but going forward we are it's it's an issue that we're going to address by adding language into our regulations that specifically talks
about this um scenario because it's not the first time we're running into this scenario. >> Okay. Um for uh site plan review, I assume we leave we still there's a lot that's left to the building commissioner
here. Like normally we have a table of setbacks and all that. Is that out of our purview for zoning? >> No, there zoning table. So all the information the setbacks are shown might not be on this page.
Um it might be on the next one right >> and and the setbacks are shown. Great. >> Okay. >> And last is just um question about the building >> uh
for the chair. Can you give us the square footage of each of the approximate? Do you know what they're going to be for the >> I think the main house is about 2300 square feet. >> And I believe the ADU meets your zoning requirement 9 900 and change. >> So 2,900.
>> Yeah. >> I believe well the state law is I believe 900 the maximum, >> right? Cuz >> 990 I think it's 9900 >> 900. Yeah, it's not >> or a percentage of the >> or main house
>> 50% of the main house whichever's >> there's a smaller >> we just abide by the state law that was put in that made um ADUs by right so that's what we follow >> okay last is how many stories
>> the main house is one and a half stories and the uh ADU is the same >> one and a half you're welcome What's the half story? Is the walk out? >> Cape. >> It's more like a cape. >> Okay.
>> So, the half is what? The attic? I'm confused. Oh, okay. Got it. >> Bedrooms on the first floor and a couple bedrooms on the second floor. >> I think it's two bedrooms in the AD here. >> Ken, you had some questions or >> So,
Nathan and I had the same issue. It turns out the site plan was on the bottom of the table. So >> plan was on the top, the site plan was on the bottom. The table's on the front of the site plan. >> Um, so we did get a request from for more planting on the west side of the
lot. >> So no, that was a that was a comment from one of the neighbors. So that it was sent over. She's actually in the she'll she's she wants to ask for that. But the long and the short of it is that the majority of what you're showing here for landscaping is really the planting
in the back and a couple of trees in the front. And the typical stuff you do around the foundation, the rest is lawn pretty much all lawn. Right. >> Correct. >> Um so for our obligation is to look to help get more trees in the lot because we would ask can we put more trees in
the lawn especially on the west side. You want me to take trees from the bottom because we really >> punish the bottom of the slope in order to after we had our pre-construction meeting. That was the recommendation. >> That was what you guys wanted street
side. >> So we asked for uh a landscape plan. They had gave the necessary suggestion of what they would do they've done on a previous house. We hadn't seen it yet. One of the comments um that one of the neighbors gave was that she lives at the
adjacent lot and because that whole area was wooded um she would like to have a visual buffer along that side. >> Left or right? >> Um if you're looking at the house on Jackson Street to the right
>> the one with the pine tree. >> Yes. Yes. And I believe she'll she wants to come up and talk at when public comment's ready. >> So that >> most of the plantings on a landscape plan
>> tend to be more like shrubs than trees, right? >> I believe there's Yeah, there's five trees. I believe what they tried to do is use all native and tried to make it um we did a
house in Littleton and they used a similar mixture of native species which includes pollinators. >> I see one that is >> and some other species that um are for the local wildlife. They like
What' you say? Four. Okay. I see two be in the back and two from the front. You said five. There's five in here. Okay. >> Yeah. >> There's three in the back. >> Three in the back. >> Yeah, there's three in the back and then two in the front. >> Right. I got it now. 8ft height, 1 in caliber.
They're not very big trees. >> I think the conversation at the pre-construction meeting was if we use larger trees, they would shock and die. >> Yeah, it's possible. and that they were trying to get native trees that would be able to quickly grow during this season
and be able to last through next winter season and into the spring and grow again. >> Big waters. >> I think they were rather judicial in what they they chose based upon their prior experience. >> Okay. I mean, my request would be that
we add some trees along the look at the drawing. I think it's the west side of the house. Maybe two or three more trees along. It's a long long area that could easily be filled in with some of the landscaping to make it a better improvement for the neighborhood.
The ADU in the back is behind the garage. I take it the way it's shown here. Basically, the walk to that. That's the way that's way it works. It's just >> the ADU is the front of the house. >> The ADU is actually uh facing Jackson Street. >> Oh. >> The main house is actually behind the
ADU. Wow. Okay. Cool. >> So, the ADU gives its best impression in the front. >> So, what if the language here says proposed dwelling? That's the section of the house. The ADU is at pretty much >> the front the front portion, the square that you see there, the rectangle. That's the ADU. >> I see it. Now,
>> the uh rest of the building is is the um is the uh primary residence with a garage. >> Cool. The plan actually had a two-car garage, but this is such a narrow lot, it would make it extremely difficult >> to try to fit. That's, you know, to meet
the setbacks. >> Um, the shortfall of this lot is it's extremely narrow. >> I mean, there's a requirement for the ADU that have like one parking space, right? So, we have to figure there's three parking spaces here. >> Yeah, there's at least three here. >> That's the way it works. Basically,
twocar garage and one outside or something like that. Yeah, there's the proposed driveway and the garage. So, there's there's parking. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's all I like to see more trees if possible. >> Okay, Nathan, Julie,
>> good. Okay. I'm going to open up for public comment. Any questions or concerns related to 50 Jackson Street? Is that right? Yes. Yes. Come on up. Hi, welcome. If you would say your name
and your your address. >> My name is Virginia Egan and I live at 54 Jackson Street. >> Hello. >> The adjacent. >> How are you? >> What? Good. I did speak to you. >> My son? >> I think it was my son. >> Oh,
>> it's okay. We saw this. Uh on the border between the two properties there is a approximately 90 foot Norway spruce that's over 100 years
old and I'm concerned with the digging and construction that the tree will be damaged >> and it it obviously will be the roots um which will the tree might not die right away. It
might take a few years, but I am afraid that the tree will die. >> So, I'm sorry. The tree is where exactly is >> it's about 4 ft on my property from >> Jonathan right here. >> When I Your picture isn't so It's not
working. No, >> it's not on there. >> It's this one. It's on her property, but the roof I get it. No. So, the concern is that the construction trucks the root will crush when they dig the foundation. It's going to disturb that all those roots on that
side. >> Yeah, it could disturb. >> Now, >> I have I mean I I have no problem with the tree, but I did mention to the person that was clearing and your son then >> um that not that I want to see the tree
destroyed, but if it's going to be a problem and die as a result of digging, >> I gave them permission to take the tree. >> Okay. Um, I haven't heard anything and I'm just I'm afraid of what's the
liability if that tree dies. The arborist wrote a little blurb. >> Yep. Which I did send out. >> Um, and he said that the to get a bigger plant it would be $750. Well, I didn't want to spend $750.
>> Yeah. And basically what the it said is protection of the roots would be about 30 a 30 foot circumference around the tree >> which >> obviously in this type of a lot is >> can't be done correct and so that's where we are. >> I understand
>> um and I think it's a viable >> worry. It is. So are so question what what what can we do for you? What what are you looking for from >> Well, I just I don't see how the how you can dig that close to the tree. If the
tree has to be taken down for the construction to go forward, I am not against >> okay >> having it taken down. Okay, >> there's nothing wrong with the tree. Some of the branches on the outside when they were clearing >> did get banged off, which obviously
you'd have to trim up because it would be unsightly for that house. there. Um, but I'm just worried about the tree being damaged. >> Right. So, if my understanding is, if I understand you correctly, what you're
looking for is it should should the digging damage the tree enough where it's compromised and could be a safety hazard. >> Mhm. >> You've got a an understanding, >> but he's going to be gone because the house will already be sold. It's not going to die for a few years.
>> Oh, I see what you're saying. >> That's the >> It's not gonna happen for a few years. >> I guess what the question is, would the developer be willing to cut out of that tree? >> Take the tree. >> Yeah. No, I mean, not that I really want the tree gone, but if it has to be, but
you understand what I'm saying. I just don't want the tree >> to wither away and die >> and then be a hazard. >> Yeah. So, we take the tree and give you five in replacement for it. >> And give me what? >> Five new trees. >> You know what? I would like a >> Whatever you like.
>> Well, there's no buffer on the street. I have a pool. >> I might as well be sitting on Pearl Street now >> cuz there's all the trees along the street were taken down. >> So, it's like sitting out on the street. So
>> if I had some kind of a buffer there >> but >> like a fence or >> a fence or arborite or something. >> So we we have bought a Christmas tree for them. >> And I it's not that I want to see the
tree gone. I mean we had a bald eagle sitting in that tree a week ago. >> They love those Norway fruits. >> So um but they have a lifespan of of two to 300 years. So the tree's not going to die unless >> we kill it. The roots are >> the roots and Okay. I was afraid you
would be against the deal then but you understand. >> I completely understand. >> So is the is the deal then to preemptively just take down the tree and replace it with with something else or >> tell a little bit about my experience with this. >> So we had a similar situation on a site
plan approval that we did up in Maine. There was a beautiful tree. >> Mhm. and we were within 7 ft of it. We brought an arborist in. He gave us a plan for 3 years where he came and injected the soil with fertilizer and we
had to put a lot of water to the tree. >> I bet >> you know we were much much closer 7 ft. It's been 5 years the tree is still alive. >> Okay. Well, that's >> I mean I think with the proper care I'd hate to >> take the tree. rather have an arborist come in and give us a plan and make it
part of the approval that we'll manage the plan for 3 years. >> Well, this is >> or I'll take the tree. >> They said it was $750 to get >> their further information of how you could take care of the tree. >> It was 3,000 up there. >> Um >> for 3 years. >> I mean,
>> he came in and he trimmed the tree and he um he did something with fertilizer. I don't know what he did >> and he put a lot of water to the tree and the tree survived. It's beautiful. >> And it was 90 ft tall. >> Oh, it was more than 90. It was huge. >> Well, it's right at the front of the property.
>> Uh before we decide, if you could speak to an arborist. >> Why don't you give me your arburous name and I'll call him. >> Okay. It was Bartlett Trees. >> Sure. >> Um you might have a burst of your own.
But um I just didn't want to pay the 750 to get the plan. But if they can do that and think that it will save the tree, >> that's what I like. >> Here's another thing though. >> I don't know if you have a buyer yet. >> I don't >> I mean >> I might be a neighbor. >> Okay.
>> Especially after I heard about the pool. >> So here's Well, it's an above ground. >> It's okay. >> So here's here's the house. >> Okay. >> Here's my property. Here's the tree. It's 90 ft tall.
Are these people really going to want to look at that tree trunk that's close to their house? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> If I'm taking care of it, I don't see any reason it's on your property. >> I don't think it'd be an issue. >> All right. Um I just I just want either the tree to be taken care of or if it
can't be to have it taken down. So, I will give you the choice of either I will call Barl Tree and get a plan and come back to the PL to the board at our next meeting or I will put a 58 to 10 foot away Norway spruce in place of it.
That'll give you a screen that's better than approvites because approvites burn with wind. >> Fine. Maybe we can talk. I'll give you my phone number after. >> Sounds good. Okay. >> So, I got an invitation to the pool and your phone number. Wow. >> My age. That's great, too. >> All right. Good. I thank you for
listening. I just I've been worried about it for a year. >> No problem. Understand. Thank you for joining. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> I'm sorry. That's one building. The ADU is >> intelligent. >> And that's in the front. >> It is
>> Nathan. Um very good. Dialogue between neighbors is great. I hope I hope they see it continue. the I think we can we can um solve two problems here at once, right? Because there was a request I think from Miss
Egan to have more trees or in and Ken too on the right which is >> right which would be down a little further. >> Mhm. >> Than that tree is >> Yeah. So >> down. >> Yep. >> This way. >> Oh, okay.
>> My backyard is here. >> Okay. So, it sounds like we can combine there's an opportunity to combine these ideas and and put the screen in. Keep the tree, don't keep the tree. Um, you know, I would welcome seeing a a letter
if you guys have an agreement. >> No, >> that we can just include >> Yes. >> in the absolute decision. >> Agreed. And if it needs more enforcement than that, then you know we can >> I think that's
>> go down that route. I'd prefer not to. >> Yeah. >> Great. Good. >> I think u Yeah, we need a motion to continue. >> Make sure that there's any more comments. >> Any more comments? Yep. Come on up.
>> More trees. >> Hi, sir. >> Fred I go Pleasant Street. Um, just to clarify what you're saying for everyone. Um, so if they decide to keep the tree, do you still do the extra trees for
>> the buffer? >> I think it's up to the parties to decide. >> But you wanted those trees for a different reason. >> True. So we do have >> merging two that's a separate issue. Yes. >> Two purposes. >> So you're definitely going to do the the buffer then >> to solve the other problem. So, it's
been requested and they've they're going to talk about it. So, when they come back to the next planning board meeting, there'll be a pres a presentation of what what was agreed. >> Just trying to decision tonight. >> I understand. >> We're waiting for them to come back with a request to see what they do with the
plan. >> You're merging two things and they could get because you might go one way with that, might go another way. Just to point that out. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Excellent. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you for asking. Oh, I thought you were going to do a motion for continuing. >> Oh, I you don't have to. Someone else
Ken was starting, but I'm glad Tim >> I move that we continue the public hearing for 50 Jackson Street to our next planning board >> meeting. >> Meeting >> meeting >> April 28th. >> I second that. >> Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. >> What?
>> April 28th. Are you back? >> I'm back. Okay, >> you will be back. Okay, >> I am coming back on the 25th. >> Okay, thank you. >> Uh, all right. We have that in a second. Any further discussion? >> Got a second. >> I did. I second. >> I did. I seconded. >> Quick question. Um, what is the time
frame for this? 60 days, 90 days >> for >> for conditional approval. Constructive approval. >> Oh, yeah. We're we're well we're well done. >> So, um, we're good. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. K. Oh, >> Ken.
>> I on the continuence. >> Nathan, >> I. Julie, >> yes. chair botto. We'll see you in next meeting. I >> think we'll see you in a couple weeks. >> Enjoy the warm weather. >> Yes. >> All right, >> Danny, do you want something inviting? Want to put something in an email to you?
>> Yeah, if you could. >> I'd like to I'd like to make a motion to open up the public hearing for 64 Littleton Road, map 36, parcel 257. This would be site plan review under 9.6 land clearing and minor stormwater management permit.
>> Do I have a second? >> Second. Any discussion? >> Hearing none. Ken >> I. >> Nathan >> I. >> Julie. >> Yes. >> And the chair votes I. Welcome gentlemen. If you could just do the usual introduction of yourselves. Of >> course. Good evening evening. For the
record. Jim Bile Gith Preston Ringall. >> Thank you Jim. >> Lim Gith Preston Ringall GP Officer. >> Hi Limhut. So I think we'll do as the usual. Uh, I'll have Danny set it up, explain why it comes under site plan review and minor storm water, and then I'll turn it over to you to walk us
through the uh, narrative. Um, just so that every, you know, my internet's out so I can't access plans either cuz I we're I'm on the server and everything. So, I know I know we have plans. Just saying in case we, you know, I nothing is going to be up there. Um, so the
>> quick question. I'm wondering why application plans, complete plans are not uploaded to the town website still. >> No, they they are. >> No, not the complete side.
>> I haven't come down here to yet. >> Um, >> I was just looking. I mean, I sent it to the board and they saw it. >> Okay. >> When when you look as a resident, >> it's not all there. I don't have a different access. >> Yeah, we have the same. They all have the same access as you. I have a
different access, but they all have the same access as everyone else. >> Okay, cuz what I what I got in hard copy is a lot bigger than what's on the website. >> Okay, let me let me just see. One second. It may have been that you clicked into
the ANR plan one >> cuz there's two separate items of 64 Littleton Road. >> Yeah, it's down. the the there's an ANR one which is the one that we did earlier and then the under above that one is the um this
>> yeah the the actual application also doesn't >> I saw it let me just I'm I'm going to pull it up >> quick the link um card projects. This is where
>> y review plan set. >> So I looked at it. It didn't all right. Now it's all there. When I looked at it this afternoon, it wasn't all there. >> It took a No, I looked at it earlier, too. It just took a long time to look. Okay. >> But that's the first link.
>> It's been up there for about two weeks. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. Great. Thank you. >> Yeah, of course. >> Yeah. And if you ever have questions like that, you're welcome to reach out to me and shoot me an email and I can always get it over to you. >> But we voted though, of course. >> I don't think we voted to open it.
>> Did we vote to open this? Did we vote? >> No, we didn't vote on it. >> She stopped us before the vote, right? >> Oh, wait. We did. >> No, we voted. You did vote. It is open. >> Oh, yeah. And then we will >> just just double check. >> Daddy, >> I think we're being recorded. >> Lead us through why is the site plan why?
>> So this project triggers our land clearing under 9.6. >> You know, any develop any project of 10,000 ft or more of land clearing. >> Um so this project has about 33,000 ft of land clearing. I think it's right
around there. Um, and because of that, that also triggers a minor storm water management permit as opposed to a major because it's under the 40,000 ft. So, um, with this project, uh, they are
proposing to have three single family homes with an ADU, an attached ADU on each of the lots as well. There's a storm water component to this. There's a detention basin. Um, just north of the
house number three. Um, >> so quick correction, not a detention basin by definition is a ponding area. >> Okay. >> It is a what? >> A ponding area. >> And it's for all three of the >> That's correct. For the storm water. Yeah. >> All right. So, can you explain that to
me? So, it's one storm water but across three different potential ownerships. So that's a question that I have already. >> How will that be maintained? >> It's a comment that they have to address. >> Ah, you understand the the concern, right? It's like okay, who has
responsibility for this piece? How do we >> operated and maintained into the future? So >> neglected and then >> you know what happens next? It fails. >> So that that is a comment that I had. So that is um >> um
>> and so I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. And and just quickly, department head comments were um done and they were sent out to the applicant for review um for responses as well. Um so they have those. >> So the responses are right, but you have the department head comments.
>> Yes. >> Good. Excellent. There was something else in that I can't remember. >> It's in the application. >> Yeah. How far can we get to that? I think the first one obviously we need to do is um the application fee. That is the waiver
that they've requested. >> Well, there's a bunch of waiver. That's one of them. >> Yes. But I think that is the most important one we should do first. >> Okay. >> Right now. >> So, um I'm going to allow representatives then to make a case. >> Remember, >> why
>> would you like a presentation for the project first? >> Yeah, let's do the project. >> Why don't we do the project? >> You're right. Let's do the presentation. Let's do that. I feel like Danny already did a pretty good job of covering everything, but uh you know, just kind of reiterate it again. Uh property being subdivided into three lots if I missed
it at you. I think you did when >> he did want you want me to hold this so people can be on the video. >> No, they can find it on the website. >> They can find it on the website. >> So, please go ahead. Oh. Um so existing
property uh to be subdivided into three separate lots with three single family dwellings, ADU, separate access driveways, uh water service, sewer connections. Um and with that um recharge or uh area to the north to service all three of the properties. Um
we had a pre-application meeting with various department heads to kind of discuss our approach for this. Um typically you know this project residential in nature um it wouldn't trigger the uh mass storm water standards uh because the threshold for
that is over four single family dwellings. This is uh three single family dwellings. So we wouldn't be sub subject to that but we do have the minor storm water permit aspect to it. So we do want to provide some sort of storm water for the site. So we used a mass
balance approach with one inch of surface runoff per square foot of impervious area for the total post development site. So that's how we determine the uh sizing for the detention. Yes. >> Excuse me. So in determining both the technical determination sizing and then
also for legal requirements. So this is still treated as three single families in say three units instead of six because it's three single families and three ADUs. Correct. But this the technical requirements and the legal requirements main the same as if it were
just three single family residences. >> It's based on the size. >> Yeah, it's just based on the size. >> All right. I'm just claring that for >> Yeah, it's it's just based on impervious area. >> Just on the impervious area. Okay. I just want that clarified for the record. >> 100%. And um so that's how we kind of
size out the area. Um and ultimately there there is no record of existing storm water system for the uh current site. So, we feel that what we're providing to service all three of the uh houses and ads, we feel like that will provide an improvement to the site.
That's our intent. Um, and we uh do have the waiverss, but we also have those um received the comments that we'd be happy to kind of like go through some of those to um make sure we're all on the same page. So, uh if you'd like, we can kind of run through the comments first and
then get the waiverss or if you need the waiver. >> I guess I'll try to lay this out and see what we want to go. Um, ultimately the goal for today is I'm hoping, you know, I had hope that we can close today, but that's long gone. I'm hoping at least for today we can get clarifications and
directions on how we can provide a revised plan um along with the comments that we received last week, last Friday, Thursday, I can't remember. >> So, it was, you know, bit of a short notice, but we can we can make it work. Um the comments to us seemed relatively
minor um at least for some of them. I had reached out and spoke with Matt Hearnen, the town engineer, regarding his comments more specific to the utilities, knowing full well that we have to work with Matt as we've done on
previous projects to give him a utility plan in order to do the utility connection with the application. Um so he was very agreeable to you know he doesn't want to get into the weeds of the utility requirements or how it's laid out d
uh before planning board. So he's he's very much agreeable to you know table his comments at least the ones pertaining to utilities >> and work it out with us on a later date. Um, that being said, we do have comments from Danny and all the department heads.
So, we do want to get directions on and get clarifications on. Okay. >> Are you going to get clarification directly from the departments? Are you looking for clarifications from us right now here >> from from planning board members? >> Okay. So, let's say what do you mean by clarification?
>> Yes, please. Uh so I guess a couple of the really the clarifications that I want to get is in regards to the landscaping requirement as well as the requirements to submit a photometric plan. Um as we understand >> does a waiver report. >> Yeah, I think you're doing a waiver right wasn't wasn't that
>> so and you know the way we had read the site regulation the zoning bylaw is that it didn't seem for the residential project that we were filing for that we would be subjecting to that and there are no particular requirements pertaining to a single family. So we weren't sure if we even need to apply for
>> So under our site plan regulations you have to follow all of our site plan regulations. So that's why we typically at this point like in the last application they also requested a waiver from the traffic and from the um phototric. So I would just suggest submission of
the waiver request which you I agree with you. typically would not require it on this because with a residential you're only going to have a either what'sever on what's on the one what's on the front of the house or if you put a you know something small on the front of the driveway. So
>> typically we don't require we wouldn't require it on that but we don't have separate regulations for >> these minor projects which we have had been have been in discussions about trying to differentiate but right now we
don't. So I would suggest submission of a waiver >> because a waiver request because a traffic also like a traffic request on this one wouldn't make sense either. >> Exactly. >> In that case I still want to bring up the the one regarding landscaping because as I understand reading through
the zoning regulation because the site plan rags points you to the zoning bylaw. Um zoning bylaw does exempt you exempt single family homes from providing a landscaping plan. you know how >> Yeah, but that's under that's if you
don't trigger 9.6. >> And that's the same argument we had with the previous applicant. >> Okay. >> He went through the ZBA, went through all that. Like he went through basically the argument that because typically single family homes aren't required under site plan review. They normally
aren't. We have a bylaw that says anything over over 10,000 square ft triggers site plan review. So now you fall into site plan review. >> So what I got a comment too on what Danny's saying just for the board and for myself just to double check this.
Okay. So bicycle we're saying any project that triggers site plan review needs to go to the site plan review >> regul >> regulations and go through it's same in the application. The application has all those boxes that you check. >> Correct. If you trigger a situation in
the site plan regulations you don't think applies, you should ask for a waiver. >> Correct. >> In all probability, if there's a logic to it, the board will grant the waiver. >> But likely >> because you the applicant is saying it's residential, maybe we don't even have to
ask for the waiver. Is that what you're saying? Limit basically. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Because it says here it's >> I've got the thing right here. I can I've got the whole regulation longhand. So, under section 4C14 >> in the site plan review regulations,
>> under the site plan review regulations, the landscaping plan and description of on-site open space that meets the requirements of section 9.1.6 and 9.2 of the air zoning bylaw shall be provided. >> Right. >> So, when you go under, >> what's the number again?
>> 9.1.6 and 9.1 >> and 9.2. >> Oh, that's referring back. Yeah. >> What's the site plan number? >> Oh, the site plan regulation is >> 4 C14. >> There's the yellow lighting. That's trap. >> It's before that.
>> Right here. >> 14. >> I think it's >> I got it highlighted already cuz we did this before. Yeah, we've run into this. >> So, yeah, we waved this before. So we have waved it but we have had pre discussions
recently relatively recently in the last couple of meet um projects which actually uh hut was part of some of those where waiver requests for landscapes were were requested but there was um a growing concern that
continue continuous >> uh waiverss on these the same yeah we're getting the same waivers But that was a commercial property. >> Yeah, that was a commercial property. >> There's a difference here. >> Correct. I agree. I'm just saying that this was brought up
>> and the board did feel at that point that you know waivers should be kept to you know >> not just uh at at that point it' been a lot of these have been given you know much easier not easier but much more.
So, and the reason I brought it up was because so as part of this project, there's a couple of trees there. There's a there's a lot of trees in the back that are going to be cut down and then there's like five or six larger trees that are on the property that are also
getting cut down. >> So, for me was how are those trees going to be replaced? Um because the intent of this bylaw is to protect as many trees as we can. And based on what I see is a lot of trees are getting cut and there's no
replication that I see at all. >> Okay. Okay. So I want to go back to the section of regulations. Um just to >> so in >> Yeah. Just want to understand >> the application application you only have three waiver request
>> at the moment. >> At the moment. Yep. And we're basically talking about a situation where the application in your mind is incomplete because it doesn't have a landscape plan for instance or the rest of the requirements. >> Mhm.
>> Is it easier for you to just put in a landscaping plan than to go through this discussion? is so bringing up the discussion is not you know I'm not >> political reasons are I mean it's just >> no no I'm not and the reason why is I'm
trying to get to the language of the waiver itself because specifically under 4C14 it says you have to provide a landscaping plan that meets the requirement of 9.1.6 and 9.2 now 9.1.6 Six under the zoning bylaw
>> pertains to parking facilities with more than five parking spaces which we're not >> it's a commercial requirement >> and 9.2 is under you know new construction or substantial reconstruction in business district industrial district downtown air park
street and multif family. So, what I'm trying to get to is that, you know, we could provide landscaping. I just don't have the directions of where to go. >> Um, because, you know, under under conservation, if you were to remove a
tree and within the buffer limit, you know, there's a a guideline to tell you exactly how you can do that. You know, in this case here, how do you how do you make the judgment of what is what meets the regulations, but at the same time
doesn't add unnecessary cost to the land owner for a project of of this scale. >> That's a fair question. >> It it it's a fair question. It is. >> It's definitely a fair question. Um the only thing I would suggest Well,
>> I can't make a suggestion. So the the the only thing with this is >> so I agree with you in in in in what the argument you're making. For me it's not really more of the
landscape plan per se. It's replacement of those trees. >> Okay. That's really kind of where my that's kind of where I wanted to curtail my my comments or you know >> what what you do around the house has no I I don't really think has a bearing on
the planning board you know it's more of in the sense of like you know around the foundation and what the what um a person who's going to live in the house is going to want the the biggest thing is more of the replacement of those trees
and around and you're cutting down all of those trees along the northern portion of the site along that property line. Um there's a lot of trees that are going to be cut down in that area. You know, our the intent of this bylaw is to
try to save as many trees as we can and if we can get replication. >> Okay. >> So, it's more of like what can you replicate for those trees that are being cut. >> Okay. But that's what I'm trying to get to. I'm just trying to get to like I
don't know if you're looking for a number just anything in general like that's that's really it. >> I mean for me more of you know replacement of those uh there's like five or six trees >> and obviously you're not going to replicate everything that you cut down along that border >> right
>> but some replication would help. >> I I I don't have a number in mind because I don't know how many trees are out there. Also like I understand I get the the argument of the burden. Yeah, >> you know, but >> it's not even a >> good faith effort in the sense for me
>> on what you would pro, you know, put in for lands for trees would that's kind of like where I was going with that con. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> I see I see why you have a problem with the >> Yeah, even the wave of request because
the language of 916 >> Yep. >> doesn't even apply to your product. >> That's correct. So, how can you write a waiver to a piece of language that doesn't apply >> because the waiver would be from the site plan regulations, not from the Bible? >> Yeah, but because the reference says
it'll be built to this, >> but that's that's kind of the >> double tandra. >> It is. And I get it. And I don't know why our Bible hasn't written that way in regulations there. It's something that Heather and I have also discussed and it's on our list
of things we want to do, but you know, >> Yeah. And >> there's a lot of things in our in our bylaws that we've been slowly trying to work on, but >> yeah, I don't want to be pedantic about these things either. >> And I get it. >> Um question. Um seems like there's a
cascading effect. We triggered you're triggering the minor storm water which your solution for this is this ponding area comply with that >> and the ponding area >> is requiring more clearing. >> That doesn't apply.
>> That's great. cuz it's commercial. >> All right. >> Could there also be a solution with another I'm out of my league here, but with another storm water solution that doesn't clear as much and and is equally
as beneficial. >> Right. >> That's where I would say cost then. >> Right. Right. On only you guys know this know the answer. >> It would be more expensive putting the chambers. That's correct because it's not just chambers. It's collection point intake and filter
>> uh on and m is >> a home. >> So this is better. This is a less expensive solution even if there's some large some some tree planting that makes an effort that
I I appreciate that there's no direction um to uh replicate some of the trees that are gone and be gone. >> Yeah. and and and the basin was chosen um kind of strictly from a low impact development point of view under the mass
storm water handbook. Ping area or basin or or any sort of detention or infiltration basin is considered um low impact development. >> Easy easy to maintain. >> Easy to maintain and ultimately you know the chambers that we put in unless you provide a proper uh access for
maintenance is going to fail. And this space and function as something that you can see clearly. So if there's sediment buildup, anything you know trash you can pick up is very easy to access for the homeowner to take care of. >> Okay.
So it still doesn't answer the question for guidance. I don't know if there's a do we have a direction for giving guidance for the storm water or the land >> landscape. I mean, I would I mean, for me, I would just mine is more reputation
for those trees that are being cut down. I'm not saying 20 30 trees. I'm saying >> and we don't know either. And that's ultimately where where we are. We're going to go back to the land owner and just have a conversation with them to see where it's appropriate to actually put in trees.
>> Um, that's pretty true. >> Yep. >> So, would it be appropriate? Can they do with a narrative instead of a plan? Say for instance I'm looking at the layout here the three lots and you've shown the U building setback typical you
know and whatnot >> that envelope that the building sits within. You can almost do a narrative and say along the line of the building setback there'll be trees replaced or something along there'll be 15 trees replaced some narrative that ties in with the shape.
But I guess the the one thing would be is where where how do we know that those trees are being planted, where they're planted >> because a narrative can >> you can it's it's much harder to describe in a narrative form where you're going to be planting a tree cuz
if you show it on plan, it's right there. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Mr. Disc, if you're look if you're aiming to close out the meeting uh tonight, we can always just do it as a follow-up plan. >> That's what you're angling for. is just put on the blind that is probably the
fastest way. >> Just put it on the water. >> That's no problem. >> Now, I guess we're not going to resolve this evening disposition. I got a couple quick questions. >> Well, I guess the storm water is something that I want to >> Yeah, let's talk about that. >> Talk about that as well. >> Yeah, let's discuss that. So, that's
this plan. The last plan, right? Grading. So the storm water um interestingly enough um you know we we submitted a waiver request specifically for the storm water but hearing the project before us I was kind of curious if you
know that that same set of regulations for minor storm water applies where we wouldn't even need a waiver request because we're providing treatment for the 1 in times the imperous area. >> No. So that's different. That one doesn't trigger a minor.
>> It does not. Okay. Cuz it was under 20,000 ft. So that's where we were talking about >> rewriting or adding into the regulations. >> If you trigger site plan review, >> but don't trigger a minor or a major, you know, you have to account for the 1
in storm. >> Understood. >> You know, one one inch over the impervious. That is kind of like what we were talking about there. And in your case, you do trigger a minor. >> Gotcha. I appreciate the clarification. >> Yeah. Um the waiver request um we provided is for the >> is under our local storm water
regulation. >> Yep. >> The waiver request that we provided is to um to wave the strict adherence to the local storm water regulations under section um 2.9 of the town uh town of
air storm water regulations. Um ultimately the the project that you see before you is again three single family dwellings with ADUs. Um as Jim mentioned earlier for any single family dwelling or any multif family dwelling really under four units
is exempt uh entirely from the mass storm water handbook. anything between five to eight units, you have to provide some sort of uh you know groundwater recharge or you know some sort of on-site treatment for a project of this
scale. We're not doing a whole lot. Um you know it's not a commercial project is is very much low load of you know TSS as well as phosphorus being generated on site. Um and the areas that you know we have impervious area where you know
you'll see traffic load um is being cheap flowed towards the ponding area that we're providing on in addition to that we're also collecting the roof runoff for all three houses and
sending it over to the ponding area uh the same way as the sheet flow. We provided enough volume to um hold one inch times the total impervious um area on site which is typical for a lot of
different municipalities um these days who have adopted the EPA's new storm water rigs um only specifically for residential dwellings um with the understanding that if you're doing something on site you're at least
trying to provide some sort of treatment and groundwater recharge. Happy to answer any questions about that. So, in this one, I'm kind of out of my expertise. I usually rely on Matt on this one. Matt's not here really to be
able to speak on this. So, I I don't feel comfortable at least giving an opinion on this. I don't I would rely on Matt on this one. Can we get a letter from Bill or next? I can. Yeah, I can ask. >> He'll look at it.
>> I mean, when you look at the set of drawings that you turned in, it's clear that an effort has been made, you know, to to work this in the right right way. >> Mhm. >> Basically towards the retention area and whatnot. And you're collecting the roof
drains as well and sending them over there. I mean, that's a good thing. the question. >> Sure. >> The plan. >> Um, in your application, you state that if there was any problem with the
pond, it would be draining out, trickling roughly 100 ft and into a neighbor's property. What neighbor? >> You. >> And that's exactly what I was afraid of. >> Exactly. I can see it right here. >> Because we already get flooding from
naturally from that area. M >> tough the fact that my you show my property line but you don't show the location of the house the other things there kind of gives the illusion that oh this is not going to be a problem but
you're planning to drain something on my property if it fails and unfortunately I don't have the pictures with me but when we have a wet season or a lot of heavy snow melt heavy rain we get flooded seriously we've had damage
>> in 2018 from the flooding that I had to come before this board in conservation to get help with. >> And this is just going to make it worse as you're taking out all the vegetation and you're adding water that you're collecting plus groundwater runoff because that's all higher land that
already drains down to us. So to me, I know you're trying to keep cost down and so forth, but it can't be at my expense. And the trees that you were talking about,
this is your trees. It's not 5, 10 or 15 trees. It's this whole area. And that was in the plans originally when my house was built considered wetlands. And the boards at the time
changed that designation. >> Well, there's a piece left in the corner right right on the edge. >> That's it's the wetlands are still behind. >> Um in fact, if you look on the plan where you see >> Yeah, we see it. >> The border right there.
>> That marker is at the corner of my shed. My house is 15 feet from the lot line. So, you're going to be directing all of that water in. And we've spent, we and the prior owner, original owner, put in a lot of effort to build up gardened
areas as sort of a burn >> and we still get a lot of water. And now you're going to just add more because there'll be nothing there to absorb it. We'll slow it down plus the ponding. And
I just can't see how that's going to work without floating this away. >> Is there any testing? Any testing done here? >> There will be. >> There hasn't been yet. >> No, >> there's been no deep testing done.
>> So, you don't even know if this will infiltrate fast. >> It's not saying it is an infiltration. >> It's it's Yeah, it's a ponding area, but it's going to infiltrate at some point, >> right? It doesn't necessarily mean 72 hours, but it should infiltrate, >> right?
>> Another Well, we get a heavy rain, >> we can go even, you know, when it's dry, we suddenly have a formal pool in our backyard. >> This is a really, really easy question is what I'm going to ask. >> Why is that that far to that side of the
lot? Why not put it right directly behind the house in the middle? >> And I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. The windows. >> Sorry. It's just warm in here. OKAY. YOU CAN HEAR ME NOW. >> I can, but that was actually quiet for you to hear it. >> To that point, too. Anytime, Ken. And I know we don't have anytime you move
those plans. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I can't hear anything besides. >> All right. So, here's my question. Very simple question. >> Yep. >> The retention, not retention, >> the ponding situation. >> Yeah. >> Is in I would call it on the drawing. It's on the northeast of the drawing.
>> That's correct. But it's actually Yeah, it's east of the southeast. It actually is northeast. >> Just turns out the the road goes that way. >> Why not put it on the lot in the middle >> further away from the a Butters property
in some chance of creating an actual retention system there rather than the so-called just ponding system >> because we wouldn't be able to pick up the flow from lot three. >> From which one? >> Lot three. >> It's lower. the the one on the right hand side is lower. >> It's lower.
>> Okay. >> And just to clarify, >> so it's sloping. You're putting it in the lowest point you can get to to get the grading from the third lot. >> That is correct. >> Back down there. >> Just to clarify the right now as a standin
road as well as the existing structures that are on, you know, shown within this project area, they all sheet flow to towards the northeast corner. of the property. So we that's why we place the basin the ponding area there. Excuse me.
>> Okay. >> That's what's going now >> specifically to slow down the water, give it a chance to go into the ground and if it needs to overspill, it's going to trickle down through the stone that's placed as the overflow for the bypass,
allowing it to continue as it does in existing conditions. >> Right? But again, if you're clearing this, you're preventing groundwater runoff from slowing. So, you're going to increase everything coming this way
from if this is your house >> all around here. >> All around here, this is what you're clearing. And back here, it's going to run slope down because the land does slope all the groundwater. Plus, if your pond is back here and draining towards
here, water runs from here back like this into our yard at the back. All this area back here is wetlands. All this side here is wetlands with a running stream year round. >> Does it do that currently? >> Yes, great. Even in drought season.
So, any water added to that is just going to make it worse. And literally my house is right here where it's flat. It's lower than this. This this all of this is higher much higher than we are. >> So what can we do about
>> this is higher back here than we are. >> So the the only >> I mean I'd be happy to have and this is something I came here to offer. I would be very happy to invite all the stakeholders, the engineers, members of the various
town departments to come and walk through and see that right now even though we haven't had much rain for a while. >> Yeah. Um, you can see where it gets wet. I mean, there are times when we cannot
go out our back door at the walk out level and not step on boggy wet sponge. If I did, I'm hot as voice surgery recently. Um, but do I understand
correctly that the the general rule is that we accommodate one inch of rain and the expectations that if there's more than that, it's going to overflow from the basin. That's >> no. So in this scenario,
>> it that it's so they have they trigger a minor storm water permit. They that they have kind of a different standard. They have to follow the storm water regulations. They're asking for a waiver for that. >> Yeah. And I >> the other house we were talking about
had to do the 1 in. >> Right. I'm just concerned that we're going to end up floating away simply because they don't want to put in the extra money into the project to
really do it the right way. I'm not trying to block the project, but I'm trying to get to a point where we have clear and open communication and talk about problems and come up with solutions together. Mhm.
>> Not only for us, but for the people who are eventually going to live there. And another thing, if you're going to have a ponding area like that, who's going to monitor it, enforce it? If you're saying, "Well, the homeowner can maintain it." >> How many homeowners do you know that
>> know how to do it and what not to do and will actually do the work? >> It was, this is our third wetlands property. We understand this, >> but most people don't. And unfortunately in the town, the majority of these
developments now it's an HOA or we are stuck with Pingry HOA and there have been problems with that not getting done and changing hands and >> and >> people don't know that they can't go dump things into that ponding area and
and it it makes it worse and drainage worse and so I can't trust that. >> So I I understand where you're coming from. Um so in terms of the question as to who's going to maintain and all that that is something I have already asked questions on they have to get us answers
on. So that that is and also the way our decisions are written now there's a lot more um written into our decisions that would require you know monitoring submission of of um yearly inspection stuff like that that we do now
necessarily would that apply to this project I don't know we they're requesting waiverss it that's all going to get flushed out through this process >> okay we you know we went through some of this before when this ANR project was originally brought up
8 years ago with the Curling Circle project. >> Mhm. >> And that was originally an 8 acre plot of land. >> Mhm. >> That they cut off the back so that they could have the open space and the drainage areas, ponds in that preferably circle. Yeah.
>> And held off. So, we've been through some of this before, but some of the reports and things, the Oxbow report is referenced in the application, but it leaves out the fact that Oxbow also designated that area to
be clearcut as an area of medium concern because, as we noted back then, it is the only unobstructed crossing over 110 from north to south between the roughly
the Shirley line and the Westford Chumsford line for wildlife. Everything else has guard rails, buildings, other roads, railroad tracks, sheer drop offs, and so it is a very active crossing. We have a lot of accidents
there. >> So, you know, I need I need to bring this meeting back under control here. >> So, I just want So, we understand where that's coming from. That is not within the planning board's perview. That is not within the plan board. >> When you were talking about cutting down the trees though, that is part of the >> Yes. But but in terms of the oxbow and
protected that has the planning board does not that's not within our purview for us. If it something that is natural heritage or if it's something wetland related that would go through conservation not through this board. >> Okay. >> So where are we with the storm water
then? >> Right. I guess the the question is can they address the concerns? It's it's not for the board to decide. That is for the applicant to decide. >> Yeah, I I'll I'll talk a little bit about that. So, just to clarify a little bit, the the maintenance is going to be
strictly uh under the sole um you know responsibility of the owner for lot 3. um that is going to get recorded as a deed notice provided that you know the project can be approved and constructed. Um if you look at the way that the basin
is laid out, the ponding area is laid out. Obviously it stretches across to lot two as well, >> but being that this is a ponding area, a lot of the sediment trap is happening where the overflow is coming out. So cleaning up is a matter of just
digging out the lowest point which is towards where the stone is which just happens to be located within lot three. So it can be made so that lot three is the sole owner and you know person responsible for maintenance of the
system. >> So and would that include an operation and maintenance plan? >> It does. Okay. >> So I guess that means >> Excuse me. Please, please, excuse me. Um, that that kind of blows my mind a little bit because at least half more
than half of it's in lot two. So, this guy, whoever owns lot three, is going to be aware of like we're not to step over and trespass on the other person's property while they're maintaining. >> Do you understand where I'm getting at here? >> I understand what what I'm saying here.
>> This is I understand what you're saying. And you're saying most of the the crap will gather at the end at the northeast corner which is where but still there's all that other spaces. I mean a pond's a pond. It covers both. You know what's he going to do? He's going to clear out a little over on one side and just leave the rest of the crap on the other. I
mean that doesn't >> I don't understand it. If >> there's an irony here because we just approved the ANR >> you got to fix that freaking lot line. You probably include the whole pond >> but then they don't meet the the square footage. >> It could also just be a joint own.
That's where I'm because you're gonna you're gonna have to mow that, >> right? >> So that person's what? Going to just mow what's on their property and then what about the rest? >> Yeah. >> So, can you do just can you do a deed right away? >> Not a right away, but a joint
responsibility. >> Okay. But you get deed deed access to >> I don't like the whole thing. This I >> Well, you've got anyway there's also open questions that we might see something different. in a couple weeks. >> I got
>> not exactly how I want to say. >> I I I I'm just going to go for my gut here. >> Okay. >> I I don't see this working yet. It's just you got something crossing two properties. It's not resolved who's going to maintain it and who has right to what.
I don't think it's I don't I I I think this needs some more cooking. >> Mr. Go ahead. If I may, I I don't think a joint ownership is that big of a deal. Um, it happens quite often across, you know, residential properties when you
have more, you know, storm water infrastructure going in place. Now, additionally, the the waiver that we're seeking is, you know, not having to provide strict adherence to the regulations in place, meaning that
the system that we design does not come with a typical storm water management report and all the typical checklist that goes with that report. >> And what's the justific what's the what's the justification for the regular request other than it's expensive for
you? Is there cuz usually the waiver justifications are two things. Either it's irrelevant. It just doesn't apply. It doesn't make sense. Or two, there's an advantage to the town or the citizens with the waiver. So where's the advantage or where is it irrelevant yet?
The the advantage is that well the whole point of the waiver is that we're trying to we believe that a project of this scale that is typically exempt from the state regulations. Um you know not even to have it provide
anything just exempt completely if you're building it under the state to ignore storm water. We are providing something to make an effort to try to meet something. Well, you know, but but from our position, it's not just that effort in good faith is not enough. We
have to see something that's going to practically work. >> So, and then I'll I'll talk a little bit about what it would take to bring this project to full compliant. >> Okay. For this project to go into full compliant, we would probably we would have to provide a storm water management report kind of addressing the TSS
removal, phosphorous removal, groundwater recharge, all these all these different things that typically would fall under it. Additionally, the basin itself would just have to get bigger. So, more trees to be cleared, a much
bigger overspill. Um, probably a more structure ownership responsibility under the HOA. It can be done. It's just we don't believe like you I think I forgot who
brought it up, you know, clearing trees to put it in a bigger basin. That's the path that we're kind of headed heading down to. Should we bring this project in full compliant of the local storm water regulations? >> And so I guess just I guess the question
would be I think we would have to talk get something from Matt. >> Yeah. >> On this >> in terms of this that specific waiver. >> I got a comment. Mr. Yeah. >> So, I I want to make a general comment here that I'm so happy that the town of
Air has this minor storm water regulation and it applies to this project cuz this if and backing up what Lynwood said if we didn't this would just go ahead and get built. They would not even have to come to the planning.
It would be three lots where the ADUs allowed sit in the lot. Really the only reason they're here is because of 9.6 as you pointed out tree clearing and the stone wall. But there would be many situations, many towns this could be built just the way it is.
>> Mhm. >> Without even coming here. Am I right? >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, I'm happy that we have that because this shows the we outreached in the past to try to figure some of this stuff out, which is good. I almost think that this is a situation
where six is too much. Maybe four is the right number. Uh I just maybe six is too much. >> Six too many buildings. It just might be a situation. >> There's technically three buildings. I think >> three buildings. Maybe two buildings. Four units is enough. I'm just thinking this might be a situation where
I don't know how we would voted no. But I'm saying this is going to require a lot more work for me to vote it. It's going to be all about figuring out where that drainage is. I'll be honest with you. If you had to put subsurface systems in here and they were really deep, you could make it work. You just
have to make sure it works on the ground that would the subsurface systems perked and go far enough from the water table. You need testing here for me to understand what's going on. >> We would much sooner make a bigger basin than put in chambers. >> I know. Um
>> your response what you're saying just like your response was that it seems to always have worked in the past with people joining together but there's just many cases where it doesn't work. >> Okay. And there's many cases of private driveways that are shared that don't work. So putting neighbors together is a
prophecy is a nice thing to have happen but in the long run they don't know what they're doing. That's right. >> So that's what happens 30 40 years from now. I think this, as I said, I'm pleased it comes before us with these regulations and I I want to see some real serious testing here. Know where the groundwater
table is. No one can work. What can really be built here to work? I I'm not sure it works. I I just don't feel comfortable with it at all. I I know that Matt uh the town engineer isn't here, but I did have prior conversation with him about the
testing requirement because he brought it up in his uh review comment as well. He is agreeable just meeting me on site when they actually carve out the area during construction to confirm. >> I want to remind you Matt's a great guy. He's a professional, but he doesn't have a vote. >> Okay.
Again, I'm I'm very open to having stakeholders, but everybody involved come and view it from our side because you're not
going to see it as well unless you walk around that other side and go through the property and then you realize. We had the same problem with Mascot who said, "Oh, the culvert under 2A is just drains north and goes that way towards the
railroad tracks and epic and they said, "Yeah, it goes, but all of that slopes down." And again, we were being flooded from the other side. >> Danny, what can we do? Are we looking for input from Matt Hernand? Is that where we are at this? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> But just one final comment here. So I can see where you've got the finished floor elevations on there. You've got the, you know, top of which, which I guess is top of floor, top of foundation. >> Foundation. >> Top top of foundation, which I figured
it was. The unit on the the lot to the right is 4T lower. I think I've got it right. Maybe 5t lower than the unit in the middle. If everything was brought up higher, that would give you the ability to move
that water. I mean, the whole place brought up. Couldn't you then pitch it back to the middle of the site instead of depending on just following the grade? And >> got to do some serious thinking here is what I'm getting at. >> We we could firm it up like you said
>> but it doesn't >> you can change this whole layout and create that water and go another direction. I guess uh I guess the what I'm trying to get to is are you trying to mitigate the problem with the joint
ownership or >> No, I'm trying to mitigate the problem with the water. I'm satisfied that the water will be contained on the site and not leave the site. >> That's what I'm trying to be comfortable with. >> Okay. >> I'll leave an ownership to somebody else. But for the point, I'd like to see
it conform much tighter to storm water regulations. not be looking for any kind of waiverss by really doing some thinking about how you could grade this site, change the direction of the water. >> So, I guess just to clarify, even if we were to birm up lot three and have all
the water pitched to a low point for a basin that sits at lot two, >> y >> you'd still have a spillway that dumps water out. >> I say dump it towards lock two. >> No, it's going to dump. I mean, the natural topography of the site is moving
towards northeast. So, you're dumping water to the exact same location as we would have it now. >> Yeah. But what I'm anticipating is, and I guess this is I know I'm not supposed to be designing at this meeting, so I apologize.
If we had subsurface systems, you typically then would only be covering a potential overflow from the subsurface to a small trench of some sort, maybe a stone trench, you wouldn't be necessarily would be less in in an overflow. Oh, I I
I I think you're I think you're mixing designing. >> Yeah. >> So, hold on here. The ultimate thing is this. If this were a simpler site without water issues, I could see your argument in mind, but we actually already know that this is problematic.
>> That's the issue. We know that right now. And so Ken is right. We got to have the water be solved on site. I mean it's so just to clarify when you say resolved on site. >> Let me ask you final one final question if you don't mind.
>> Y >> why couldn't why doesn't some of this water potentially if it was a commercial system let's say even downtown right downtown the systems go to on street drainage. >> Is there existing drainage? There's
nothing. We we don't allow can't do that. >> It's elicit discharge. We don't we don't allow that in our regulations. Still >> no. >> But Mr. Chair and Ken, can I >> Yes. >> bottom line, we're not going to design it. >> Yeah. >> But I think there's a requirement out
here that's that's been been pretty well almost stated, which is it needs this project needs is going to need to comply with storm water regulations. I think that gives direction to the applicant.
>> We'll need to get uh clarification from Matt as well. >> With with Matt. >> Yep. >> Can I ask a couple questions about plans that relate to this? First of all, in the units here. Now, I noticed a
discrepancy between the setup plans versus the application about the buildings themselves. and it talked about that unit having full basement with lockouts in the back on both the primary and the ADU.
>> Okay. >> The one on the left >> would in that a would that increase or bring up the possibility of somebody increasing the impervious surface by putting patios in or so forth after they're built? And how
would that affect this if so? And number two, would it help if they didn't have a full basement? So you don't have all that going down. You've got more ground, more soil underneath there to absorb some of that ground water and runoff.
You're not putting the gravel, the sand, and so forth around as much as you would with a slab. Um, and then it also reduce it keeps some around. you've got more soil, more
ground around to help absorb, slow the runoff. And the other question was on here in the front corner up in here, you're not clearing that land. And my question was why? because I do
know as it stands now it's not bad but the way the state last whenever it was 20 some years ago um paved 110 it came down runs down from the existing curb cut for that driveway it all slips
down along the side and doesn't wash out too badly fixed it once or twice but it does drain down and there is sort of a natural ditch there's actually two stone walls one closer into that property that it looks like you'll be clearing because it
would it runs through where that unit those units are going to be built and then one along the property line and there's a little bit of a it's kind of spreads out a little flatter and a little more some of that water channels
down that's why it was wetlands in the 20ome 30 years ago but it helps channel water back there to this area where you're planning to drain over
off onto my property back by the ponding area. Is there some way that could be worked with? Maybe something with that clearing there to capture some of that groundwater runoff, the street runoff that's
naturally coming in here, maybe reduce what ends up in the ponding area. You're talking about over here? >> Yeah. >> This section here you're not clearing. >> But this is existing grade, existing vegetation we're not touching. And you're asking us to do what?
>> I'm wondering if Well, first of all, when you do all of this, as was brought up with the other project, most of this is dead and dying off and very large pines. So,
it will probably be worthwhile because the roots are going to get damaged. I know we have problems just gardening roots coming through. Um, so, and there's a huge pine there that's going to go one way or the other, either onto that unit or onto our house
eventually. So, you might want to be proactive. Remove it, clear it, do something there, and add vegetation at the same time that's living that's going to start drinking that up. Because right now most of that has a lot of old dead fallen wood and there's something every
winter that comes down. >> The whole point of this bylaw is to reduce treated. >> But if if you do something with the water and replant >> No, I would I would strongly disagree on that one. We don't want to cut as trees that are already there cuz they're
already tree absor they're already water absorbers. If you cut that down, you're losing that. So that that's hold the chairman. >> Okay. So we are getting really in the weeds of design here and we're getting off track here. So let's let's bring it
down to what we can actually discuss this evening and do. So we have open issues, unresolved issues with the storm water. We know we want to have input from Matt. >> Okay. >> What else we got we can do this evening? >> The planning board fee schedule. >> The fee. >> You're looking for a waiver. >> Yep.
>> Why? other than you don't want to pay the money. I mean, seriously, like what's the rationale? Well, the rationale is uh what we had hoped was that if we were able to get a waiver for the drainage
requirement for a project of this scale that does not typically come with a full storm water management report is a more straightforward project that doesn't need to be reviewed for the full extent of a storm water report.
And uh the waiver the reduced fee that we're asking for is to I I believe $500 per lot. >> Yeah. >> Which was I believe what the planning board site plan review fee was a few
years back. >> Yep. Before I got here. >> Yeah. Um you know we generally believe that you know it's a simple enough project. Um, >> but I think the conversation for the
last half hour says it's not so simple. >> I mean that right, >> but I think that's already been defeated. >> Yeah, it does it. >> All right. That's a tough one. >> So my question is to you. Do you really want us to bring it to a vote or do you want to withdraw that waiver request? >> We can withdraw it.
>> Okay, that's with one question for you. >> Yeah. What is the gross square footage of this? >> Uh, >> cuz the 7,000 doesn't sound about right to me. >> 7,000 impervious. >> No, no, no. Gross square footage of the
houses, the units. >> There's a difference in the math between the application and plan. >> That's what I'm picking up on. Sorry, >> cuz your application says 7,776 square feet >> for all three
>> for all three units. Which if this is a 2200 foot house 2700 ft >> plus the ADU I this I don't think that 7,776 is the gross square footage. >> Okay, let me take a look at that.
>> So that's you'll just have to take a look at that >> 700* 3. >> Yeah, >> this one shows a different numbers the ADU size. >> Yeah, it's 900 plus 1800 each. And for the um >> 275 37 >> single family as well 81
>> sorry the application where it says a different number is that factor is that just gross floor area of >> yours says 12,000 >> but no no sorry um so 2,700
plus the dwelling units and the garage. >> Mhm. That's about the discrepancy. >> 6,000 7,000. It's over. It's just over 8,000 maybe almost 9,000. But what you have here is 7,77. >> Okay. So, there's a slight discrepancy there. >> Yeah, there's a slight discrepancy. We
can take a look at it. >> You say the ADUs are 2700 ft. >> No, the is only, >> right? But on plan it says >> the unit is 2700. 18th for the house and 9th for the I mean, I didn't even look at it, but you >> It says 20 700 for all three. >> For all three.
>> Okay. >> 3* 900. It looked like >> when you look at the plan, it looked like you were saying that each >> primary was 27 36 and each ADU. Yeah. >> Wouldn't be legal. All right. >> The neighbors and I were all kind of like >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Yes. >> So, just take a look at that again. >> So, where are we here? >> Um, >> so we have the withdrawal. The first waiver request is withdraw. >> One waiver is gone. >> Yeah. >> Then there's Are we going to discuss the uh storm water management waiver request? The storm water regulations.
Storm water management. That's the one that we need input from Matt. >> That's why we're looking for Matt. >> And then the next one is the one that we typically get which I am I am amenable to that to that one. We typically get that one on private developments because >> Right. Cuz we never the town will never have um
>> Yeah. >> Do we want to do that now? >> I would suggest we do that for Okay, that's fine. >> At least But at least Lim Hunt and Jim know where we're going with this with these three waivers. You know where we are. And then just submit the one for the traffic, the lighting, and
>> uh the landscape one. >> It'll just make life easier. >> Yeah, >> landscape one as well. >> If you're if you're going to ask for it or not. I I don't know. I'm just putting it there for you, >> Mr. Chair. Um when I assume that Dana mentioned the traffic and the other waiverss, those
are going to be discussed in future hearings. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. because I wasn't sure what the timeline was going to be for when we the neighbors can come and talk to you about >> discuss screenings and it wasn't tonight. >> Yep. >> Good.
>> When Mr. Chairman, one quick question. Can it lot one driveway? Do we have any regulations? It says it can be across from the street. >> Um I don't think we have any regulations on that. I know Matt has looked at it and he he was okay with the positioning of the driveway.
>> Um cuz it's right across from Shaker directly across. Y >> which is probably better that it's that way as opposed to more shifted off. >> Yeah. Not to mention lot one and lot two holds the existing location of the current driveways. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> We didn't have >> So is there anything else this evening on this one? >> No. >> Did you get the kind of in Well, you may not have got the answer you want, but at least you have the direction input and understanding where we are
>> to bring back. Yeah, >> the GPR. Okay. >> Yeah, we'll we'll probably most likely reach out to the town engineer to have a further conversation, >> I would figure. >> Um, but you know, ultimately I think what I said is accurate to the point of
should we be required to meet the full extent of the town of air storm water regulations. We're just cutting down more trees and putting in a b a bigger basin. >> Right. Again, I I want to hear from Matt. >> Okay. >> Yep. And and I want to clarify because
Mr. Disc had asked this earlier regarding the the outflow for the system itself. Should this be let's say a commercial property, >> we're putting in chambers underground, >> we still we will still have an outflow. Yeah,
>> you can't not have an overflow. >> I understand it's an overflow, but it's not the same as an outflow. >> It's it's an emergency overflow kind of concept. >> Functionally, they work the same way. um as long as you don't extend the peak
runoff rates for the 100-year storm and the overflow can be classified as an emergency overflow or just a regular overflow. Okay. >> Motion to continue. >> Um I believe that was >> Do you guys want to do a site visit
before we start that? I think it's >> Yeah, I do want to do a site visit. I think we should. Absolutely. you have some dates in mind. >> So, typically we've been doing Thursday mornings. >> That's my favorite. >> Um, obviously this Thursday doesn't
work. So, it would be the 23rd or or Well, the 23rd is the next one before the 28th, which is our next meeting. >> Can we do the 23rd? 8:00. >> I have to check actually, but you guys schedule it and I'll figure it out. >> Sure. Okay.
>> It's school vacation week. I can try to make it work, but >> will you send us a reminder? >> The problem is that Kathleen >> is also >> she's not there either. >> Well, I don't I She's not on to No. >> Well, do you want to tendly schedule it and then get back to us? Yeah.
>> You want to do that? And they'll email You'll email the consequences discussion. >> Is it too early to be Is this how early we usually go on these? >> Yeah. What? >> Well, we have different times we go. Yeah. >> Curious. >> Yeah. Typically the usually after the first meeting we typically do >> cuz we have to technically discuss the
site visit in in a public hearing. Yes. >> And you have to post it. >> Yeah. I have to post it which but the fact that we've discussed it and we have a tenative date I can now you know figure out exact time that works >> should be able to make it >> that works for everyone and you know get back to everyone and then
>> I just want to clarify for this um sitewalk um that is I guess classified as a public hearing meeting or is it a public meeting or is it a sidewalk that is >> it's a sidewalk. >> Okay. >> But I still have to post an agenda because we'll have a quorum. >> Okay. >> So legally I have to
>> Gotcha. And I just want to clarify, is it just for the authorized personnel to be on site or >> Yes, it's so it's only for the planning board and obviously the property owners. >> Gotcha. >> It's up to the property owners to determine whether who else is on site.
>> Understood. Thank you. >> Um just give me a heads up so that I can because our property is locked in the back and you want to go through it. >> Yeah. So that's kind of up to the board if they want to go on your property or not. I I'm not going to speak for them.
They can decide that at that point. As of right now, we will just be on this property because legally it's this it's for this property. So I if you want to when we're out there >> if you want to see where the outflow goes, how the water actually flows.
>> They Yeah, >> it's going to be a little hard for you to climb up the stone wall in the back. >> Not that. >> All right. So mo continuence. Yeah, we have a motion for continuence. Nathan, Johnny on the spot. Nathan on the spot. Go ahead.
>> I move that we continue the public hearing for 64 Littleton Road to uh the next plane board meeting uh April 28th. >> Seconded. >> And we have a second from Julie. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. Ken >> here. >> Nathan. >> I. >> Julie?
>> Yes. >> Chair votes I. >> Thank you. >> We'll see you soon. >> Thank you very much for your time. Good night. >> Have a good night. >> All right. project status update. >> Let's let's >> Yes, >> there's nothing on fire, right? >> There's nothing on fire. >> In fact, we we already got the update on
Lincoln Hills, which is the biggest one, right? So, >> uh so uh I'd like to make a motion for to approve the March 24th, 2026 minutes uh as as amended by myself and sent to all of you guys. >> I'll second, but I have a small change.
>> Oh, let's do the small change. You got >> So, you have the minutes with you? >> I do. I don't have access to anything right now. >> Wait, wait, wait. I got minutes. >> But and Heather doesn't have >> I do. I do. I do. I do. I do. >> I can pull them off. >> I have them. >> Well, no. I have them saved on here.
>> Okay. >> So, Heather can >> The very first parame says that the >> This has to do with the senior center discussion, the ANR. It says that the property is owned by the DPW. It's owned by the town of used by the DPW.
And it also talks about the size of the lot. And I think it says it's third. It starts with 75 and ends up at like 30. There's a typo. It's an extra three in it. It's 3.36. Doesn't it say 33.36? >> Yes. 13.36. >> So, it's supposed to be 3.36 acres.
>> We'll create a 3.36. >> Yes. So, she'll update them. We'll sign them at the next meeting. >> We'll just do it for this. Do it the next meeting. >> What was What was the um privilege you get? >> It's 3.36 is the the resulting new line.
Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Motion to a jar. Do we Do we move motion to Oh, wait. Did we close the other one? >> No, there was a motion and a second in discussion. >> We did vote, didn't we? We voted, Heather. >> No, you didn't vote.
>> Voted. There was a motion to second. He had >> I think Oh, that's right. >> Because there was comments and there's changes. >> Okay. >> Um, >> we vote. We vote. It's up to It's up to the board if they decide they want to vote on the minutes approved as amended during the
>> Can we just approve them as amended? >> Yes. So, approved as amended, right? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Okay. How do you vote, Ken? >> I. >> Nathan, >> I Julie, >> yes. >> Chair votes I. Thank you. >> Uh, we need a motion to adjurnn. So, >> move second.
>> Good night, everybody. designer.